University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 30;19(10):e0311493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311493. eCollection 2024.
Calls to make scientific research more open have gained traction with a range of societal stakeholders. Open Science practices include but are not limited to the early sharing of results via preprints and openly sharing outputs such as data and code to make research more reproducible and extensible. Existing evidence shows that adopting Open Science practices has effects in several domains. In this study, we investigate whether adopting one or more Open Science practices leads to significantly higher citations for an associated publication, which is one form of academic impact. We use a novel dataset known as Open Science Indicators, produced by PLOS and DataSeer, which includes all PLOS publications from 2018 to 2023 as well as a comparison group sampled from the PMC Open Access Subset. In total, we analyze circa 122'000 publications. We calculate publication and author-level citation indicators and use a broad set of control variables to isolate the effect of Open Science Indicators on received citations. We show that Open Science practices are adopted to different degrees across scientific disciplines. We find that the early release of a publication as a preprint correlates with a significant positive citation advantage of about 20.2% (±.7) on average. We also find that sharing data in an online repository correlates with a smaller yet still positive citation advantage of 4.3% (±.8) on average. However, we do not find a significant citation advantage for sharing code. Further research is needed on additional or alternative measures of impact beyond citations. Our results are likely to be of interest to researchers, as well as publishers, research funders, and policymakers.
呼吁使科学研究更加开放已经引起了一系列社会利益相关者的关注。开放科学实践包括但不限于早期通过预印本分享研究成果,并公开分享数据和代码等产出,以提高研究的可重复性和可扩展性。现有证据表明,采用开放科学实践在多个领域都有效果。在这项研究中,我们调查了采用一种或多种开放科学实践是否会导致相关出版物的引用显著增加,这是学术影响力的一种形式。我们使用了一个名为开放科学指标的新数据集,该数据集由 PLOS 和 DataSeer 制作,其中包括 2018 年至 2023 年的所有 PLOS 出版物,以及从 PMC 开放获取子集抽样的对照组。总共,我们分析了大约 122000 篇出版物。我们计算了出版物和作者级别的引用指标,并使用了一组广泛的控制变量来分离开放科学指标对收到的引用的影响。我们发现,开放科学实践在不同的科学学科中采用程度不同。我们发现,将出版物作为预印本提前发布与显著的正面引用优势相关,平均约为 20.2%(±0.7)。我们还发现,在在线存储库中分享数据与平均约 4.3%(±0.8)的较小但仍然为正的引用优势相关。然而,我们没有发现分享代码的显著引用优势。需要进一步研究除引用之外的其他或替代的影响衡量指标。我们的研究结果可能会引起研究人员、出版商、研究资助者和政策制定者的兴趣。