Scientific potential of European fully open access journals
The scientific potential of European countries measured by their participation in publication of all peer-review journals as well as open access journals (OAJs) is significant. In this paper we focus on European fully open access journals (OAJs) as a potentially optimal channel of communication in science. We explore fully OAJs (n=1201) indexed by Scopus with several bibliometric indicators: quartile rankings, SJR (SCImago Journal Ranking) and h-index. As countries in our focus have entered EU at different times and have diverse backgrounds, we divide them into three groups: A (members before 1995), B (became members in 2004–2013 period) and C (EU candidate countries). Analysis across country groups is complemented with analysis across major subject fields. Quartile rankings indicate that journals in Q1 dominate in group A, followed by journals in Q2. In the remaining two country groups, journals belonging to Q3 have more than 50% of the share. Analysis by different scientific fields stresses that life and health sciences have the highest shares of OAJs in Q1. In physical sciences the highest share of OAJs is in Q3 while combined shares of Q2 and Q3 are above 50%. Only 10% of all European OAJs in social sciences is in Q1. Furthermore, we find the least difference between journals in group A and groups B and C in social sciences, both in respect to coverage and quality indicators. In all scientific fields median SJR indicators is, in the case of groups B and C, higher for OAJs than non-OAJs as opposed to group A.
KeywordsOpen access journals Bibliometric analysis H-index SJR Quartiles EU countries
This work has been supported in part from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement No 645884 and by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project IP-09-2014-9351. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of REA (European Commission) or Croatian Science Foundation.
- Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open access in India: Hopes and frustrations. Open scholarship: Authority, community, and sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, ELPUB 2008, (pp. 271–279).Google Scholar
- Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers. (2016). https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/. Accessed April 4, 2017.
- Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. (2003). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities. Accessed January 7, 2017.
- Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. (2003). http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2003/04/bethesda-statement-on-open-access-publishing/. Accessed January 7, 2017.
- Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/. Accessed January 7, 2017.
- Chinchilla-Rodrίguez, Z., Miguel, S., & Moya-Anegón, F. D. (2015). What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2012). Recommendation on the access to and preservation of scientific information. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-recommendation-access-and-preservation-scientific-information. Accessed January 10, 2017.
- Giglia, E. (2010). Open access to scientific research: where are we and where are we going? Facts and figures on the occasion of the 2010 open access week (October 18–24). European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(3), 461–469.Google Scholar
- Gunasekaran, S., & Arunachalam, S. (2014). The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fields. Current Science, 107(3), 380–388.Google Scholar
- Houghton J. (2009). Open Access—What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492578. Accessed January 4, 2017.
- Jokić, M. (2009). H-index as a new scientometric indicator [H-indeks kao novi scientometrijski indikator]. Biochemia Medica, 19(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
- Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2016). The total cost of publication in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446.Google Scholar
- Swan, A. (2010).The open access citation advantage: studies and results to date, school of electronics and computer science. University of Southampton, UK, http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/716-Alma-Swan-Review-of-Studies-on-Open-Access-Impact-Advantage.html. Accessed December 21, 2016.
- Wohlrabe, K. & Birkmeier, D. (2014). Do open access articles in economics have a citation advantage? MPRA_paper_56842.pdf, https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/56842/1/MPRA_paper_56842.pdf. Accessed December 23, 2016.
- Xu, J., Dave, N., Su, J., & Zeng, Y. (2016). Are open access journals trusted by Chinese scholars? Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban)/Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 41, 131–135.Google Scholar