Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles

Adie, Euan

doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.v1

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…T e presence of an OAAA for t e volume of attention on bot Twitter and Mendeley for a number of articles in a single ybrid journal as been reported (Adie, 2014), w o additionally identified an absence of an OAAA for blogs and news sources. T ese negative finds would ave been expected, as t e researc used mean and median values, an approac not wellsuited to t e analysis of low-frequency indicators, suc as news and blogs.…”

Section: Altmetri S and Oamentioning

confidence: 93%

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

Michael

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last de ade has seen two signif ant phenomena emerge in resear h ommuni ation: the rise of open a ess (OA) publishing, and eviden e of online sharing in the form of altmetri s. There has been limited examination of the efe t of OA on online sharing for journal arti les, and little for books. This paper examines the altmetri s of a set of 32,222 books (of whi h 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 hapters (of whi h 7% are OA) indexed by the s holarly database Dimensions in the So ial S ien es and Humanities. Both OA books and hapters have signif antly higher use on so ial networks, higher overage in the mass media and blogs, and eviden e of higher rates of so ial impa t in poli y do uments. OA hapters have higher rates of overage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley. Even within the Humanities and So ial S ien es, dis iplinary diferen es in altmetri a tivity are evident. The efe t is onfrmed for hapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong on lusion that OA fa ilitates extra attention at whole book level, the apparent OA altmetri s advantage suggests that the move towards OA is in reasing so ial sharing and broader impa t. Introdu tionTwo of t e largest p enomena in scientific communication in t e last decade ave been t e rise of Open Access (OA) journal publications, and t e researc area known as altmetrics. OA publications are t ose t at are freely available on t e internet, via a range of routes. Altmetrics is t e collection, reporting and analysis of attention being paid to researc publications across a variety of online platforms.Books and book c apters are under-represented in t e growing corpus of researc on OA. It as been suggested t at t is as arisen due to t e general lack of attention paid to bot t e book form, and also t e Arts and Humanities disciplines -w ic tend to favour books as t eir preferred c annel for publis ing researc .In general, t e absence of sales figures, reliable metadata, download figures and t e relatively slow citation performance of books as made a comparative study of OA versus non-OA books and c apters c allenging. T e relative paucity of data may ave contributed to a low level of examination in t e scientometric literature, and as suc , t ere is a lack of compelling evidence to drive t e adoption of OA for books and c apters.An emerging literature examining t e effect on social s aring and broader impact on OA journal articles offers some met odological insig ts, but given t e known differences

show abstract

Section: Altmetri S and Oamentioning

confidence: 93%

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

Michael

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

All the research that’s fit to print: Open access and the news media

Schultz

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the open access (OA) movement is to help everyone access the scholarly research, not just those who can afford to. However, most studies looking at whether OA has met this goal have focused on whether other scholars are making use of OA research. Few have considered how the broader public, including the news media, uses OA research. This study sought to answer whether the news media mentions OA articles more or less than paywalled articles by looking at articles published from 2010 through 2018 in journals across all four quartiles of the Journal Impact Factor using data obtained through Altmetric.com and the Web of Science. Gold, green and hybrid OA articles all had a positive correlation with the number of news mentions received. News mentions for OA articles did see a dip in 2018, although they remained higher than those for paywalled articles. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00139

show abstract

Crowdsourcing Global Perspectives in Ecology Using Social Media

Graham

Smith

2021

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transparent, open, and reproducible research is still far from routine, and the full potential of open science has not yet been realized. Crowdsourcing–defined as the usage of a flexible open call to a heterogeneous group of individuals to recruit volunteers for a task –is an emerging scientific model that encourages larger and more outwardly transparent collaborations. While crowdsourcing, particularly through citizen- or community-based science, has been increasing over the last decade in ecological research, it remains infrequently used as a means of generating scientific knowledge in comparison to more traditional approaches. We explored a new implementation of crowdsourcing by using an open call on social media to assess its utility to address fundamental ecological questions. We specifically focused on pervasive challenges in predicting, mitigating, and understanding the consequences of disturbances. In this paper, we briefly review open science concepts and their benefits, and then focus on the new methods we used to generate a scientific publication. We share our approach, lessons learned, and potential pathways forward for expanding open science. Our model is based on the beliefs that social media can be a powerful tool for idea generation and that open collaborative writing processes can enhance scientific outcomes. We structured the project in five phases: (1) draft idea generation, (2) leadership team recruitment and project development, (3) open collaborator recruitment via social media, (4) iterative paper development, and (5) final editing, authorship assignment, and submission by the leadership team. We observed benefits including: facilitating connections between unusual networks of scientists, providing opportunities for early career and underrepresented groups of scientists, and rapid knowledge exchange that generated multidisciplinary ideas. We also identified areas for improvement, highlighting biases in the individuals that self-selected participation and acknowledging remaining barriers to contributing new or incompletely formed ideas into a public document. While shifting scientific paradigms to completely open science is a long-term process, our hope in publishing this work is to encourage others to build upon and improve our efforts in new and creative ways.

show abstract

Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

All the research that’s fit to print: Open access and the news media

Crowdsourcing Global Perspectives in Ecology Using Social Media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About