DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott A. Baldwin2, and Michael J. Larson2,3 1Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 2Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 3Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT *Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, US, 33620-7200. Email: [email protected] 2 Disclosure Michael J. Larson, PhD, is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Psychophysiology. Editing of the manuscript was handled by a separate editor and Dr. Larson was blinded from viewing the reviews or comments as well as the identities of the reviewers. 3 Abstract Barriers to accessing scientific findings contribute to knowledge inequalities based on financial resources and decrease the transparency and rigor of scientific research. Recent initiatives aim to improve access to research as well as methodological rigor via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles (i.e., publisher archived) with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers. Keywords: open access, citation advantage, human electrophysiology (EEG), event-related potentials (ERPs), preprints 4 Open and rigorous scientific practices are increasingly applied throughout the scientific community. These practices include methodological transparency, openly available data, pre- registration of studies, replication of prominent effects, and open access publications. The shift to open and transparent science is part of a concerted effort to improve the rigor, validity, replicability, and availability of research (Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012; Nosek & Lakens, 2014). Newfound availability of data and methodology repositories such as the Open Science Framework (OSF), Zenodo, or Databrary (see Gilmore, Kennedy, & Adolph, 2018), and preprint servers such as the ArXiv portfolio provide mechanisms for scientists to make their work accessible. The number of scientists posting their data and code and making their manuscripts available via preprints or other open access formats is increasing (e.g., Hardwicke et al., 2018; Laakso et al., 2011). Specific scientific areas are raising their focus on access to open and rigorous scientific practices. For example, two flagship journals of international societies in psychophysiology, the International Journal of Psychophysiology and Psychophysiology, offer the registered reports format (along with over 250 total journals and growing; see https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports), and journals within neuroscience and psychology, such as the highly-cited journals Nature Communications, NeuroImage, and Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Sciences, have shifted to only open-access formats. The Budapest Open Access Initiative was among the first to call for increases in self- archiving of manuscripts and availability of open access journals in 2001 as part of an effort to reduce barriers to accessing scholarly works (https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/). Similarly, funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States or Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom, require open-access posting of funded studies—often 5 after an embargo period, such as on PubMed Commons for those that receive NIH funding. Mandating open access is associated with increased rates of manuscript availability as well as increased article impact (Gargouri et al., 2010; Vincent-Lamarre, Boivin, Gargouri, Larivière, & Harnad, 2015). Approximately 28% of the scholarly literature is currently considered open access (Piwowar et al., 2018)—although these numbers may be an underestimate as multiple publishers increased their open access inventory during the COVID-19 pandemic (Grove, 2020). Specific sub-areas of science, such as clinical neuroscience, report open access rates as high as 49% (Hanson, Almeida, Traylor, Rajagopalan, & Johnson, 2020). In addition, most publishers now have provisions within their copyright policies for authors to post preprints and/or final non- copy edited and formatted drafts (sometimes referred to as post-prints). Despite the increase in availability and use of open access formats, there are costs associated with the production and publication of research. Digital space for hosting repositories, web interfaces for manuscript submission and review, typesetting and copy editing, and printing and distribution charges are some of the costs that make open-access publication cost-ineffective for publishers. In the absence of a subscription base to cover these costs in open access journals (or for open access articles), publishers often use digital-only formats or include article processing charges for open access articles that range from reasonable to exorbitant (over $5,000 United States dollars for some journals). Article processing charges may disproportionately affect researchers from countries with lower currency exchange rates (Dove, Chan, Thoma, Roland, & Bruijns, 2019). Article processing charges shift the burden from institutions or library systems to individual authors and can, problematically, restrict open access publishing to those with grant funding or other financial means. Due to these article processing charges, grant- funded research that is vetted by funding agency reviewers prior to study initiation may be more 6 likely to be fully open access—potentially influencing the quality and perception of open access research. In light of these article processing charges and motivations to increase accessibility to published research, most publishers employ “tiers” of open access with different corresponding fee structures. In gold open access, typically the costliest form of open access, the manuscript is made available by the publisher and is freely available on journal or publisher websites and through search engines. Green open access, in contrast, refers to free or low-cost self-archiving of manuscripts wherein authors upload preprints or post-prints of the work or the article is made available through personal homepages or institutional repositories (see Laakso et al., 2011). Many journals implement a hybrid model wherein they publish a mix of gold open access and closed access articles. An additional level of open access is diamond or platinum where the papers are archived by the publisher, but the payment for the open access article status is made by the sale of advertising, grant funding, institutions, or governments. For the purposes of the current paper, we separate author-archived green open access from other “non-green” forms of open access that are typically publisher-archived and done at a cost (including gold, diamond, or platinum open access levels). One particular benefit of open access publishing is increased exposure and citation counts—sometimes referred to as the “open access citation advantage”. Citation counts are often used as a proxy for the scientific impact an article has on the academic literature. Compared to closed-access articles, manuscripts published in an open access format showed high citation indices across scientific disciplines; open-access articles receive approximately 18% more citations on average than closed access articles (Piwowar et al., 2018). The trend of increased citation counts for open access articles is also present in specific sub-areas of science such as 7 biology (Eysenbach, 2006), general medicine (AlRyalat, Saleh, et al., 2019), oncology (AlRyalat, Nassar, et al., 2019), cardiovascular disease (Patel et al., 2019), poverty-related disease (Breugelmans et al., 2018), and psychiatry (Hafeez, Jalal, & Khosa, 2019). Moderators of this citation increase at the article level may include impact factor of the journal, specific area of study, and time since publication, with both higher journal impact factor and longer time since publication associated with higher article citation counts independent of open access status (see Piwowar et al., 2018). Social media exposure may also increase article citation rates (Shuai, Pepe, & Bollen, 2012). For example, mentions of articles on Twitter are associated with increased
Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook

    “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook

    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
  • Revealing the Immune Perturbation of Black Phosphorus Nanomaterials to Macrophages by Understanding the Protein Corona

    Revealing the Immune Perturbation of Black Phosphorus Nanomaterials to Macrophages by Understanding the Protein Corona

    ARTICLE DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04873-7 OPEN Revealing the immune perturbation of black phosphorus nanomaterials to macrophages by understanding the protein corona Jianbin Mo 1,2, Qingyun Xie3, Wei Wei 1,2 & Jing Zhao 1 The increasing number of biological applications for black phosphorus (BP) nanomaterials has precipitated considerable concern about their interactions with physiological systems. 1234567890():,; Here we demonstrate the adsorption of plasma protein onto BP nanomaterials and the subsequent immune perturbation effect on macrophages. Using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, 75.8% of the proteins bound to BP quantum dots were immune relevant proteins, while that percentage for BP nanosheet–corona complexes is 69.9%. In particular, the protein corona dramatically reshapes BP nanomaterial–corona complexes, influenced cellular uptake, activated the NF-κB pathway and even increased cytokine secretion by 2–4-fold. BP nanomaterials induce immunotoxicity and immune per- turbation in macrophages in the presence of a plasma corona. These findings offer important insights into the development of safe and effective BP nanomaterial-based therapies. 1 State Key Laboratory of Coordination Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry and BioMedical Sciences, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China. 2 State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China. 3 Department of Orthopedics, Chengdu Military General Hospital, Chengdu
  • Progress Update July 2011

    Progress Update July 2011

    PUBLIC LIBRARY of SCIENCE PUBLIC LIBRARY of SCIENCE www.plos.org 3URJUHVV8SGDWH 2010 Progress Update July 2011 www.plos.org Welcome to the 2010 PLoS Progress Update, aimed at keeping our authors, reviewers, editors, and supporters fully apprised of developments at PLoS over our most recent Highlights year. You can sign up to read future updates here. If you would like 1. Message from a fuller historical picture of how far we’ve come, you can read the the Founders 2009 Progress Update and the first full Progress Report. 2. Publishing Initiatives 3. Influential 1. Message from the Founders Research 4. A Growing It’s been another exciting year for PLoS, focused on establishing more open, Organization efficient, and effective ways to accelerate progress in science and medicine 5. The Evolving and leading a transformation in research communication. Open Access Landscape PLoS reached a truly significant milestone in 2010 when, seven years 6. The First PLoS after entering the publishing business, our annual operating revenues Forum exceeded expenses for the first time. Although we are delighted that PLoS and others have now shown that Open Access (OA) is a viable and 7. Customer Service sustainable business model, we have a long way to go before universal 8. Financial Summary access is achieved for all. 9. 2011 and Beyond The significant progress that we’ve made toward this goal could not have 10. Major Support been achieved without the leadership of our co-founder Harold Varmus, in 2010 who announced during the year that he was stepping aside as Chairman 11.
  • Comparison of Altmetric Scores of Open Access Articles and of Articles

    Comparison of Altmetric Scores of Open Access Articles and of Articles

    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Heft 444 Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Begründet von Peter Zahn Herausgegeben von Vivien Petras Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Heft 444 Satzinger, Lea Altmetrics and Open Access : Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sci- ences / von Lea Satzinger. - Berlin : Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswis- senschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2019. – 81 S. : 15 Abb. - (Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft ; 444) ISSN 14 38-76 62 Abstract Altmetrics, in contrast to traditional metrics, measure the societal impact research outputs have on the public in general, using social media platforms as their primary data sources. In this study, differences in Altmetric Scores between open and closed access articles of German research institutions in the field of natural sciences have been analyzed. For this investigation data from the years 2013 to 2017 was gathered from Web of Science, Altmetric.com and Unpaywall. Results indicated that arti- cles published in open access gain higher Altmetric Attention Scores compared to articles behind subscription paywalls, although the difference was statistically not significant. Research outputs published in gold open access had the highest scores, followed by articles in green and then hybrid open access.
  • How Comprehensive Is the Pubmed Central Open Access Full-Text Database? ⋆

    How Comprehensive Is the Pubmed Central Open Access Full-Text Database? ⋆

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository How comprehensive is the PubMed Central Open Access full-text database? ⋆ Jiangen He1[0000−0002−3950−6098] and Kai Li1[0000−0002−7264−365X] Department of Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA, 19104, USA. [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. The comprehensiveness of database is a prerequisite for the quality of scientific works established on this increasingly significant infrastructure. This is especially so for large-scale text-mining analy- ses of scientific publications facilitated by open-access full-text scientific databases. Given the lack of research concerning the comprehensiveness of this type of academic resource, we conducted a project to analyze the coverage of materials in the PubMed Central Open Access Subset (PMCOAS), a popular source for open-access scientific publications, in terms of the PubMed database. The preliminary results show that the PMCOAS coverage is in a rapid increase in recent years, despite the vast difference by MeSH descriptor. Keywords: Database coverage · PubMed Central Open Access· PubMed. 1 Introduction Database has become a central piece of scientific infrastructure in our contem- porary data-driven mode of scientific practice. The increasing volumes of data stored in structured formats gradually became an indispensable source for scien- tific discoveries in nearly every knowledge domain. However, one question that often shrouds this source is how comprehensive the database is as compared to the reality the database is claimed to represent. A large number of studies in the field of quantitative studies of science have been devoted to this question since the end of the 20th century: they have compared various parameters, especially the number of documents, references, and journals covered, among databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar [2, 3, 5, 8, 6, 7].
  • A Scientometric Study of Pubmed-Indexed Endodontic Articles: a Comparison Between Iran and Other Regional Countries

    A Scientometric Study of Pubmed-Indexed Endodontic Articles: a Comparison Between Iran and Other Regional Countries

    EDITORIAL 1 2 3 Mohammad Jafar Eghbal DDS, MS, Negar Davari Ardakani MSc, PhD, Saeed Asgary DDS, MS A Scientometric Study of PubMed-Indexed Endodontic Articles: A Comparison between Iran and Other Regional Countries 1. Dental Research Center, Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2. Linguistics Department, Literature Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3. Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Dental Research Center, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Introduction: Based on Iran’s 20-year prospective national vision document, Iran may be seen as the most developed country in science and technology in the region by 2025. In this report, bibliometric indicators are used to compare the research productivity in endodontics between Iran and 28 selected Asian countries. Materials and Methods: Medical Subject Headings keyword-searching of PubMed up to 2012 was conducted to compare the scientific publications in Iran and neighboring countries (Middle East, Middle Asia, Caucasus and EMRO countries). Highest 5 PubMed-indexed endodontic journals were also searched to retrieve the number of published articles of the top five countries. Data were extracted, tabulated and compared to identify the ranks as well as trends. Results: The results confirm that there are many differences in scientific endodontic publications between the studied countries; Iran ranked second in endodontic research productivity compared to Turkey in 2011. However, Iran attained first place in 2010 as well as the most positive publication trend in PubMed-indexed endodontic journals. Conclusion: Although Iran was in second rank in the region last year, the positive trend in published endodontic research papers is considered a sign of future success in acquiring Iran’s vision.
  • An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics

    An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics

    Halevi, G., & Schimming, L. (2018). An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics. Journal of Altmetrics, 1(1): 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.1 PERSPECTIVE An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics Gali Halevi and Laura Schimming Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, US Corresponding author: Gali Halevi ([email protected]) A recent survey from Pew Research Center (NW, Washington & Inquiries 2018) found that over 44 million people receive science-related information from social media channels to which they subscribe. These include a variety of topics such as new discoveries in health sciences as well as “news you can use” information with practical tips (p. 3). Social and news media attention to scientific publications has been tracked for almost a decade by several platforms which aggregate all public mentions of and interactions with scientific publications. Since the amount of comments, shares, and discussions of scientific publications can reach an audience of thousands, understanding the overall “sentiment” towards the published research is a mammoth task and typically involves merely reading as many posts, shares, and comments as possible. This paper describes an initiative to track and provide sentiment analysis to large social and news media mentions and label them as “positive”, “negative” or “neutral”. Such labels will enable an overall understanding of the content that lies within these social and news media mentions of scientific publications. Keywords: sentiment analysis; opinion mining; scholarly output Background Traditionally, the impact of research has been measured through citations (Cronin 1984; Garfield 1964; Halevi & Moed 2015; Moed 2006, 2015; Seglen 1997). The number of citations a paper receives over time has been directly correlated to the perceived impact of the article.
  • Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and Libgen: Could They Be Our New Partners?

    Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and Libgen: Could They Be Our New Partners?

    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences 2017 IATUL Proceedings Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners? Louis Houle McGill University, [email protected] Louis Houle, "Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners?." Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences. Paper 3. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2017/partnership/3 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. GOOGLE SCHOLAR, SCI-HUB AND LIBGEN: COULD THEY BE OUR NEW PARTNERS? Louis Houle McGill University Canada [email protected] Abstract Since its debut I November 2004, librarians have raised several criticisms at Google Scholar (GS) such as its inconsistency of coverage and its currency and scope of coverage. It may have been true in the early years of Google Scholar but is this still through twelve years after? Is this sufficient to ignore it totally either in our information literacy programs or evaluate its value against the values of subscription-based abstracts and indexes? In this era of severe budget constraints that libraries are facing, can we imagine of substituting most or all of our subject databases with the free access of Google Scholar for discoverability? How much overlap between our databases and Google Scholar? How reliable is Google Scholar? How stable is its content over time? Open Access is getting to be the predominant form of getting access to peer reviewed articles. Many new non-traditional tools (institutional repositories, social media and peer to peer sites) are available out there to retrieve the full-text of peer reviewed articles.
  • Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: an Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data

    Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: an Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data

    Developing Latin America Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo Alejandro Uribe-Tirado Maria E. Romero-Ortiz This article was originally published as: Machin-Mastromatteo, J.D., Uribe-Tirado, A., and Romero-Ortiz, M. E. (2016). Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data. Information Development, 32(5), 1806–1814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266666916671080 Abstract Sci-Hub hosts pirated copies of 51 million scientific papers from commercial publishers. This article presents the site’s characteristics, it criticizes that it might be perceived as a de-facto component of the Open Access movement, it replicates an analysis published in Science using its available usage data, but limiting it to Latin America, and presents implications caused by this site for information professionals, universities and libraries. Keywords: Sci-Hub, piracy, open access, scientific articles, academic databases, serials crisis Scientific articles are vital for students, professors and researchers in universities, research centers and other knowledge institutions worldwide. When academic publishing started, academies, institutions and professional associations gathered articles, assessed their quality, collected them in journals, printed and distributed its copies; with the added difficulty of not having digital technologies. Producing journals became unsustainable for some professional societies, so commercial scientific publishers started appearing and assumed printing, sales and distribution on their behalf, while academics retained the intellectual tasks. Elsevier, among the first publishers, emerged to cover operations costs and profit from sales, now it is part of an industry that grew from the process of scientific communication; a 10 billion US dollar business (Murphy, 2016).
  • Ultra-Efficient Frequency Comb Generation in Algaas-On-Insulator

    Ultra-Efficient Frequency Comb Generation in Algaas-On-Insulator

    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15005-5 OPEN Ultra-efficient frequency comb generation in AlGaAs-on-insulator microresonators ✉ Lin Chang1,7, Weiqiang Xie1,7 , Haowen Shu1,2,7, Qi-Fan Yang 3, Boqiang Shen 3, Andreas Boes 1,4, Jon D. Peters1, Warren Jin1, Chao Xiang1, Songtao Liu 1, Gregory Moille5, Su-Peng Yu6, Xingjun Wang2, ✉ Kartik Srinivasan 5, Scott B. Papp 6, Kerry Vahala 3 & John E. Bowers1 Recent advances in nonlinear optics have revolutionized integrated photonics, providing on- 1234567890():,; chip solutions to a wide range of new applications. Currently, state of the art integrated nonlinear photonic devices are mainly based on dielectric material platforms, such as Si3N4 and SiO2. While semiconductor materials feature much higher nonlinear coefficients and convenience in active integration, they have suffered from high waveguide losses that prevent the realization of efficient nonlinear processes on-chip. Here, we challenge this status quo and demonstrate a low loss AlGaAs-on-insulator platform with anomalous dispersion and quality (Q) factors beyond 1.5 × 106. Such a high quality factor, combined with high nonlinear coefficient and small mode volume, enabled us to demonstrate a Kerr frequency comb threshold of only ∼36 µW in a resonator with a 1 THz free spectral range, ∼100 times lower compared to that in previous semiconductor platforms. Moreover, combs with broad spans (>250 nm) have been generated with a pump power of ∼300 µW, which is lower than the threshold power of state-of the-art dielectric micro combs. A soliton-step transition has also been observed for the first time in an AlGaAs resonator.
  • Global Scientific Research on Coronavirus : a Scientometric Study

    Global Scientific Research on Coronavirus : a Scientometric Study

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln September 2020 Global Scientific Research on Coronavirus : a Scientometric Study Pooja P. Dadhe [email protected] Manju N. Dubey [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac Dadhe, Pooja P. and Dubey, Manju N., "Global Scientific Research on Coronavirus : a Scientometric Study" (2020). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 4277. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4277 Global Scientific Research on Coronavirus : a Scientometric Study Dr. Pooja P. Dadhe Assistant Librarian Dr. V.B. Alias Bhausaheb Kolte Knowledge Resource Centre R.T.M. Nagpur University, Nagpur, India [email protected] Dr. Manju N. Dubey Librarian R.S Mundle Dharampeth Arts and Commerce College, Nagpur, India [email protected] Abstract To understand the global research trend of the scientific publication on coronavirus, this scientometric study was carried out for the period 2002 to 2019 based on scientometric indicators such as growth of publication, productive authors and institutions, collaboration among authors and institutions, the hotspot of research area and the citation pattern. A total of 8541 records downloaded from PubMed formed the dataset for the study and were analysed using Bibexcel and VOSviewer. The findings reveal that the research on coronavirus was noticeable but it was not significant. A correlation between the number of publications and emergence of SARS in 2002 and MERS in 2012 was also visible. The trend of publication was found to be fluctuating during the period of study. The findings demonstrate that collaboration among institutions was not very strong.
  • THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT the USAGE of SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White Paper

    THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT the USAGE of SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White Paper

    springernature.com Illustration inspired by the work of Jean-Claude Bradley Open Research THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT THE USAGE OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White paper Open Research: Journals, books, data and tools from: 2 The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com Contents Authors Foreword . 3 Christina Emery, Mithu Lucraft, Executive summary . 4 Agata Morka, Ros Pyne Introduction . 5 November 2017 Part 1: Quantitative findings . 6 Summary . 6 Downloads . 7 Citations and mentions . 11 Part 2: Qualitative findings . 13 Summary . 13 Reasons for publishing open access . 14 Experience of publishing open access . 15 The future of open access . 16 Discussion . 18 Conclusion and recommendations . 20 Acknowledgements . 22 Contacts . 23 About Springer Nature and OA books . 24 Appendices . 26 Appendix 1: Definitions and limitations . 26 Appendix 2: Methodology . 27 Appendix 3: Top 10 downloaded books . 29 Appendix 4: Interviewed authors and funders . 30 Appendix 5: Author questionnaire . 32 Appendix 6: Funder questionnaire . 33 Appendix 7: References . 34 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0) The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com 3 Foreword Springer Nature was created in 2015, but from our earliest days as Springer, Palgrave Macmillan and Nature, we have been publishing monographs and long-form research for some 175 years. The changing environment for book publishing has created both opportunities and challenges for researchers and their funders, for publishers, and for the wider community of readers and educators. As a publisher, we have championed new models of scholarship, introducing ebooks in 2006, and our first open access (OA) book in 2011.