Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 1075–1095 | Cite as

Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals?

  • Aurelia Magdalena Pisoschi
  • Claudia Gabriela Pisoschi
Article

Abstract

The very nature of scientific activity and information, which are meant to be shared, is the starting point in defining a scientific journal, and the criteria according to which its value and role are determined. The authors aim at analysing some criteria that define the quality of scientific journals considering their visibility and impact. The concept of open access for journals is analysed in point of its advantages and disadvantages, since it differs greatly from the subscription-based access, whether we talk about institutional or individual subscriptions. The authors are in favour of the concept of public access, considering that it gives a journal more visibility, on the condition that article processing charges are reduced. The essential condition for a journal to become renowned is to be as visible as possible. The concept of open access is beneficial, supports instruction through and for scientific research, regardless of educational level. The aim of this paper is to emphasise the modalities, specificities and bibliometric performances (percent of citable documents, impact factor and immediacy index) of open access versus subscription-based access, as well as to investigate whether the use of open access concept determines an increase of the journals’ quality, study applied to the analysis of Hindawi Publishing Company journals and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals.

Keywords

Journals assessment Visibility and impact Open access concept Publication fees Instruction through scientific research 

References

  1. Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., et al. (2013). Library and information science journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annual Reviews rankings in Thomson Reuters JCR. (2015). http://www.annualreviews.org/page/about/isi-rankings. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  3. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., et al. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardelean, A., Dobrescu, E. M., & Pisoschi, A. (2014). Prolegomena to science assessment-a scientometric approach, Chapter 7 (p. 160). Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken. ISBN 978-3-659-55086-7.Google Scholar
  5. Ardent, J. (2010). Are article influence scores comparable across scientific fields? issues in science and technology librarianship. Winter,. doi: 10.5062/F4FQ9TJW.Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Illan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Infometrics, 1(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazrafshan, A., Haghdoost, A. A., & Zare, M. (2015). A comparison of downloads, readership and citations data for the Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas. Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ideas, 9, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor—Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–317.Google Scholar
  9. Bergstrom, C. T., West, J. D., & Wiseman, M. A. (2008). The eigenfactor metrics. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 11433–11434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björk, B-Ch., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BioMed Central Medicine, 10, 73. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.Google Scholar
  11. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137(3550), 85–86.Google Scholar
  12. Braun, T. (2007). The impact factor of scientific and scholarly journals: its use and misuse in research evaluation: a selection of papers reprinted mainly from the Journal Scientometrics. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read. Accessed 20 February 2014.
  15. Creative Commons. (2015). http://creativecommons.org/. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  16. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. (2012). Towards better access to scientific information: Boosting the benefits of public investments in research, Brussels, 17.7.2012 COM(2012) 401 final, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/era-communication-towards-better-access-to-scientific-information_en.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2015.
  17. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., Mc Veight, M. E., et al. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, P. M. (2009). Author-choice open-access publishing in the biological and medical literature: A citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technolog, 60(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The Journal of Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB Journal), 25, 1–6. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., et al. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. The British Medical Journal, 337(7665), 343–345.Google Scholar
  21. De Solla Price, D. J. (1964). The science of science, chicago. In M. Goldsmith & A. Mackay (Eds.), The science of science. New York: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar
  22. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eigenfactor.org. (2016). www.eigenFACTOR.org. Accessed 22 February 2016.
  24. Ennas, G., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). Features of top-rated gold open access journals: An analysisof the scopus database. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. Public Library of Science Biology, 4, e157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.Google Scholar
  26. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., et al. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The Journal of Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB Journal), 22, 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Garfield, E. (1990). How ISI selects journals for coverage: Quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, 22, 5–13.Google Scholar
  31. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators. Scientometrics, 59(3), 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gunasekaran, S., & Arunachalam, S. (2014). The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fields. Current Science, 107(3), 380–388.Google Scholar
  33. Haensly, P. J., Hodges, P. E., & Davenport, S. A. (2009). Acceptance rates and journal quality: An analysis of journals in economics and finance. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, June 2004, 10(6) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html. Accessed 07 February 2015
  35. Harzing, A.W. (2007). Publish or Perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm. Accessed 10 February 2015.
  36. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scietific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Institut de France, Académie des Sciences. (2015). http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/cr.htm. Accessed 07 November 2015.
  38. Journal Database. (2016). http://www.journal-database.com/journal/. Accessed 03 May 2016
  39. Journal des Savants. (2015). http://www.aibl.fr/publications/collections/journal-des-savants/?lang=fr. Accessed 07 November 2015.
  40. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. Public Library of Science One, 9(5), e93949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949.Google Scholar
  41. Koler-Povh, T., Juznic, P., & Turk, G. (2014). Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering. Scientometrics, 98, 1033–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., et al. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kurata, K., Morioka, T., Yokoi, K., et al. (2013). Remarkable growth of Open Access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. Public Library of Science One, 8(5), e60925. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060925.Google Scholar
  44. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 31 May, http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html. Accessed 06 February 2016.
  45. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frecvency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
  46. Manista, F. C. (2012). Open don’t mean free: A reflection on the potential advantages and disadvantages of publishing research via Open Access. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(2), eP1049. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Infometrics, 4(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morrison, H. (2012). About 30% of peer-reviewed scholarly journals are now open access. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ro/2012/05/about-30-of-peer-reviewed-scholarly.html. Accessed 27 February 2015
  50. Okubo, Y. (1997). Indicateurs bibliometriques et analyse des systemes de recherche. Documents de travail de la Direction de la science, de la technologie et de l’industrie O.C.D.E., Paris.Google Scholar
  51. Philosophical Transactions. (2015). http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/. Accessed 30 November 2015
  52. Rousseau, R. (2002). Journal evaluation: technical and practical issues. Library Trends, 50(3), 418–439.Google Scholar
  53. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., et al. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101, 1113–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. (2016). http://www.scimagojr.com/. Accessed 12 June 2016
  55. Statistics Canada. (2015). Table 477-0059-Financial information of universities and degree-granting colleges, expenditures by type of fund and function, annual (dollars), CANSIM (database). http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=4770059&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=. Accessed 22 February 2016.
  56. Vishwakarma, P., & Mukherjee, B. (2014). Developing qualitative indicators for journal evaluation: Case study of Library Science Journals of SAARC countries. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 34(2), 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walters, W. H. (2008). Journal prices, book acquisitions, and sustainable college library collections. College and Research Libraries, 2008, 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wray, K. B. (2016). No new evidence for a citation benefit for Author-Pay Open Access Publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 106, 1031–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, Y. (2006). The effect of open access on citation impact: a comparison study based on Web citation analysis. Libri, 56(3), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang, Ch-T. (2009). The e-Index, complementing the h-Index for excess citations. Public Library Of Science One, 4(5), e5429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005429.Google Scholar
  61. Zwemer, R. L. (1970). Identification of journal characteristics useful in improving input and output of a retrieval system. Federation Proceedings, 29, 1595–1604.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Faculty of LettersUniversity of CraiovaCraiovaRomania

Personalised recommendations