École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and STI Policy; and Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 31;17(3):e0265545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265545. eCollection 2022.
With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.
随着开放获取（OA）指令的不断增加，准确衡量 OA 出版情况是一个重要的政策问题。根据数据源和调查时期的不同，现有研究对 OA 出版物的流行程度进行了估计，范围从 27.9%到 53.7%不等。本文旨在比较两个主要的文献计量学数据库 Web of Science (WoS) 和 Dimensions 中代表的 OA 出版比例，并评估数据库的选择如何影响不同国家对 OA 的衡量。结果表明，Dimensions 索引的出版物中 OA 比例高于 WoS 索引的出版物，而对于来自北美和欧洲以外的出版物，这种情况更为明显。本文最后讨论了这些差异的原因和后果，强调在检查 OA 时使用更具包容性的数据库的必要性，特别是对于来自北美和欧洲以外的出版物。
