Frisch Nora K, Nathan Romil, Ahmed Yasin K, Shidham Vinod B
Address: Department of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Center and Detroit Medical Center, Old Hutzel Hospital, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Cytojournal. 2014 Apr 29;11:10. doi: 10.4103/1742-6413.131739. eCollection 2014.
The era of Open Access (OA) publication, a platform which serves to better disseminate scientific knowledge, is upon us, as more OA journals are in existence than ever before. The idea that peer-reviewed OA publication leads to higher rates of citation has been put forth and shown to be true in several publications. This is a significant benefit to authors and is in addition to another relatively less obvious but highly critical component of the OA charter, i.e. retention of the copyright by the authors in the public domain. In this study, we analyzed the citation rates of OA and traditional non-OA publications specifically for authors in the field of cytopathology.
We compared the citation patterns for authors who had published in both OA and traditional non-OA peer-reviewed, scientific, cytopathology journals. Citations in an OA publication (CytoJournal) were analyzed comparatively with traditional non-OA cytopathology journals (Acta Cytologica, Cancer Cytopathology, Cytopathology, and Diagnostic Cytopathology) using the data from web of science citation analysis site (based on which the impact factors (IF) are calculated). After comparing citations per publication, as well as a time adjusted citation quotient (which takes into account the time since publication), we also analyzed the statistics after excluding the data for meeting abstracts.
Total 28 authors published 314 publications as articles and meeting abstracts (25 authors after excluding the abstracts). The rate of citation and time adjusted citation quotient were higher for OA in the group where abstracts were included (P < 0.05 for both). The rates were also slightly higher for OA than non-OA when the meeting abstracts were excluded, but the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.57 and P = 0.45).
We observed that for the same author, the publications in the OA journal attained a higher rate of citation than the publications in the traditional non-OA journals in the field of cytopathology over a 5 year period (2007-2011). However, this increase was statistically insignificant if the meeting abstracts were excluded from the analysis. Overall, the rates of citation for OA and non-OA were slightly higher to comparable.
开放获取(OA)出版时代已然来临,如今存在的OA期刊比以往任何时候都多,这一平台有助于更好地传播科学知识。同行评议的OA出版能带来更高引用率的观点已被提出,并且在一些出版物中得到证实。这对作者来说是一项重大益处,此外,OA宪章还有另一个相对不那么明显但至关重要的组成部分,即作者在公共领域保留版权。在本研究中,我们专门分析了细胞病理学领域作者的OA出版物和传统非OA出版物的引用率。
我们比较了在OA和传统非OA同行评议的科学细胞病理学期刊上发表过文章的作者的引用模式。使用科学引文分析网站(基于该网站计算影响因子)的数据,将OA出版物(《细胞杂志》)中的引用与传统非OA细胞病理学期刊(《细胞学报》《癌症细胞病理学》《细胞病理学》和《诊断细胞病理学》)进行了比较。在比较每份出版物的引用次数以及时间调整引用商数(该商数考虑了自发表以来的时间)之后,我们还在排除会议摘要数据后分析了统计结果。
共有28位作者发表了314篇文章和会议摘要(排除摘要后为25位作者)。在纳入摘要的组中,OA的引用率和时间调整引用商数更高(两者P均<0.05)。排除会议摘要后,OA的比率也略高于非OA,但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.57和P = 0.45)。
我们观察到,在细胞病理学领域,对于同一作者而言,在5年期间(2007 - 2011年),OA期刊上的出版物比传统非OA期刊上的出版物获得了更高的引用率。然而,如果在分析中排除会议摘要,这种增加在统计学上并不显著。总体而言,OA和非OA的引用率略高且相当。