Open Access: Concepts, findings, and recommendations for stakeholders in dentistry

Hua, Fang; Shen, Cenyu; Walsh, Tanya; Glenny, Anne‐Marie; Worthington, Helen V

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.06.012

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…OA policies (Hua, Shen, Walsh, Glenny, & Worthington, ) were categorised into three types a priori: Direct OA: Journals that were fully OA and without any embargo. Hybrid OA: Journals that were subscription‐based and that offered researchers the option to publish their work as gold OA (gold OA is broadly defined as providing OA articles through journals or publishers) if they paid a specified publication fee “hybrid journals.” Green only: Journals that did not provide an option for gold OA but allowed the authors to make their work OA via self‐archiving (green OA). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To study whether specific recommendations aimed at reducing avoidable research waste were included in the author instructions of leading dental journals. Method We identified 109 peer‐reviewed and original research‐oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2018. Two authors extracted independently information regarding the endorsement of reporting guidelines (RGs), ICMJE recommendations, trial or systematic review registration, and open access (OA) and data sharing policies. Result All 109 journals provided online “instructions to authors,” among which 64 journals (58.7%) mentioned RGs. The ICMJE recommendations were endorsed by 74 journals (67.9%), and trial and systematic review registration were mentioned by 48 (44.0%) and 6 (5.5%) of the journals, respectively. In terms of OA, most journals stated they were hybrid OA (82.0%) and direct OA (15.4%), while data sharing policy was recommended by 32 (29.4%) journals. Statistical analyses suggest that these policies were more frequently mentioned by SCIE‐indexed journals, higher‐impact journals, and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations. Conclusion Reporting guidelines, OA and data sharing are important tools for enhancing research communication, translation and the reduction of avoidable research waste. However, currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hua et al [ 18 ] published a narrative review specific to OA concepts in dentistry in which they go beyond OACA and venture into other topics such as research waste of inaccessible research. Regarding OACA, they looked at nine studies across many disciplines and found variation of methods and materials, but ultimately the citation advantage ranged from -5% to 83% [ 18 ]. Turk [ 19 ] published an overview on OA, pertaining only to medical articles, looking at OA factors in which studies of possible OACA mostly found a citation advantage, but articles reporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) results revealed no OACA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)—increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)—has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles. Methods A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type. Results A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets. Conclusions As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.

show abstract

“…For the author, publication in an open-access journal means that their work is 90% more likely to be read and 42% more likely to be downloaded as a PDF in the six months following publication than a comparable subscription-access article in the same journal [2]. The precise impact of open access publishing on citation rates is still debated [3]. For example, in a recent cohort study of 5835 medical journals, open access journals had a significantly higher CiteScore, percent cited, and source normalized impact per paper, but the non-open access journals had a higher scholarly output [4].…”

Section: Advantages Of the Open Access Publishing Model In Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals

Wyatt¹

2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.

show abstract

Open Access: Concepts, findings, and recommendations for stakeholders in dentistry

Cited by 16 publications

References 94 publications

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles

Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About