Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering

The development of science is accompanied by growth of scholarly publications, primarily in the form of articles in peer-reviewed journals. Scientific work is often evaluated through the number of scientific publications in international journals and their citations. This article discusses the impact of open access (OA) on the number of citations for an institution from the field of civil engineering. We analyzed articles, published in 2007 in 14 international journals with impact factor, which are included in the Journal Citation Reports subject category “Civil Engineering”. The influence of open access on the number of citations was analyzed. The aim of our research was to determine if open access articles from the field of civil engineering receive more citations than non-open access articles. Based on the value of impact factor and ranking in quartiles, we also looked at the influence of the rank of journals on the number of citations, separately for OA and Non OA articles, in databases Web of Science (WOS), Scopus and Google Scholar. For 2,026 studied articles we found out that 22 % of them were published as OA articles. They received 29 % of all citations in the observed period. We can conclude by the significance level 5 % or less that in the databases WOS and Scopus the articles from top ranked journals (first quartile) achieved more citations than Non OA articles. This argument can be confirmed for some other journals from second quartile as well, while for the journals ranked into the third quartile it can’t be confirmed. This could be confirmed only partly for journals from the second quartile, and would not be confirmed for journals ranked into the third quartile. This shows that open access is not a sufficient condition for citation, but increases the number of citations for articles published in journals with high impact.     

Scholarly research in LIS open access electronic journals: A bibliometric study

Using 17 fully open access electronic journals published uninterruptedly during 2000–2004 in the field of Library and Information Science the present study investigated the trend of LIS Open Access e-journals’ literature by analysing articles, authors, institutions, countries, subjects, & references. Quantitative content analysis was carried out on the data, data were analysed in order to project literature growth, authorship pattern, gender pattern, cited references pattern and related bibliometric phenomena. The analysis indicates that there were as many as 1636 articles published during 2000–2004 with an average increment of 23.75 articles per year. The authorship pattern indicates that team research has not been very common in LIS OA publishing and male authors were keener than female authors. Authors from academic institutions were paid more interest in OA publishing and most of them were from developed nations. The subject coverage of these OA e-journals was very vast and almost all facets of information and library science were covered in these articles. There were 90.10% of articles of these e-journals contained references and on an average an article contained 24 references. Of these, 38.53% of references were hyperlinked and 87.35% of hyperlinked references were live during investigation. The analysis of data clearly indicates that OA e-journals in LIS are rapidly establishing themselves as a most viable media for scholarly communication.     

The impact of internet resources on scholarly communication: A citation analysis

The quality and credibility of Internet resources has been a concern in scholarly communication. This paper reports a quantitative analysis of the use of Internet resources in journal articles and addresses the concerns for the use of Internet resources scholarly journals articles. We collected the references listed in 35,698 articles from 14 journals published during 1996 to 2005, which resulted in 1,000,724 citations. The citation data was divided into two groups: traditional citations and Web citations, and examined based on frequencies of occurrences by domain and type of Web citation sources. The findings included: (1) The number of Web citations in the journals investigated had been increasing steadily, though the quantity was too small to draw an inclusive conclusion on the data about their impact on scientific research; (2) A great disparity existed among different disciplines in terms of using information on the Web. Applied disciplines and interdisciplinary sciences tended to cite more information on the Web, while classical and experimental disciplines cited little of Web information; (3) The frequency of citations was related to the reputation of the author or the institution issuing the information, and not to the domain or webpage types; and (4) The researchers seemed to lack confidence in Internet resources, and Web information was not as frequently cited as reported in some publications before. The paper also discusses the need for developing a guideline system to evaluate Web resources regarding their authority and quality that lies in the core of credibility of Web information.     

Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines

For practical reasons, bibliographic databases can only contain a subset of the scientific literature. The ISI citation databases are designed to cover the highest impact scientific research journals as well as a few other sources chosen by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Google Scholar also contains citation information, but includes a less quality controlled collection of publications from different types of web documents. We define Google Scholar unique citations as those retrieved by Google Scholar which are not in the ISI database. We took a sample of 882 articles from 39 open access ISI-indexed journals in 2001 from biology, chemistry, physics and computing and classified the type, language, publication year and accessibility of the Google Scholar unique citing sources. The majority of Google Scholar unique citations (70%) were from full-text sources and there were large disciplinary differences between types of citing documents, suggesting that a wide range of non-ISI citing sources, especially from non-journal documents, are accessible by Google Scholar. This might be considered to be an advantage of Google Scholar, since it could be useful for citation tracking in a wider range of open access scholarly documents and to give a broader type of citation impact. An important corollary from our study is that Google Scholar’s wider coverage of Open Access (OA) web documents is likely to give a boost to the impact of OA research and the OA movement.     

International contribution to library and information science in Poland: A bibliometric analysis

This article reports findings from the study of the international contribution to the system of library and information science communication in Poland in the years 2003–2005. The sample consists of articles published both in selected journals and collective works. Two important dimensions determining the internationalization of local scholarly communication are considered: direct contribution (foreign authors’ articles and papers and their translations published in Poland) and indirect contribution (citedness of foreign authors’ documents in articles and papers published in Poland). Bibliographic data about the geographical distribution and affiliation of foreign authors are gathered and analyzed. Furthermore, the findings of citation analysis are presented to determine the percentage share of citations received by foreign documents as well as to find out what is the structure of such citations regarding the language and form, which thematic areas are most replete with such citations and which foreign journals are most cited in Poland.     

Scholarly publications beyond pay-walls: increased citation advantage for open publishing

First, we aim to determine the total amount of scholarly articles freely available on the internet. Second, we aim to prove whether there exists a citation advantage for open publishing. The total scholarly publication output of Norway is indexed in Cristin, the Current Information System in Norway. Based on these data, we searched Google Scholar by either DOIs or titles and denoted a document as open available (OAv), when a link to a full-text was provided. We analysed the extracted data by publishing year, citations, availability and provider. Based on additional information indexed in Cristin, we furthermore analysed the data by year, institution, publisher and discipline. We find that the total share of freely available articles is 68%. Articles not available belong to prestigious publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Routledge and Universitetsforlaget (the largest Norwegian academic publisher), which may be particularly essential for scholars worldwide. The largest provider, according to Google Scholar’s main link provision, is ResearchGate. In addition, institutional repositories play a major role in posting free article versions. Articles belonging to natural sciences and technology, and medicine and health were more likely to be open than articles belonging to the social sciences and humanities. Their respective OAv-shares are 72, 58 and 55%. We find a clear citation advantage for open publishing; on average, these documents received twice as many citations, indicating that open access is the future in publishing. This study is limited to scholarly articles only. Books and book chapters, which are usual publication formats for the humanities and social sciences, are excluded. Results do therefore not adequately reflect the situation for these disciplines. Furthermore, this study is limited to documents freely available on the internet, independent of the “legal” status of the posted full-text. With the data at hand, we were not able to distinguish between gold, green, hybrid, purely pay-walled and illicitly posted documents. Usually, articles indexed in Web of Science or SCOPUS are objects of investigation. However, these databases do not sufficiently cover the humanities and social sciences, and therefore cannot be representative of the total scholarly article output. This study captures the total article output of a country, independent on discipline and provides new insight into open publishing.     

Self-citation: comparison between Radiology,European Radiology and Radiology for 1997–1998

This study investigates the incidence of self-citation (authors citing their own work) for scholarly articles in ten journals published by the American Physiological Society. We analysed authorship and referencing practices of all original research articles published in the first ordinary issue of each journal in both 2000 and 2010, comprising 271 and 212 articles, respectively. Self-citation is common in these journals and represents a total of 17.75% of all citations. Only 9 (1.86%) of the articles analysed did not self-cite. Author position significantly influenced the rate of self-citation with last authors being self-cited significantly more than any other author. This was likely a result of the cumulative nature of scientific research within a specific discipline and the necessary desire to promote ones own work for associated academic benefit. The country in which the work was conducted also influenced the rate of self-citation, with last authors based in North America self-citing more than last authors from Asian countries. A comparison of self-citation rates between decades (2000 and 2010) revealed an increase in the number of authors and number of citations per article between 2000 and 2010, however the mean percentage of self-cited articles did not differ between the years. Finally, there were no differences in the percentage of self-citation between the different journals analysed.     

Citation accuracy in environmental science journals

Citations in five leading environmental science journals were examined for accuracy. 24.41% of the 2,650 citations checked were found to contain errors. The largest category of errors was in the author field. Of the five journals Conservation Biology had the lowest percentage of citations with errors and Climatic Change had the highest. Of the citations with errors that could be checked in Web of Science, 18.18% of the errors caused a search for the cited article to fail. Citations containing electronic links had fewer errors than those without.     

Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: a wide-scale study

We studied the effect on journal impact factors (JIF) of citations from documents labeled as articles and reviews (usually peer reviewed) versus citations coming from other documents. In addition, we studied the effect on JIF of the number of citing records. This number is usually different from the number of citations. We selected a set of 700 journals indexed in the SCI section of JCR that receive a low number of citations. The reason for this choice is that in these instances some citations may have a greater impact on the JIF than in more highly-cited journals. After excluding some journals for different reasons, our sample consisted of 674 journals. We obtained data on citations that contributed to the JIF for the years 1998?C2006. In general, we found that most journals obtained citations that contribute to the impact factor from documents labeled as articles and reviews. In addition, in most of journals the ratio between citations that contributed to the impact factor and citing records was greater than 80% in all years. Thus, in general, we did not find evidence that citations that contributed to the impact factor were dependent on non-peer reviewed documents or only a few citing records.     

Internal migration of scientists in Russia and the USA: the case of physicists

To assess endocrinologic and metabolic research productivity in East Asia (i.e., China, Japan, and South Korea) and correlations between socioeconomic factors and endocrinologic and metabolic research productivity. Articles (except editorials, conference abstracts, letters, news, and corrections) published in 134 endocrinology and metabolism journals in 2005–2014 were screened with the Web of Science database. Total and annual numbers of articles, study designs, impact factors, citations, and articles in high-impact-factor journals were determined for China, Japan, and South Korea. Annual numbers of articles were related to socioeconomic factors for each country. In 2005–2014, there were 144,660 articles from East Asia published in endocrinology and metabolism journals: 10,190, 9470, and 3124 from Japan, China, and South Korea, respectively. Japan published the most randomized controlled trials, followed by China and South Korea, respectively. China had the most articles in high-impact-factor journals, followed by Japan and South Korea, respectively. South Korea had the highest average impact factor and number of citations. During the period studied, annual numbers of articles from China and South Korea increased remarkably (P < 0.05) but remained stable for Japan. Annual numbers of articles from China and South Korea were positively correlated with gross domestic product and expenditure on health care (P < 0.05). The increase in endocrinology and metabolism articles during 2005–2014 in China and South Korea was associated with improved socioeconomic conditions. China has made progress in scientific publication in the past decade; however, there is still room for improvement.     

Comparison of independent research of China’s top universities using bibliometric indicators

The institutionally independent publications of Tsinghua University and Peking University were compared by two main indicators namely peak-year citations per publication and h-index, based on the data extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Web of Science from 1974 to 2011. Analyzed aspects covered total publication outputs, annual production, impact, authorships, Web of Science categories, journals, and most cited articles. Results shows that the two universities were in the same scale based on the peak-year citations per publication, the h-index, and top cited articles with no less than 100 citations. Publication of the top three most productive Web of Science categories differed between these two universities. Tsinghua University published more articles in applied science and engineering fields, while Peking University had more basic science articles. In addition, article life was applied to compare the impact of the most cited articles and single author articles of the two universities.     

The effect of document types and sizes on the scaling relationship between citations and co-authorship patterns in management journals

The aim of this paper is to explore the power-law relationship between citation-based performance (CBP) and co-authorship patterns for papers in management journals by analyzing its behavior according to the type of documents (articles and reviews) and the number of pages of documents. We analyzed 36,241 papers that received 239,172 citations. The scaling exponent of CBP for article papers was larger than for reviews. Citations to articles increased 2^1.67 or 3.18 times each time the number of article papers published in a year in management journals doubled. The citations to reviews increased 2^1.29 or 2.45 times each time the number of reviews published in a year in management journals doubled. The scaling exponent for the power-law relationship of citation-based performance according to number of pages of papers was 1.44 ± 0.05 for articles and 1.25 ± 0.05 for reviews. The citations to articles increased faster than citation to reviews. The scaling exponent for the power-law of citation-based performance to co-authored articles was higher than single-authored articles. For reviews the scaling exponent was the same for the relationship between citation based performance and the number of reviews. Citations increased faster in single authored reviews than co-authored reviews.     

The growth of science and database coverage

Recently there has been huge growth in the number of articles displayed on the Web of Science (WoS), but it is unclear whether this is linked to a growth of science or simply additional coverage of already existing journals by the database provider. An analysis of the category of journals in the period of 2000?C2008 shows that the number of basic journals covered by Web of Science (WoS) steadily decreased, whereas the number of new, recently established journals increased. A rising number of older journals is also covered. These developments imply a crescive number of articles, but a more significant effect is the enlargement of traditional, basic journals in terms of annual articles. All in all it becomes obvious that the data set is quite instable due to high fluctuation caused by the annual selection criteria, the impact factor. In any case, it is important to look at the structures at the level of specific fields in order to differentiate between ??real?? and ??artificial?? growth. Our findings suggest that even-though a growth of about 34?% can be measured in article numbers in the period of 2000?C2008, 17?% of this growth stems from the inclusion of old journals that have been published for a longer time but were simply not included in the database so far.     

The Marginal Impact of a Publication on Citations,and Its Effect on Academic Pay

Scientometrics - There are good reasons for why academicians should care about citations to scholarly articles. An important one is that members of the academy operate essentially as independent...     

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature.     

Author self-citations in the field of ecology

Ecologists writing research articles frequently cite their own papers. Self-citations are frequent in science, but the reasons behind abnormally high rates of self-citations are questionable. My goals were to assess the prevalence of author self-citations and to identify the combination of attributes that best predict high levels of self-citations in ecology articles. I searched 643 articles from 9 different ecology journals of various impact factors for synchronous (i.e., within reference lists) and diachronous (i.e., following publication) self-citations, using the Web of Science online database. I assessed the effect of the number of authors, pages, and references/citations, the proportion of diachronous/synchronous self-citations, and the impact factor, on the proportion of synchronous and diachronous self-citations separately. I compared various candidate models made of these covariates using Akaike’s Information Criterion. On average, ecologists made 6.0 synchronous self-citations (12.8% of references), and 2.5 diachronous self-citations (25.5% of citations received 2.8 to 4.5 years after publication) per article. The best predictor of the proportion of synchronous self-citations was the number of authors. My study is the first to report recidivism in the inclusion of self-citations by researchers, i.e., the proportion of diachronous self-citations was best explained by the proportion of synchronous self-citations. The proportion of self-citations also increased with the number of pages and the impact factor of ecology journals, and decreased with the number of references/citations. Although a lot of variance remained unexplained, my study successfully showed regularities in the propensity of ecologists to include self-citations in their research articles.     

Reconsidering the gold open access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: an analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009–2014

Since Lawrence in 2001 proposed the open access (OA) citation advantage, the potential benefit of OA in relation to citation impact has been discussed in depth. The methodology to test this postulate ranges from comparing the impact factors of OA journals versus traditional ones, to comparing citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, conclusions are not entirely consistent among fields, and two possible explications have been suggested in those fields where a citation advantage has been observed for OA: the early view and the selection bias postulates. In this study, a longitudinal and multidisciplinary analysis of gold OA citation advantage is developed. All research articles in all journals for all subject categories in the multidisciplinary database Web of Science are considered. A total of 1,138,392 articles—60,566 (5.3%) OA articles and 1,077,826 (94.7%) non-OA articles—published in 2009 are analysed. The citation window considered goes from 2009 to 2014, and data are aggregated for the 249 disciplines (subject categories). At journal level, we also study the evolution of journal impact factors for OA and non-OA journals in those disciplines whose OA prevalence is higher (top 36 subject categories). As the main conclusion, there is no generalizable gold OA citation advantage, neither at article nor at journal level.     

Environmental sciences research in northern Australia, 2000–2011: a bibliometric analysis within the context of a national research assessment exercise

This paper reports on a bibliometric analysis of environmental sciences research in northern Australia between 2000 and 2011. It draws on publications data for Charles Darwin University (CDU) and James Cook University (JCU) researchers to present a bibliometric profile of the journals in which they publish, the citations to their research outputs, and the key research topics discussed in the publications. Framing this analysis, the study explored the relationship between the two universities’ publications and their ‘fit’ with the environmental sciences field as defined by the Australian research assessment model, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA). The Scopus database retrieved more records than Web of Science, although only minor differences were seen in the journals in which researchers published most frequently and the most highly cited articles. Strong growth in publications is evident in the 12 year period, but the journals in which the researchers publish most frequently differ from the journals in which the most highly cited articles are published. Many of the articles by CDU and JCU affiliated researchers are published in journals outside of the environmental sciences category as defined by Scopus and Web of Science categories and the ERA, however, the research conducted at each university aligns closely with that institution’s research priorities.     

Evolution of the publications in clinical neurology: scientific impact of different countries during the 2000–2009 period

We analyzed the productivity and visibility of publications on the subject category of Clinical Neurology by countries in the period 2000–2009. We used the Science Citation Index Expanded database of the ISI Web of Knowledge. The analysis was restricted to the citable documents. Bibliometric indicators included the number of publications, the number of citations, the median and interquartile range of the citations, and the h-index. We identified 170,483 publications (84.9 % original articles) with a relative increase of 28.5 % throughout the decade. Fourteen countries published over 2,000 documents in the decade and received more than 50,000 citations. The average of citations received per publication was 8 (interquartile range: 3–20) and the h-index was 261. USA was the country with the highest number of publications, followed by Germany, Japan, the UK and Italy. Moreover, USA publications had the largest number of citations received (44.5 % of total), followed by the UK, Germany, Canada, and Italy. On the other hand, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK had the highest median citations for their total publications. During the period 2000–2009 there was a significant increase in Clinical Neurology publications. Most of the publications and citations comprised 14 countries, with the USA in the first position. Interestingly, most of the publications and citations originated from only 14 countries, with European countries with relatively low population, such as Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands, in this top group.