Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018)
0.00
0.0020320227 = product of:
0.0040640454 = sum of:
0.0040640454 = product of:
0.008128091 = sum of:
0.008128091 = weight(_text_:a in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008128091 = score(doc=4257,freq=14.0), product of:
0.048230026 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.041828327 = 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