Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles

@article{citeulike:712543, abstract = {Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at \&\#8220;quasi-baseline\&\#8221; (December 2004, 0\&\#8211;6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4\&\#8211;10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10\&\#8211;16 mo after publication). Potentially confounding variables, including number of authors, authors\&\#39; lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2\&\#37; of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8\&\#37;) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0\&\#37;) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8\&\#37;) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk \&\#61; 1.3 \&\#91;95\&\#37; Confidence Interval: 1.1\&\#8211;1.6\&\#93;; p \&\#61; 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 \&\#91;13.6\&\#37;\&\#93;, OA: 11 \&\#91;5.2\&\#37;\&\#93;; relative risk \&\#61; 2.6 \&\#91;1.4\&\#8211;4.7\&\#93;; p \&\#60; 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 \&\#91;SD \&\#61; 2.5\&\#93; versus 1.2 \&\#91;SD \&\#61; 2.0\&\#93;; Z \&\#61; 3.123; p \&\#61; 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 \&\#91;SD \&\#61; 10.4\&\#93; versus 4.5 \&\#91;SD \&\#61; 4.9\&\#93;; Z \&\#61; 4.058; p \&\#60; 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio \&\#61; 2.1 \&\#91;1.5\&\#8211;2.9\&\#93;) in the first 4\&\#8211;10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5\&\#8211;5.5) 10\&\#8211;16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.}, author = {Eysenbach, Gunther }, citeulike-article-id = {712543}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157}, journal = {PLoS Biology}, keywords = {bibliometrie, citation, openaccess, openachive}, month = {May}, number = {5}, posted-at = {2007-11-20 15:32:06}, priority = {2}, title = {Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157}, volume = {4}, year = {2006} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:712543 L3 - citeulike-article-id:712543 TI - Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles JF - PLoS Biology VL - 4 IS - 5 N2 - Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at “quasi-baseline” (December 2004, 0–6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4–10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10–16 mo after publication). Potentially confounding variables, including number of authors, authors' lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2% of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8%) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0%) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8%) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk = 1.3 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.1–1.6]; p = 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 [13.6%], OA: 11 [5.2%]; relative risk = 2.6 [1.4–4.7]; p < 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5–2.9]) in the first 4–10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5–5.5) 10–16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings. KW - bibliometrie KW - citation KW - openaccess KW - openachive AU - Eysenbach, Gunther PY - 2006/05/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 ER -