Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

40 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

The meaning of the 'impact factor' in the case of an open-access journal.

ABSTRACT: The dominant model of journal evaluation emerged at the time when there were no open-access journals, and nobody has assessed yet whether this model is able to cope with this modern reality. This commentary attempts to fill the gaps in the common understanding of the role that 'impact factor' should play in evaluation of open-access journals.

SUBMITTER: Alexandrov GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3060111 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

The meaning of the 'impact factor' in the case of an open-access journal.

Alexandrov Georgii A GA

Carbon balance and management 20110302 1

The dominant model of journal evaluation emerged at the time when there were no open-access journals, and nobody has assessed yet whether this model is able to cope with this modern reality. This commentary attempts to fill the gaps in the common understanding of the role that 'impact factor' should play in evaluation of open-access journals. ...[more]

PMID: 21362201

Similar Datasets

The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article's citations.

Project description:Background Citations of papers are positively influenced by the journal's impact factor (IF). For non-open access (non-OA) journals, this influence may be due to the fact that high-IF journals are more often purchased by libraries, and are therefore more often available to researchers, than low-IF journals. This positive influence has not, however, been shown specifically for papers published in open access (OA) journals, which are universally accessible, and do not need library purchase. It is therefore important to ascertain if the IF influences citations in OA journals too. Methods 203 randomized controlled trials (102 OA and 101 non-OA) published in January 2011 were included in the study. Five-year citations for papers published in OA journals were compared to those for non-OA journals. Source papers were derived from PubMed. Citations were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The Thompson-Reuter's IF was used. Results OA journals were found to have significantly more citations overall compared to non-OA journals (median 15.5 vs 12, p=0.039). The IF did not correlate with citations for OA journals (Spearman's rho =0.187, p=0.60). The increase in the citations with increasing IF was minimal for OA journals (beta coefficient = 3.346, 95% CI -0.464, 7.156, p=0.084). In contrast, the IF did show moderate correlation with citations for articles published in non-OA journals (Spearman's rho=0.514, p<0.001). The increase in the number of citations was also significant (beta coefficient = 4.347, 95% CI 2.42, 6.274, p<0.001). Conclusion It is better to publish in an OA journal for more citations. It may not be worth paying high publishing fees for higher IF journals, because there is minimal gain in terms of increased number of citations. On the other hand, if one wishes to publish in a non-OA journal, it is better to choose one with a high IF.

| S-EPMC5464220 | biostudies-literature

High-throughput analysis suggests differences in journal false discovery rate by subject area and impact factor but not open access status.

Project description:BackgroundA low replication rate has been reported in some scientific areas motivating the creation of resource intensive collaborations to estimate the replication rate by repeating individual studies. The substantial resources required by these projects limits the number of studies that can be repeated and consequently the generalizability of the findings. We extend the use of a method from Jager and Leek to estimate the false discovery rate for 94 journals over a 5-year period using p values from over 30,000 abstracts enabling the study of how the false discovery rate varies by journal characteristics.ResultsWe find that the empirical false discovery rate is higher for cancer versus general medicine journals (p = 9.801E-07, 95% CI: 0.045, 0.097; adjusted mean false discovery rate cancer = 0.264 vs. general medicine = 0.194). We also find that false discovery rate is negatively associated with log journal impact factor. A two-fold decrease in journal impact factor is associated with an average increase of 0.020 in FDR (p = 2.545E-04). Conversely, we find no statistically significant evidence of a higher false discovery rate, on average, for Open Access versus closed access journals (p = 0.320, 95% CI - 0.015, 0.046, adjusted mean false discovery rate Open Access = 0.241 vs. closed access = 0.225).ConclusionsOur results identify areas of research that may need additional scrutiny and support to facilitate replicable science. Given our publicly available R code and data, others can complete a broad assessment of the empirical false discovery rate across other subject areas and characteristics of published research.

| S-EPMC7724881 | biostudies-literature

The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: a review of medical journals.

Project description:Background: Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of open access (OA) journals in almost all disciplines. This increase in OA journals was accompanied an increase in funding to support such movements. Medical fields are among the highest funded fields, which further promoted its journals to move toward OA publishing. Here, we aim to compare OA and non-OA journals in terms of citation metrics and other indices. Methods: We collected data on the included journals from Scopus Source List on 1 st November 2018. We filtered the list for medical journals only. For each journal, we extracted data regarding citation metrics, scholarly output, and wither the journal is OA or non-OA. Results: On the 2017 Scopus list of journals, there was 5835 medical journals. Upon analyzing the difference between medical OA and non-OA journals, we found that OA journals had a significantly higher CiteScore (p< 0.001), percent cited (p< 0.001), and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) (p< 0.001), whereas non-OA journals had higher scholarly output (p< 0.001). Among the five largest journal publishers, Springer Nature published the highest frequency of OA articles (31.5%), while Wiley-Blackwell had the lowest frequency among its medical journals (4.4%). Conclusion: Among medical journals, although non-OA journals still have higher output in terms of articles per year, OA journals have higher citation metrics.

| S-EPMC6449789 | biostudies-literature

Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals.DesignSemistructured telephone interviews.Participants28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003.ResultsAuthors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors.ConclusionsAuthors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.

| S-EPMC555876 | biostudies-literature

Development of a Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Undergraduate Research Journal.

Project description:Dissemination of results is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process and requires an avenue for publication that is specifically designed to suit the nature of the research being communicated. Undergraduate research journals provide a unique forum for students to report scientific findings and ideas while learning about the complete scientific process. We have developed a peer-reviewed, open-access, international undergraduate research journal that is linked to a course-based undergraduate research experience. We reflect on lessons learned and recommend effective approaches for the implementation and operation of a successful undergraduate research journal.

| S-EPMC7452719 | biostudies-literature

Unintended consequences of changes to Open Access and the Impact Factor.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC11239826 | biostudies-literature

10 years of Malaria Journal: how did Open Access change publication patterns?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC3020680 | biostudies-literature

Animals, Quo Vadis? Welcome to a New, Multidisciplinary, Integrated, Open Access Journal: Animals

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4552216 | biostudies-literature

Breaking down barriers: promoting journals beyond the page with open access journal clubs.

Project description:In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJPsych) established a series of free online teaching sessions called BJPsych Journal Clubs. Their educational purpose is two-fold: (a) to provide junior psychiatrists with a friendly but large-scale platform to evaluate and critically appraise recent articles published in the BJPsych and (b) to present new research findings in an open and accessible manner. In this paper, we discuss our framework, the challenges we encountered, how the original model is evolving based on feedback from trainees, and tips for success when delivering international online journal clubs.

| S-EPMC11810480 | biostudies-literature

The case for open access.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4926810 | biostudies-literature