DOCSLIB.ORG

For Peer Review Only

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Peer Review Only BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006595 on 18 February 2015. Downloaded from Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles ForJournal: peerBMJ Open review only Manuscript ID: bmjopen-2014-006595 Article Type: Research Date Submitted by the Author: 10-Sep-2014 Complete List of Authors: Royle, Pamela; Warwick Medical School, Division of Health Sciences Waugh, Norman; university of Warwick, Division of Health Sciences <b>Primary Subject Health services research Heading</b>: Secondary Subject Heading: Research methods, Medical publishing and peer review bibliometrics, health technology assessment, bibliographic databases, Keywords: citations http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on September 23, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml Page 1 of 12 BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006595 on 18 February 2015. Downloaded from 1 2 3 Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles. 4 5 Corresponding author; 6 7 Dr Pamela Royle 8 9 Division of Health Sciences 10 11 Warwick Medical School 12 13 University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL , UK [email protected] tel: 02476 151762 14 15 For peer review only 16 17 Authors: Pamela Royle and Norman Waugh 18 19 Postal addresses as above. Email: [email protected] 20 21 22 23 MeSH terms: bibliometrics, bibliographic databases, health technology assessment 24 25 Word count: 3944 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 on September 23, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml BMJ Open Page 2 of 12 BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006595 on 18 February 2015. Downloaded from 1 ABSTRACT 2 3 Objectives: To undertake a bibliometric analysis of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 4 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) monographs and their related journal articles by: 1) exploring the 5 6 differences in citations to the HTA monographs in Google Scholar (GS), Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) 7 8 and, 2) comparing Scopus citations to the monographs with their related journal articles. 9 Setting: A retrospective cohort study of 111 HTA monographs published in 2010 and 2011, and their external 10 11 journal articles identified from the NIHR Journals Library website 12 Main outcome measures: Citations to the monographs in GS, Scopus and WoS and to their external journal 13 14 articles in Scopus 15 Results. The numberFor of citations peer varied amongst review the three databases, with only GS having the highest and WoS the 16 17 lowest, but the citation based rankings between the three databases were highly correlated. Overall, 56% of 18 monographs had a related publication, with the highest proportion for primary research (76%) and lowest for 19 20 evidence syntheses (43%). When comparing the differences in the number of citations in Scopus between 21 pairs of monograph publications with each of their related journal articles from the same project, we found 22 23 that monographs received more citations than their journal article versions for evidence syntheses and 24 methodology projects, whereas for primary research, the journal article versions were more highly cited than 25 26 their monograph version. Only 24% of authors citing the monographs and 21% citing the journals were from 27 the UK, implying a large international readership. 28 29 Conclusions: Those using bibliometric data for decisions regarding academic career progression and research 30 funding need to be aware of how using different databases will affect their results. Publishing in an external 31 32 journal as well as a monograph can aid dissemination of the work, but may have less impact than a single 33 34 publication, and could therefore adversely affect an author’s h-index. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 36 37 Strengths and limitations of this study 38 • First study to perform a detailed bibliometric analysis of a cohort of HTA monographs and their 39 40 related outputs published in external journals. 41 • We compared citations to the HTA monographs, using three citation databases, and compared 42 on September 23, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 citations by type of evidence. 44 • We chose monographs published in 2010 and 2011 in order to allow adequate time for citations to 45 46 accrue and for the related journal articles to be published. 47 48 • One limitation is that we obtained details of related publications from the HTA website, where the 49 number of related journal publications may be underestimated by 15.8%. 50 51 • A possible limitation is that we used the date that a publication was first added to PubMed as a 52 surrogate for the publication date because the actual date of journal publication is difficult to 53 54 determine. 55 56 57 58 59 60 2 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml Page 3 of 12 BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006595 on 18 February 2015. Downloaded from 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION 4 5 The NIHR HTA monograph series 6 In the UK, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme of the National Institute for Health 7 8 Research (NIHR) is a major funder of research that evaluates health care interventions.[1] HTA research 9 takes three main forms: primary research (normally trials), evidence synthesis (systematic reviews, which 10 11 usually include economic modelling), and methodological studies. The research is published in the NIHR 12 HTA Programme’s peer reviewed open access journal, Health Technology Assessment, also known as the 13 14 monograph series. Each monograph contains the full details of a single study, and as the suggested word limit 15 on the monographsFor is 50,000, thispeer enables more detailsreview of the work to be onlyincluded compared to a typical peer 16 17 reviewed journal.[2] Authors are also encouraged to write up the monographs in shorter forms as journal 18 articles to increase dissemination.[3] 19 20 21 In 2013 the HTA monograph series had a journal impact factor (JIF) of 5.116 and was ranked second of 85 22 23 journals in its subject category Health Care Sciences and Services. Research projects are commissioned by the 24 HTA Programme after a prioritisation process to select only the most important. This might be expected to 25 26 lead to the results of the research being well cited. 27 28 29 The role of bibliometrics in assessing research performance in the UK 30 Authors of HTA monographs are usually based in academic units, where citations to published research are 31 32 important as indicators of quality and impact. Citation rates are used for comparing research performance of 33 34 medical schools or individual departments, assessing individual researchers during appointment or promotions http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 processes (including their H-indices), and judging past performance of researchers applying to grant-awarding 36 37 bodies for research funds. 38 39 40 RAND Europe has undertaken substantial bibliometric work for the Department of Health in England, and 41 bibliometrics has increasingly come to be used, in combination with peer review, to help inform the 42 on September 23, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 Department’s funding decisions. For example, the first stage in the NIHR senior investigators award process is 44 a bibliometric assessment by RAND.[4] 45 46 47 The use of bibliometric data for assessing the performance of universities was considered in a pilot exercise in 48 49 2008 and 2009 for the 2013 Research Excellence Framework. The report concluded that “bibliometrics was 50 not sufficiently robust at this stage to be used formulaically or to replace expert review in the REF. However 51 52 there is considerable scope for citation information to be used to inform expert review”[5]. Subsequently, in 53 April 2014, HEFCE announced a new review of metrics which will build on the pilot exercise and consider 54 55 the role that metrics-based assessment could play in determining quality, impact and other key characteristics 56 of research undertaken in universities.[6] 57 58 59 60 3 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml BMJ Open Page 4 of 12 BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006595 on 18 February 2015. Downloaded from 1 It is known that there is variation in the robustness of bibliometric indictors between disciplines and the 2 3 comparison of rankings can vary depending on the databases used.[5 7] Therefore, given the increasing use of 4 bibliometric indicators in higher education in the UK, it is important that the methods used and the accuracy 5 6 and coverage of these citation databases are understood. 7 8 9 Citation databases 10 11 The three databases currently used for citation analysis are the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google 12 Scholar (GS). The oldest of these is the Web of Science™ Core Collection database, produced by Thomson 13 14 Reuters. It indexes approximately 12,000 of the highest impact journals and conference proceedings, covering 15 all disciplines. TheFor Scopus database peer was introduced review by Elsevier in 2004, onlyand covers nearly 21,000 peer- 16 17 reviewed journals titles from a wide range of disciplines, as well as books and conference proceedings. 18 Google Scholar, also introduced in 2004, is freely accessible and covers journals and other scholarly literature 19 20 from a wide range of research areas and formats.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open Access Policies of Leading Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study
    Open access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655 on 20 June 2019. Downloaded from Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study Tim S Ellison, 1 Tim Koder, 2 Laura Schmidt, 2 Amy Williams, 1 Christopher C Winchester 2 To cite: Ellison TS, Koder T, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Schmidt L, et al. Open Objectives Academical and not-for-profit research access policies of leading funders are increasingly requiring that the research they ► This manuscript includes a cross-sectional analysis medical journals: a cross- fund must be published open access, with some insisting sectional study. BMJ Open of open access policies of medical journals with a on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC 2019;9:e028655. doi:10.1136/ high impact factor, including society-owned jour- BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed bmjopen-2018-028655 nals, from multiple publishers. to clarify the open access variants provided by leading ► The open access policies of all journals analysed ► Prepublication history medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY were clarified, and confirmation of our findings and additional material for licence for commercially funded research. was received by email from 97% of the contacted this paper are available Methods We identified medical journals with a 2015 online. To view these files, journals. impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded please visit the journal online ► Open access policies of the journals and publishers from the analysis journals that only publish review articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Can We Save Open Access Publishing?
    @paimadhu Can we save open access publishing? MADHUKAR PAI, MD, PHD CANADA RESEARCH CHAIR IN TRANSLATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGY & GLOBAL HEALTH DIRECTOR, MCGILL GLOBAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, MONTREAL, CANADA [email protected] Open access publishing: the good, the bad, and the ugly Why I care about this topic I am a researcher and I like to get my work published I am a consumer of research and like to access others’ work I serve on the editorial boards of regular as well as OA journals ◦ Lancet Infectious Diseases (Elsevier) ◦ Int J of Tuberculosis and Lung Dis ◦ J Epi Global Health (Elsevier) ◦ Expert Rev Molecular Diagnostics ◦ PLoS Medicine ◦ PLoS One ◦ EBioMedicine (Elsevier) ◦ Scientific Reports (Nature) Conventional pay-wall publishing Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles must pay to access them. In addition, many journals now levy “page charges”. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publisher and is often required to pay an additional fee. Can be super expensive (high profit margins for publishers: as high as 35%!) Researchers and consumers in low/middle income countries struggle to access research With dwindling budgets, even established universities are struggling to provide access… http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices?CMP=share_btn_tw We researchers often do all the work (write, review, edit), and yet we ourselves do not own the work and need to pay? Does this model make any sense? What is OA publishing? Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Top-Cited Articles in Medical Professionalism: a Bibliometric Analysis Versus Altmetric Scores
    Open access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029433 on 31 July 2019. Downloaded from Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores Samy A Azer, 1 Sarah Azer2 To cite: Azer SA, Azer S. ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Top-cited articles in Introduction Citation counts of articles have been used medical professionalism: a to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability ► Four searches were conducted in the web of Science bibliometric analysis versus for grant applications. However, citation counts are not altmetric scores. BMJ Open database and the altmetric tracks. without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric 2019;9:e029433. doi:10.1136/ ► The analysis explored a range of bibliometric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool. bmjopen-2019-029433 parameters. Objectives The aims of the study were to assess ► The study was limited to top-cited articles in the ► Prepublication history and the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical English language. additional material for this paper professionalism and their altmetric scores. are available online. To view Methods The Web of Science was searched for top-cited please visit the journal (http:// articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- of each article were identified. The altmetric database the higher quality of work and the more likely 2019- 029433). 3 was searched to identify report for each identified article. that other researchers cite the work. While Received 25 January 2019 A model to assess the relationship between the number these claims may not necessarily be true, Revised 26 April 2019 of citations and each of the key characteristics as well as there is a substantial body of evidence that Accepted 1 July 2019 altmetric scores was developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Previous Versions
    BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655 on 20 June 2019. Downloaded from BMJ Open is committed to open peer review. As part of this commitment we make the peer review history of every article we publish publicly available. When an article is published we post the peer reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses online. We also post the versions of the paper that were used during peer review. These are the versions that the peer review comments apply to. The versions of the paper that follow are the versions that were submitted during the peer review process. They are not the versions of record or the final published versions. They should not be cited or distributed as the published version of this manuscript. BMJ Open is an open access journal and the full, final, typeset and author-corrected version of record of the manuscript is available on our site with no access controls, subscription charges or pay-per-view fees (http://bmjopen.bmj.com). If you have any questions on BMJ Open’s open peer review process please email [email protected] http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on September 30, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655 on 20 June 2019. Downloaded from Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross- sectional study Journal: BMJ Open ManuscriptFor ID peerbmjopen-2018-028655 review only Article Type: Research Date Submitted by the 18-Dec-2018 Author: Complete List of Authors: Ellison, Tim; PharmaGenesis London Koder, Tim; Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd Schmidt, Laura; Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd Williams, Amy; PharmaGenesis London Winchester, Chris; Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd article processing charges, CC BY, Creative Commons, funding, open Keywords: access, pharmaceutical http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on September 30, 2021 by guest.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cross- Sectional Study of the Amount That Medical Researchers Spend On
    Open access Original research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107 on 1 February 2021. Downloaded from Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year Mallory K. Ellingson,1 Xiaoting Shi,2 Joshua J. Skydel ,3 Kate Nyhan ,4 Richard Lehman,5 Joseph S. Ross,6,7 Joshua D. Wallach 2 To cite: Ellingson MK, Shi X, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Skydel JJ, et al. Publishing Objective To estimate the financial costs paid by at any cost: a cross- sectional individual medical researchers from meeting the article ► This cross- sectional analysis estimated the finan- study of the amount that processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals medical researchers spend cial costs paid by a large (n=487) randomly select- in 2019. on open access publishing ed sample of individual medical researchers from Design Cross- sectional analysis. each year. BMJ Open meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied Data sources Scopus was used to generate two random 2021;11:e047107. doi:10.1136/ by open access journals in 2019. bmjopen-2020-047107 samples of researchers, the first with a senior author ► This analysis used a large number of sources to article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general identify author and journal data, including Scopus, ► Prepublication history for researchers) and the second with an article published in this paper is available online. author institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, the ten highest- impact factor general clinical medicine To view these files, please visit publisher databases on APCs, the Directory of Open journals (high- impact researchers) in 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Policies of High Impact Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/250613; this version posted January 22, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Preprint title: Open access policies of high impact medical journals: a cross-sectional study Authors: Tim Ellison (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0307-725X), Tim Koder (https://orcid.org/0000- 0001-6152-7365), Laura Schmidt (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-781X), Amy Williams (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-6402) and Chris Winchester (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3267-3990) Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK This draft manuscript is a preprint that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in due course, with the aim of publishing it with a CC BY licence. The work will be presented as a poster at the European Meeting of ISMPP on 23 January 2018. Corre sponding author: Tim Ellison Address: PharmaGenesis London, 4th Floor, 9 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2DD E-mail: tim.ellison@ phar magenes is.com Ke ywords : article processing charge, CC BY, Creative Commons, funding, open access, pharmaceutical Word count (excluding abstract, references and figures and tables): 2024 Figures and tables: 6 (excluding 2 supplemental tables) References: 31 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/250613; this version posted January 22, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scoping Review
    BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032668 on 12 February 2020. Downloaded from Open access Original research Education as a strategy for managing occupational- related musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson ,1 Shellie Boudreau,2 Morten Høgh,1 Pablo Herrero ,3 Pablo Bellosta- Lopez,4 Victor Domenech- Garcia,4 Francesco Langella,5 Nicolo Gagni,5 Steffan Wittrup Christensen,1,6 Morten Villumsen1,7 To cite: Palsson TS, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Boudreau S, Høgh M, et al. Background Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the primary Education as a strategy for contributor to disability worldwide. There is a growing ► The study design allowed for including literature managing occupational- consensus that MSK pain is a recurrent multifactorial related musculoskeletal pain: from non- randomised studies to investigate the role condition underpinned by health and lifestyle factors. a scoping review. BMJ Open of education for managing work- related musculo- Studies suggest that education on work- related pain and 2020;10:e032668. doi:10.1136/ skeletal pain. individualised advice could be essential and effective for bmjopen-2019-032668 ► The study presents a broad overview of resources managing persistent MSK pain. available for healthcare professionals and the gen- ► Prepublication history and Objective The objective of this scoping review was to eral public regarding work- related musculoskeletal additional material for this map the existing educational resources for work- related paper are available online. To pain. MSK (WRMSK) pain, and the effects of implementing view these files, please visit ► Relevant studies conducted in working populations educational strategies in the workplace on managing the journal online (http:// dx.
    [Show full text]
  • Selective Citation in the Literature on the Hygiene Hypothesis: a Citation Analysis on the Association Between Infections and Rhinitis
    Open access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026518 on 7 February 2019. Downloaded from Selective citation in the literature on the hygiene hypothesis: a citation analysis on the association between infections and rhinitis Bram Duyx,1 Miriam J E Urlings,1 Gerard M H Swaen,1 Lex M Bouter,2,3 Maurice P Zeegers1,4 To cite: Duyx B, Urlings MJE, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Swaen GMH, et al. Selective Objective Our objective was to assess the occurrence and citation in the literature on determinants of selective citation in scientific publications ► The study assesses how evidence regarding the hy- the hygiene hypothesis: on Strachan’s original hygiene hypothesis. His hypothesis a citation analysis on the giene hypothesis propagates over time by analysing states that lack of exposure to infections in early childhood association between infections the likelihood of citation. increases the risk of rhinitis. and rhinitis. BMJ Open ► It investigates which characteristics of a publica- Setting Web of Science Core Collection. 2019;9:e026518. doi:10.1136/ tion—such as study outcome, journal impact factor, Participants We identified 110 publications in this bmjopen-2018-026518 author gender and affiliation, and authority within network, consisting of 5551 potential citations. the field—have an impact on citation. ► Prepublication history and Primary and secondary outcome measures Whether a additional material for this ► We check whether supportive studies are cited more citation occurs or not, measured and analysed according paper are available online. To often by other studies within the field. to the preregistered protocol. view these files, please visit ► Only articles related to the original hygiene hypothe- Results We found evidence for citation bias in this field: the journal online (http:// dx.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol for a Systematic Review
    Open access Protocol BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044293 on 23 February 2021. Downloaded from Implementation of medicines pricing policies in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a systematic review Tolib Mirzoev ,1 Augustina Koduah,2 Anna Cronin de Chavez,1 Leonard Baatiema,3 Anthony Danso- Appiah,3 Tim Ensor ,1 Irene Akua Agyepong,4 Judy M Wright ,5 Irene A Kretchy,2 Natalie King5 To cite: Mirzoev T, Koduah A, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Cronin de Chavez A, et al. Introduction Ensuring universal availability and Implementation of medicines accessibility of medicines and supplies is critical for ► This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred pricing policies in sub- national health systems to equitably address population Saharan Africa: protocol for a Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- health needs. In sub- Saharan Africa (SSA), this is a systematic review. BMJ Open Analyses Protocols guidelines. recognised priority with multiple medicines pricing 2021;11:e044293. doi:10.1136/ ► The review addresses a gap in the current knowl- policies enacted. However, medicine prices have remained bmjopen-2020-044293 edge of the determinants and outcomes of success- high, continue to rise and constrain their accessibility. In ful implementation of medicines pricing policies in ► Prepublication history and this systematic review, we aim to identify and analyse sub- Saharan Africa (SSA). additional material for this experiences of implementation of medicines pricing paper are available online. To ► The focus on SSA will help with transferability of les- policies in SSA. Our ambition is for this evidence to view these files, please visit sons across the different countries within the region, contribute to improved implementation of medicines the journal online (http:// dx.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Narrative Medicine on Medical Students' Readiness For
    Open access Protocol BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029588 on 2 August 2019. Downloaded from The influence of narrative medicine on medical students’ readiness for holistic care practice: a realist synthesis protocol Yufrica Huang, 1 Lynn V Monrouxe, 2 Chien-Da Huang1,3 To cite: Huang Y, Monrouxe LV, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Huang C-D. The influence Introduction Holistic healthcare considers the whole of narrative medicine on person—their body, mind, spirit and emotions—and ► This study is one of the first to examine prepared- medical students’ readiness for has been associated with narrative medicine practice. holistic care practice: a realist ness for holistic care as an outcome to narrative Narrative medicine is medicine performed with narrative synthesis protocol. BMJ Open medicine interventions. skill and has been offered as a model for humanism 2019;9:e029588. doi:10.1136/ ► The use of a systematic approach to identifying the and effective medical practice. Narrative medicine bmjopen-2019-029588 literature around outcomes relating to holistic care interventions have been associated with physicians’ Prepublication history and arising from narrative medicine interventions is a ► increased empathy and more meaningful interactions with additional material for this study strength. patients about managing their illness and preventative paper are available online. To ► The application of a realist approach to under- medicine. However, while there is some evidence that view these files, please visit standing the contexts in which narrative medicine certain groups are more open to narrative practices the journal online (http:// dx. doi. prepares different types of students for holistic care (eg, traditional vs Western medical students), the org/ 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Can We Save Open Access Publishing?
    @paimadhu Open access publishing: the good, the bad, and the ugly Can we save open access publishing? MADHUKAR PAI, MD, PHD CANADA RESEARCH CHAIR IN TRANSLATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGY & GLOBAL HEALTH DIRECTOR, MCGILL GLOBAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, MONTREAL, CANADA [email protected] Why I care about this topic I am a researcher and I like to get my work published I am a consumer of research and like to access others’ work I serve on the editorial boards of regular as well as OA journals ◦ Lancet Infectious Diseases (Elsevier) ◦ Int J of Tuberculosis and Lung Dis ◦ J Epi Global Health (Elsevier) ◦ Expert Rev Molecular Diagnostics ◦ PLoS Medicine ◦ PLoS One ◦ EBioMedicine (Elsevier) ◦ Scientific Reports (Nature) Conventional pay-wall publishing Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles must pay to access them. In addition, many journals now levy “page charges”. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publisher and is often required to pay an additional fee. Can be super expensive (high profit margins for publishers: as high as 35%!) Researchers and consumers in low/middle income countries struggle to access research With dwindling budgets, even established universities are struggling to provide access… http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices?CMP=share_btn_tw We researchers often do all the work (write, review, edit), and yet we ourselves do not own the work and need to pay? Does this model make any sense? What is OA publishing? Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Processing Charges: Mirroring the Citation Impact Or Legacy of the Subscription-Based Model?
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Article processing charges: Mirroring the citation impact or legacy of the subscription-based model? Nina Schönfelder an open access journal National Contact Point Open Access OA2020-DE, Library, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany Keywords: article processing charge, source normalized impact per paper, open access, multivariate Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/1/1/6/1760904/qss_a_00015.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 regression, OpenAPC Citation: Schönfelder, N. (2020). Article processing charges: Mirroring the ABSTRACT citation impact or legacy of the subscription-based model? With the ongoing open-access transformation, article processing charges (APCs) are gaining Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00015 importance as one of the main business models for open-access publishing in scientific journals. This paper analyzes how much of APC pricing can be attributed to journal-related DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00015 factors. With UK data from OpenAPC (which aggregates fees paid for open-access articles by universities, funders, and research institutions), APCs are explained by the following Supporting Information: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/ variables: (a) the “source normalized impact per paper” (SNIP), (b) whether the journal is open suppl/10.1162/qss_a_00015 access or hybrid, (c) the publisher of the journal, (d) the subject area of the journal, and (e) Received: 18 January 2019 the year. The results of the multivariate linear regression show that the journal’simpactand Accepted: 04 November 2019 hybrid status are the most important factors for the level of APCs. However, the relationship Corresponding Author: between APC and SNIP is different for open-access journals and hybrid journals.
    [Show full text]