Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4008,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4257,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a