Open access to journal articles in dentistry: Prevalence and citation impact

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the current prevalence of open access (OA) in the field of dentistry, the means used to provide OA, as well as the association between OA and citation counts.Methods: PubMed was searched for dental articles published in 2013. The OA status of each article was determined by manually checking Google, Google Scholar, PubMed and ResearchGate. Citation data were extracted from Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Chi-square tests were used to compare the OA prevalence by different subjects, study types, and continents of origin. The association between OA and citation count was studied with multivariable logistic regression analyses.Results: A random sample of 908 articles was deemed eligible and therefore included.Among these, 416 were found freely available online, indicating an overall OA rate of 45.8%. Significant difference in OA rate was detected among articles in different subjects (P<0.001) and among those from different continents (P<0.001). Of articles that were OA, 74.2% were available via self-archiving ('Green road' OA), 53.3% were available from publishers ('Gold road' OA). According to multivariable logistic regression analyses, OA status was not significantly associated with either the existence of citation (P=0.37) or the level of citation (P=0.52). Conclusions/Clinical Significance:In the field of dentistry, 54% of recent journal articles are behind the paywall (non-OA) one year after their publication dates. The 'Green road' of providing OA was more common than the 'Gold road'. No evidence suggested that OA articles received significantly more citations than non-OA articles.2

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

“…However, recent studies have shown that about 50% of biomedical research in general [5] and 60% of RCTs in dentistry [6] are behind the paywall. Healthcare professionals usually rely on abstracts to initially appraise a trial, decide whether or not to retrieve more information, or even directly inform their healthcare decision-making.…”

Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact

“…societies, universities, research institutions), (2) major commercial (Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, Wolters Kluwer, Oxford University Press), and (3) other commercial publishers. Journals were categorized into two types: (1) open access journals (OAJs) which make all articles immediately OA, and (2) subscription journals that are only accessible to subscribers or readers who pay a pay-per-view fee, and usually available both in print and electronically [11,12]. Some subscription journals offer authors an option to pay and make individual articles OA ("hybrid OA" journals), or make selected or all articles freely available online after a set embargo period ("delayed OA" journals) [9,15].…”

“…The OA status of each included article was assessed in two rounds [11]. First, we searched the full title of each article (combined with the first author's surname when the title was too short or too broad) in four commonly used online search engines / databases: Google (only first 20 results examined);…”

“…In the past few years, several studies have assessed the share and structure of OA among journal articles in dentistry [11] and biomedicine as a whole [1,8,12]. However, to our knowledge, there has been no such study in the field of oncology.…”

Revistas Odontológicas de Mayor Impacto: Una Revisión de su Comportamiento en el Journal Citation Reports

“…Desde 2004, diversos estudios (de diferentes campos científicos) han informado que los artículos de OA se citan significativamente más que los artículos que no son de OA. Sin embargo, revisiones recientes señalan que estos estudios carecían de rigor metodológico (por ejemplo, falta de control de las variables) y que la "ventaja de la cita" que encontraron apareció como resultados de análisis inadecuados (Hua et al, 2016).…”