The current status of Open Access in biomedical field: the comparison of countries relating to the impact of national policies

Matsubayashi, Mamiko; Kurata, Keiko; Sakai, Yukiko; Morioka, Tomoko; Kato, Shigehiko; Mine, Shinji; Ueda, Shuichi

doi:10.1002/meet.1450430198

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Discussion1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2008

2009

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some developing and non-English speaking countries, well-established OA websites already exist, such as SciELO (http://www.scielo.org), , sponsored by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), in Japan, both of which are measurably increasing the visibility, accessibility and impact of the journals they serve. 30,31 We believe that there is much in their methods from which China can learn.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of open access publishing in Chinese scientific journals

Cheng

Ren

2008

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the 1,608 journals covered by the Chinese Science & Technology Journal Citation Reports (2005 edition), we analyzed the open access (OA) publishing situation of Chinese scientific journals. From this database we identified 91 journals offering full OA; a further 139 journals offered delayed OA. Data collected at three different time points (January 2006, July 2006, and January 2007) showed that the OA status of these journals is not stable; some OA journals subsequently became non‐OA. Most of the Chinese OA journals are not part of a larger aggregation, but are published independently. Relatively more OA journals are published in the fields of medicine and biology. Citation indicators of OA journals were found to be higher than those of non‐OA journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%