Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A longitudinal study of the evolution of opinions about open access and its main features: a twitter sentiment analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aimed to explore how tweeters’ opinions about open access publishing and its main features evolved over time. Using a quantitative content analysis method through an opinion mining approach, it explored a sample of English tweets on open access posted from 2007 to December 2019. The main terms related to open access were first identified through reviewing the related literature and were then categorized into five features including “costs & funding”, “impact”, “models”, “publishing & publications”, and “quality & quality control”. The terms were composed in the form of search formulae. The searches on Twitter led to retrieving 629,123 tweets. A cleansing process was carried out to remove duplicates, non-English, and low-relevant tweets. The final sample reached 80,629 tweets. The tweets were then tagged with the five features. The KNIME data mining tool and SentiStrength were used respectively for processing the tweets' contents and calculating their opinion scores. According to the results, the open-access-related tweets have been growing based on a sigmoidal model. They were mostly neutral and opinion tweets were far lower in number. The tweets in different polarities have been increasing based on a power-law model, with the negative tweets experiencing a disproportionately higher increase. The positive and negative opinions have remained almost stable in strength, with the former being stronger. The results were almost in line with the previous surveys confirming the co-existence of the positive and negative attitudes about open access. However, the social sphere has been gradually becoming more negative. As attitudes are likely to go viral on social networks, and thereby affect users’ perceptions and behaviors, the results call for devising appropriate measures to empower the movement and to find solutions for the problems and concerns leading to the negative opinions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguillo, I. F. (2020). Altmetrics of the open access institutional repositories: A webometrics approach. Scientometrics, 123, 1181–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agustini, B., & Berk, M. (2019). The open access mandate: Be careful what you wish for. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(11), 1044–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867419864436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alperin, J. P., Gomez, C. J., & Haustein, S. (2019). Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518761733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anger, I., & Kittl, C. (2011). Measuring influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on knowledge management and knowledge technologie., 31 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1145/2024288.2024326

  • Athar, A. (2014). Sentiment analysis of scientific citations. University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, 856, 1–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. SAGE Journals, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. (2013). Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing, 26(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernius, S., Hanauske, M., König, W., & Dugall, B. (2009). Open access models and their implications for the players on the scientific publishing market. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50046-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Pepe, A., & Mao, H. (2009). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 5(1). https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1583v1.

  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Dillaerts, H., Lafouge, T., Bador, P., & SauerAvargues, A. (2018). French publishing attitudes in the open access era: The case of mathematics, biology, and computer science. Learned Publishing, 31(4), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, T., Stamerjohanns, H., Harnad, S., Gingras, Y., Vallieres, F., & Oppenheim C. (2004). The effect of Open Access on Citation Impact. National Policies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University Research Output: an International meeting, Southampton, Southamtpon University. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ha...ATAnew.pdf

  • Burgman, M., Fuwen, W., Esler, K., Akçakaya, R., McCarthy, M., Rondinini, C., & Game. (2019). Open access and academic imperialism. Conservation Biology THe Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 33(2), 491–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, G. R., & Cheung, A. S. C. (2017). The transition toward open access: The University of Hong Kong experience. Library Management, 38(8/9), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-02-2017-0013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claudio-González, M. G., & Villarroya, A. (2015). Challenges of publishing open access journals. Profesional de la Informacion, 24(5) 517–525 https://www.scipedia.com/public/Claudio-Gonzalez_Villarroya_2015a

  • Collins, K. A. M., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0162680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. A. M. (2015). Tweet Your Science – an analysis of scientists using Twitter. (Thesis, Master of Science Communication). University of Otago. http://hdl.handle.net/10523/5998.

  • Coombs, J., Thomas, M., Rush, N., & Martin, E. (2017). A community of practice approach to delivering research support services in a post-92 higher education institution: A reflective case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(2–3), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1329750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copiello, S. (2020). Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: Tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS One. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2449–2469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03698-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., van Honk, J., & Franssen, T. (2017). Scholars on Twitter: who and how many are they?. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05667.

  • Ćurlin, T., Jaković, B., & Miloloža, I. (2019). Twitter usage in Tourism: Literature review. Business Systems Research Journal, 10(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2019-0008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, E. D., Tenopir, C., & Björk, B. C. (2020). Attitudes of North American academics toward open access scholarly journals. Portal Libraries and the Academy., 20(1), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2020.0005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M. (2009). How the media frames’ open access’. Journal of Electronic Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, D. D. (2018). Effective practices and strategies for open access outreach: A qualitative study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehdarirad, T. (2020). Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–16). PLoS ONE, 15(11), e0241723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., Mejlgaard, N., & Sørensen, M. P. (2018). Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 960–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echevarría, L., Malerba, A., & Arechavala-Gomeza, V. (2021). Researcher’s perceptions on publishing “negative” results and open access. Nucleic Acid Therapeutics, 31(3), 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edo-Osagie, O., De La Iglesia, B., Lake, I., & Edeghere, O. (2020). A scoping review of the use of Twitter for public health research. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 122: 103770. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103770.Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erskine, N., & Hendricks, S. (2021). The use of Twitter by medical journals: Systematic review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7), e26378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escota, G. V., George, I., & Abdoler, E. (2019). 1948 Impact of@ WuidQ, a free open-access medical education twitter resource, on infectious disease learning and teaching. Open Forum Infectious Diseases., 6(2), S57–S58. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz359.125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012). Towards better access to scientific information: Boosting the benefits of public investments in research. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2012) 401 Final. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/era-communication-towards-better-access-to-scientific-information_en.pdf.

  • Fang, Z., Dudek, J., & Costas, R. (2020). The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(12), 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, R. A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2021). Philosophers’ perceptions of pay to publish and open access in Spain: Books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson, M. (2020). The transition towards open access publishing in humanities: A case study of researchers' publishing patterns, views on and experiences of OA publishing at a Finnish university. Åbo Akademi. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020090768826.

  • Friedrich, N., Bowman, T. D., & Haustein, S. (2015). Do tweets to scientific articles contain positive or negative sentiments. In Altmetrics Workshop, Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics15/friedrich.

  • Gabarron, E., Dorronzoro, E., Rivera-Romero, O., & Wynn, R. (2019). Diabetes on Twitter: A sentiment analysis. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 13(3), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818811679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, K., & Berton, L. (2021). Topic detection and sentiment analysis in Twitter content related to COVID-19 from Brazil and the USA. Applied Soft Computing, 101, 107057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giachanou, A., & Crestani, F. (2016). Like it or not: A survey of Twitter sentiment analysis methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 49(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2938640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grgić, I. H., & Guskić, M. (2019). Croatian scientists’ awareness of predatory journals. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0041-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guardian. (2018, November 15). Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. Retrieved November 15, from: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper.

  • Gunasekera, C. (2017). Motivational factors for faculty contribution towards institutional repositories and their awareness of open access publishing. SRELS Journal of Information Management., 54(3), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2017/v54i3/111684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevi, G., & Walsh, S. (2021). Faculty attitudes towards article processing charges for open access articles. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37(3), 384–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammad, M., & Al-awadi, M. (2016). Sentiment analysis for arabic reviews in social networks using machine learning. Information technology: new generations (pp. 131–139). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S. U., Aljohani, N. R., Idrees, N., Sarwar, R., Nawaz, R., Martínez-Cámara, E., & Herrera, F. (2020). Predicting literature’s early impact with sentiment analysis in twitter. Knowledge-Based Systems, 192, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalali, N., Carter, C., Alfaraj, S., Moghtaderi, A., & Pines, J. M. (2019). Trends and predictors of Retweets in free open access Medical Education (# FOAM ed) on Twitter (2013–2017). Academic Emergency Medicine., 26(4), 443–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H. R., & Alimohammadi, D. (2015). Blog citations as indicators of the societal impact of research: Content analysis of social sciences blogs. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology, 5(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2015.5.1.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, X., Chun, S. A., Wei, Z., & Geller, J. (2015). Twitter sentiment classification for measuring public health concerns. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 5(1), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Zafra, S. M., Sáez-Castillo, A. J., Conde-Sánchez, A., & Martín-Valdivia, M. T. (2021). How do sentiments affect virality on Twitter? Royal Society Open Science, 8(4), 201756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joung, K. H., Rowley, J., & Sbaffi, L. (2019). Medical and health sciences academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: A perspective from South Korea. Information Development, 35(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917736360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungherr, A. (2014). Twitter in politics: a comprehensive literature review. Available at SSRN 2865150. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2402443.

  • Kaba, A., & Said, R. (2015). Open access awareness, use, and perception: A case study of AAU faculty members. New Library World, 116(1/2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-05-2014-0053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenneway, M. (2011). Author attitudes towards open access publishing. TBI Communications on Behalf of Intech Open Access Publisher.https://mts.intechopen.com/public_files/Intech_OA_Apr11.pdf

  • Khasawneh, R. T., Wahsheh, H. A., Al-Kabi, M. N., & Alsmadi, I. M. (2013). Sentiment analysis of arabic social media content: a comparative study. In 8th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2013) 101–106 IEEE.

  • Khatua, A., Khatua, A., & Cambria, E. (2020). Predicting political sentiments of voters from twitter in multi-party contexts. Applied Soft Computing, 97, 106743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolahi, J., Khazaei, S., Dunning, D. G., & Rossomando, E. F. (2020). Do open access dental articles enjoy higher altmetric attention scores, Twitter, Facebook, News, Wikipedia, Blog mentions, mendeley readers and citations? Dental Hypotheses, 11, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_17_20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., & Garg, G. (2019). Sentiment analysis of multimodal Twitter data. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(17), 24103–24119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7390-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., & Garg, G. (2020). Systematic literature review on context-based sentiment analysis in social multimedia. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(21), 15349–15380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. W., Smith, L. J., & Hillman, T. (2015). M26 Tweeting is teaching-# RespEd: Free, Open-access Twitter educational resource for trainees and specialists in respiratory medicine. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207770.453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. W. (2012). The inevitability of open access. College and Research Libraries, 73(5), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Vergara, C., Flores Asenjo, P., & Rosa-García, A. (2020). Incentives to open access: perspectives of health science researchers. Publications, 8(2), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Vergara, C., Flores Asenjo, P., & Rosa-García, A. (2021). Why open access: economics and business researchers’ perspectives. Publications, 9(3), 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Zhao, Y., & Huang, L. (2021). Chinese scientists’ awareness of, attitudes to and involvement in open-access publishing. Cultures of Science, 4(4), 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2011). The paper is not sacred. Nature, 480(7378), 449–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/480449a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., & Holmes, K. L. (2018). Academic information on twitter: A user survey. PLoS ONE, 13(5), 118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, V. V., & Munigal, A. (2012). Use of community building web technologies in libraries: A study of twitter in American libraries. I n SITE 2012: Informing Science IT Education Conference., 12(3), 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S., & Thorn, S. (2009). Learned society members and open access. Learned Publishing, 22(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1087/2009308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munigal, A. (2014). Use of microblogs in India: A study of twitter usage by librarians and in libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 54(7), 590–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagaraj, M. N., & Bhandi, M. K. (2017). Physics researchers’ perception of advantages and disadvantages of open access journals: A study. International Journal of Library and Information Studies, 7(1), 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, B., Luca, E. J., Tiffen, B., England, A., Booth, M., & Boateng, H. (2018). Scholarly communication practices in humanities and social sciences: A study of researchers’ attitudes and awareness of open access. Open Information Science, 2(1), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2018-0013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, B., & Luca, E. (2017). Issues and challenges in researchers' adoption of open access and institutional repositories: a contextual study of a university repository. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal,22(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/22-4/rails/rails1608.html.

  • Nishikawa, N., Yamada, K., Suzuki, I., & Unehara, M. (2017). Polarization analysis of Twitter users using sentiment analysis ISIS2017:The 18th International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems (pp. 167–174)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobes, A., & Harris, S. (2019). Open Access in low-and middle-income countries: attitudes and experiences of researchers. Emerald Open Research., 1(17), 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obuh, A. O. (2013). Attitude towards the use of open access scholarly publications: The position of LIS lecturers in Southern Nigeria. The Social Sciences, 8(2), 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oddone, N. E., & Franca, C. M. D. (2019). Platforms for scholarly books in open access and their representation on Twitter: Metrics of disclosure, discovery, and evaluation. Transinformação. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e190011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomino, M. A., Ribac, Q., & Masala, G. (2019). The nature of Twitter trending topics: Analyzing intrinsic factors associated with the Twitter ecosystem. New Trends in Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, 303, 1004–1017. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-900-3-1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pershad, Y., Hangge, P. T., Albadawi, H., & Oklu, R. (2018). Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(6), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7060121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisoschi, A. M., & Pisoschi, C. G. (2016). Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals? Scientometrics, 109(2), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2088-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., & Haustein, S. (2018). The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.3.380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puschmann, C. (2014). (Micro) blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. Opening science (pp. 89–106). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, Y., Wang, C., & Zhu, G. (2021). Chinese implicit sentiment analysis based on hybrid neural networks. Journal of Physics Conference Series., 1802(4), 042069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiao, F., & Jiang, K. (2021). Attitudes towards global warming on twitter: A hedonometer-appraisal analysis. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 30(7), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, N. (2021). Open access in the humanities, arts and social sciences: Complex perceptions of researchers and implications for research support. LIBER Quarterly: THe Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 31(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richtig, G., Richtig, E., Böhm, A., Oing, C., Bozorgmehr, F., Kruger, S., & Berghoff, A. S. (2019). Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: Results of an online survey. ESMO Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson-García, N., Henk, M., Torres-Salinas, D., & Arroyo-Machado, W. (2018a). Do altmetrics promote open access? An exploratory analysis on altmetric differences between types of access in the field of Physics. Presented at the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), Leiden: Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.1414022

  • Robinson-Garcia, N., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Rafols, I. (2018). Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy, 45(6), 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, J. E. (2014). Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: A glance at generational differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6), 604–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, R. S., Abadal, E., & de Araújo, B. K. H. (2020). Open access publishers: The new players. PLoS ONE, 15(6), e0233432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1201–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Pérez, S. (2017). Drivers and barriers for open access publishing: from SOAP data 2010 to WOS data 2016. Universidad De Granada. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.842016

  • Ruiz-Pérez, S., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2017). Spanish researchers’ opinions, attitudes and practices towards open access publishing. El Profesional De La Información (EPI), 26(4), 722–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq, M. T., & Yadav, A. K. (2022). Discovering the Open Access Movement on Twitter: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Indian Library Association, 57(1), 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmer, R. (2008). Controversial issues in the context of Open Access. In open access-opportunities and challenges: A handbook. 76–79

  • Schroter, S., Tite, L., & Smith, R. (2005). Perceptions of open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors. BMJ, 330(7494), 756. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38359.695220.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. E., Harrington, C., & Dubnjakovic, A. (2021). Exploring open access practices, attitudes, and policies in academic libraries. Portal Libraries and the Academy., 21(2), 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddighi, H., & Salmani, I. (2020). Twitter functions in COVID-19 pandemic and other natural disasters: A literature review. Journalism and Media, 1, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.2094/preprints202008.0235.v1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segado-Boj, F., Martín-Quevedo, J., & Prieto-Gutiérrez, J. J. (2018a). Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors to Spanish scholarly journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segado-Boj, F., Martín-Quevedo, J., & Prieto, J. J. (2018b). Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto open peer review y altmetrics. Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación. 12(1) 27–32

  • Serrano-Vicente, R., Melero, R., & Abadal, E. (2016). Open access awareness and perceptions in an institutional landscape. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 595–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikh, A. (2019). Faculty awareness, use and attitudes towards scholarly open access: A Pakistani perspective. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 612–628.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siler, K. (2017). Future challenges and opportunities in Academic publishing. Canadian Journal of Sociology/cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, 42(1), 83–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, D. D. O., Taborda, B., Pazzinatto, M. F., Ardern, C. L., & Barton, C. J. (2021). The altmetric score has a stronger relationship with article citations than journal impact factor and open access status: A cross-sectional analysis of 4022 sport sciences Articles. Journal of Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 51(11), 536–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnenberg, L., Buttenheim, A. M., Padrez, K., Mancheno, C., Ungar, L., & Merchant, R. M. (2017). Twitter as a tool for health research: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 107(1), e1–e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. M., Zhu, L., Lerman, K., & Kozareva, Z. (2013). The role of social media in the discussion of controversial topics. In International Conference on Social Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijder, R. (2016). Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: Measuring citations and tweets 5 years later. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1855–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2160-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D. (2013). Types of open access publishers in Scopus. MDPI, 1(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanberg, S. M., Thielen, J., & Bulgarelli, N. (2020). Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: A needs assessment study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(2), 208. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2020). An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2523–2543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.1268/f1000research.8460.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Christian, L., Jones, M., McCabe, M., Smith, M., & Fish, A. (2017). Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College and Research Libraries., 78(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2017). The Heart and soul of the web Sentiment strength detection in the social web with SentiStrength. Springer, Cham: Cyberemotions Collective Emotions in Cyberspace.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Buckley, K. (2013). Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web: The role of mood and issue-related words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1608–1617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G., Cai, D., & Kappas, A. (2010). Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2544–2558. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2011). Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tmava, A. M. (2017). Providing access to scientific knowledge: Faculty views on open access publishing as a new channel of scholarly communication. In International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM). https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1036597/m2/1/high_res_d/Ahmet_Meti.pdf

  • Togia, A., & Korobili, S. (2014). Attitudes towards open access: A meta-synthesis of the empirical literature. Information Services and Use, 34(3–4), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Castillo-Valdivieso, P. A. (2020). Open Access and Altmetrics in the pandemic age: Forecast analysis on COVID-19 related literature. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.23.057307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueger, N. S. (2018). Medical journals in the age of ubiquitous social media. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(1), 173–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vlokhoven, H. (2019). The effect of open access on research quality. Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 751–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanherpe, J., & Cappuyns, P. (2018). What’s mine is yours: A brief introduction to open access in the European Union. Licensing Executives Society International (LESI), 53, 269–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhaar, P. A. F., Schoots, S. P., Sesink, L., Frederiks, F., & Zaken, D. A. (2017). Fostering effective data management practices at Leiden University. Liber Quarterly., 27(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, P., Khanday, A. M. U. D., Rabani, S. T., Mir, M. H., & Jamwal, S. (2019). Twitter sentiment analysis on indian government project using R. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(3), 8338–8341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, J., Revelle, A., & Shrimplin, A. K. (2013). Keep the change: Clusters of faculty opinion on open access. In Imagine, Innovate, Inspire: Proceedings of the Association of College and Research Libraries Conference. 10–13

  • Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Liew, S. C., & Zhang, S. (2020). PubChain: A decentralized open-access publication platform with participants incentivized by blockchain technology. International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISNCC49221.2020.9297213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0147913.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J. (2010). A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing. Association for Information Science & Technology, 61(3), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., Marmolejo Duarte, C. R., & Martí Ciriquián, P. (2019). Emotion detection in public space: a multilanguage comparison in Barcelona. In XIII CTV 2019 Proceedings: XIII International Conference on Virtual City and Territory: "Challenges and paradigms of the contemporary city": UPC, Barcelona, October 2–4, 2019. Centre de Politica de Sol i Valoracions, CPSV/Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, UPC.

  • Yousif, A., Niu, Z., Tarus, J. K., & Ahmad, A. (2017). A survey on sentiment analysis of scientific citations. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52(3), 1805–1838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9597-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X., Meng, Z., Qin, D., Shen, C., & Hua, F. (2022). The long-term influence of open access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 119, 104067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y. (2017). Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice. Scientometrics, 111(2), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2316-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y. (2020). Open-access policy and data-sharing practice in UK academia. Journal of Information Science, 46(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518823174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbra, D., Abbasi, A., Zeng, D., & Chen, H. (2018). The state-of-the-art in Twitter sentiment analysis: A review and benchmark evaluation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 9(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185045

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Knowledge & Information Sciences, School of Education & Psychology, Shiraz University, Eram Campus, Shiraz, Iran

    Hajar Sotudeh, Zeinab Saber & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi

  2. Department of Computer Science & Engineering & IT, School of Computer Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

    Farzin Ghanbari Aloni & Farshad Khunjush

Authors
  1. Hajar Sotudeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeinab Saber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farzin Ghanbari Aloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahdieh Mirzabeigi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farshad Khunjush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hajar Sotudeh.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sotudeh, H., Saber, Z., Ghanbari Aloni, F. et al. A longitudinal study of the evolution of opinions about open access and its main features: a twitter sentiment analysis. Scientometrics 127, 5587–5611 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04502-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04502-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation