The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis

Yu, Xueqian; Meng, Ziyan; Qin, Danchen; Shen, Cenyu; Hua, Fang

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104067

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an Altmetric analysis of plastic surgery articles from 2015 to 2022, OA publications retained an advantage in AAS when compared with non-OA publications 9. This trend extends to other fields, including dentistry, where OA status was associated with greater AAS and citation count in a 7-year follow-up period 23. More broadly, articles indexed in the OA PubMed Central database were cited more frequently than articles not indexed there 24.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…9 This trend extends to other fields, including dentistry, where OA status was associated with greater AAS and citation count in a 7-year follow-up period. 23 More broadly, articles indexed in the OA PubMed Central database were cited more frequently than articles not indexed there. 24 Interestingly, an analysis of the most mentioned articles on cleft lip and palate identified no such relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

Patel

Boyd

2022

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As online media acquires increased utilization as a means of disseminating scientific research, Altmetric analyses are useful to identify socially impactful publications and their characteristics. Accordingly, the objective of this investigation was to determine the most mentioned articles online regarding craniofacial surgery and compare these articles with their most cited counterparts. Using the Web of Science database, 7097 craniofacial surgery publications were identified. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and average citations per year (ACpY) were extracted, and articles were ranked by their social and scientific impact. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational analyses were performed to examine characteristics including AAS, ACpY, country of origin, journal, open access (OA) status, publication year, study design, and topic. The average AAS of the 50 most mentioned articles was 83.68 (SD ± 107.40), and the average citation count of the 50 most cited articles was 76.38 (SD ± 35.15). OA status was significantly more prevalent among the most mentioned articles (24.0%) relative to all articles (10.72%) and the most cited articles (4.0%). The most mentioned and the most cited articles primarily originated from the United States (64.0% and 38.0%, respectively), discussed topics related to the medical and surgical management of patients (48.0% and 58.0%, respectively), and were systematic reviews (16.0% and 28.0%, respectively). However, there was significantly more geographic diversity in the latter cohort. In summary, this comparative examination reveals important differences between the most mentioned and most cited articles, highlighting the distinct utility of AAS and citation count when evaluating research impact.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

Patel

Boyd

2022

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Protocol registration, conversely, was more common in the dental articles (6.9%) than in the biomedical research articles (2.6%) [ 4 ].The proportion of dental articles available from the EPMC (3.2%) is smaller than that of all biomedical (PubMed) articles (24%, Supplementary Material at osf.io/4eq8u), and information is unavailable regarding whether these samples are equally representative of all (open and non‐open access) dental and biomedical articles. However, it seems that the proportion of open access dental articles increases considerably over time [ 23 ]. It is also possible that differences in the research curriculum or journal styles could explain these discrepancies, and this should be clarified in future studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Raittio

Sofi‐Mahmudi

Uribe

2022

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal-and articlerelated information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.

show abstract

“…In this study, we hold a strict definition of academic impact and thus elected not to include an analysis of Altmetric scores. Future work which holds a broader definition of academic impact may investigate an association between Altmetric scores and open‐access or subscription‐based otolaryngology journal status, as has been done in other fields such as dentistry and neurocritical care 14,15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future work which holds a broader definition of academic impact may investigate an association between Altmetric scores and open-access or subscription-based otolaryngology journal status, as has been done in other fields such as dentistry and neurocritical care. 14,15 CONCLUSION Otolaryngology open-access journals currently publish articles that are cited less often than articles in subscription-based journals. Senior authors of articles published in these open access journals have lower h-index ratings than those publishing in subscriptionbased journals.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open‐Access and Subscription‐Based Otolaryngology Journals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the academic impact and author characteristics of open-access journals in otolaryngology. Methods: Original articles from three open-access (OTO Open, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, and World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology) and three conventional subscription-based otolaryngology specific journals (Otolaryngology -Head & Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology -Head & Neck Surgery) were assessed. Publication dates of articles from January 2017 to July 2020 were included. Google Scholar and Web of Science citation counts were recorded. H-indexes of first and last authors were included according to Google Scholar and Web of Science and analyzed. Results: This analysis included 3284 articles. Articles published in open-access otolaryngology-specific journals had significantly fewer citations on average (6.8) than articles published in subscription-based journals (12.4, p < 0.0001). The last authors of articles published in subscription-based journals had significantly higher h-indexes (23.50) compared with the last authors of articles published in open-access journals (19.53, p < 0.0001). The first authors of articles published in open-access journals had similar h-indexes (10.26) as the first authors of articles published in subscription-based journals (10.33). Conclusions: Articles published in open-access journals in otolaryngology were cited significantly less than those published in subscription-based journals. The h-index of the last authors was significantly lower in open-access journals; however, the h-index of the first authors was similar between open-access and subscription-based journals. As measured by citations, open-access publications do not yet appear to have the impact of subscription-based publications.

show abstract

The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open‐Access and Subscription‐Based Otolaryngology Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About