Smith Elise, Haustein Stefanie, Mongeon Philippe, Shu Fei, Ridde Valéry, Larivière Vincent
École de Bibliothéconomie et des Sciences de l'Information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Sciences Humaines Appliquées (Option Bioéthique), Médecine Sociale et Préventive, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Aug 29;15(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0235-3.
In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR.
A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries.
Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA.
Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues.
1982年，《病毒学年鉴》发表了一篇论文，展示了利比里亚埃博拉病毒的高度地方性流行潜力，向卫生当局警示了潜在疫情爆发的风险；该期刊仅提供订阅服务。限制此类知识的获取可能减少了向公共卫生行动者的信息传播，而这些行动者对2014年的疫情确实感到惊讶且毫无准备。开放获取（OA）出版可以增加对全球卫生研究（GHR）的获取。我们的研究旨在评估OA传播在GHR背景下的使用情况、成本和影响。
使用PubMed检索了2010年至2014年间在医学主题词“全球卫生”下索引的3366篇研究文章，以（1）量化各类OA的采用情况，（2）估计OA的文章处理费（APC），以及（3）分析不同类型的OA、其学术影响力与引用国家人均国民总收入之间的关系。
大多数GHR出版物不能直接在期刊网站上获取（69%）。此外，60.8%的研究人员即使在其作品免费且符合期刊政策时也不进行自我存档。627篇论文的APC支付总额估计为170万美元，作者平均每篇出版物支付2732美元；94%的APC支付给了来自高收入国家的十大最著名出版社旗下的期刊。低收入和中等收入国家的研究人员通常引用成本较低的OA类型，而高收入国家的研究人员引用成本最高的OA。
尽管OA可能有助于建设GHR方面的全球研究能力，但大多数出版物仍然仅限订阅获取。机构和研究人员通过自我存档获取受限的出版物来推广OA是合理且具有成本效益的，因为这不仅能让研究被更广泛的受众引用，还能提高引用率。尽管OA并不能确保知识从研究到实践的完全转移，但限制公众获取会对卫生政策的实施和结果产生负面影响，并降低公众对健康问题的理解。
