Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018)
0.01
0.014386819 = product of:
0.057547275 = sum of:
0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057547275 = score(doc=4257,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.
