Suppr超能文献

付费是否值得?生物学各子领域开放获取出版的益处比较。

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

作者信息

Clark Amanda D, Myers Tanner C, Steury Todd D, Krzton Ali, Yanes Julio, Barber Angela, Barry Jacqueline, Barua Subarna, Eaton Katherine, Gosavi Devadatta, Nance Rebecca, Pervaiz Zahida, Ugochukwu Chidozie, Hartman Patricia, Stevison Laurie S

机构信息

Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America.

Department of Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States of America.

出版信息

PeerJ. 2024 Feb 27;12:e16824. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16824. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access ( < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal ( < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates ( = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure citations with publishing costs.

摘要

在决定研究成果的发表地点时,作者常常面临着是要最大化传统影响力指标还是最小化成本的抉择。现在,许多基于订阅的期刊提供了支付文章处理费(APC)以使文章开放获取的选项。尽管这类“混合型”期刊使读者更易获取研究内容,但其文章处理费往往价格高昂,可能会将那些无力支付费用以使研究成果可获取的作者排除在外。在此,我们测试了在基于订阅的期刊上付费发表开放获取文章是否能让作者受益,即相对于封闭获取文章而言获得更多引用。我们确定了2013年至2018年期间在生物学领域152种混合型期刊上发表的146,415篇文章,以比较各类开放获取文章和封闭获取文章的引用次数。在对我们的完整数据集进行的简单广义线性模型分析中,我们发现,与类似期刊中的封闭获取文章相比,在提供该选项(付费开放获取)的混合型期刊上发表开放获取文章,作者平均可获得17.8次引用的优势。在考虑作者数量、《期刊引证报告》2020年四分位数、发表年份以及科学网类别后,我们仍然发现开放获取文章的引用次数显著多于封闭获取文章(<0.0001)。然而,结果较为复杂,这些其他变量会影响不同获取类型文章的引用率的确切差异。在比较同一期期刊中发表的开放获取文章和封闭获取文章时,基于获取类型的这种引用优势同样显著(<0.0001)。然而,通过研究作者支付了文章处理费的文章,我们发现成本本身并不能预测引用率(=0.14)。基于我们对获取类型及其他模型参数的研究结果,我们建议,就我们分析的152种期刊而言,付费进行开放获取确实能带来引用优势。对于预算有限的作者,我们建议他们寻求无需付费的开放获取替代方案,因为这些方案的引用次数仍然多于封闭获取文章。对于正在考虑下一篇文章投稿地点的作者,我们就如何在曝光度(引用次数)与发表成本之间取得平衡提供了更多建议。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb16/10906259/c40351c98f15/peerj-12-16824-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验