![]() Multiple points for the same discipline indicate different estimates from the same study, or estimates from several studies. This rate is defined as the mean citation rate of OA articles divided by the mean citation rate of non-OA articles. The relative citation rate (OA: non-OA) in 19 fields of research. Moreover, at least in some cases, the advantage is not explained by selection bias (i.e., authors deliberately posting their better work to open platforms), as openly archived articles receive a citation advantage regardless of whether archiving is initiated by the author or mandated by an institution or funder ( Gargouri et al., 2010 Xia and Nakanishi, 2012). Importantly, the OA citation advantage can be conferred regardless of whether articles are published in fully OA journals, subscription journals with OA options (hybrid journals), or self-archived in open repositories ( Eysenbach, 2006 Hajjem et al., 2006 Gargouri et al., 2010 Research Information Network, 2014 Wang et al., 2015 Swan, 2010 Wagner, 2010). The size of the advantage observed is often dependent on discipline ( Figure 1). Numerical estimates of the citation advantage in two reviews range from -5% to 600% ( Swan, 2010) and 25% to 250% ( Wagner, 2010). Of 70 studies registered as of June 2016 in the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Europe database of citation studies, 46 (66%) found an OA citation advantage, 17 (24%) found no advantage, and 7 (10%) were inconclusive ( SPARC Europe, 2016). While some controlled studies have failed to find a difference in citations between OA and non-OA articles or attribute differences to factors other than access ( Davis, 2011 Davis et al., 2008 Frandsen, 2009a Gaulé and Maystre, 2011 Lansingh and Carter, 2009), a larger number of studies confirm the OA citation advantage. Hajjem and colleagues studied over 1.3 million articles published in 10 different disciplines over a 12-year period and found that OA articles had a 36–172% advantage in citations over non-OA articles ( Hajjem et al., 2006). For example, Eysenbach reported that articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS) under their open access (OA) option were twice as likely to be cited within 4–10 months and nearly three times as likely to be cited 10–16 months after publication than non-OA articles published in the same journal ( Eysenbach, 2006). There is evidence that publishing openly is associated with higher citation rates ( Hitchcock, 2016). We discuss these issues with regard to four areas – publishing, funding, resource management and sharing, and career advancement – and conclude with a discussion of open questions. We recognize the current pressures on researchers, and offer advice on how to practice open science within the existing framework of academic evaluations and incentives. We address common myths about open research, such as concerns about the rigor of peer review at open access journals, risks to funding and career advancement, and forfeiture of author rights. Researchers can use open practices to their advantage to gain more citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. We take a researcher-centric approach in outlining the benefits of open research practices. In the present article, we address such concerns and suggest that the benefits of open practices outweigh the potential costs. Meritorious as such arguments may be, however, they do not address the practical barriers involved in changing researchers’ behavior, such as the common perception that open practices could present a risk to career advancement. Such policies are often motivated by ethical, moral or utilitarian arguments ( Suber, 2012 Willinsky, 2006), such as the right of taxpayers to access literature arising from publicly-funded research ( Suber, 2003), or the importance of public software and data deposition for reproducibility ( Poline et al., 2012 Stodden, 2011 Ince et al., 2012). Recognition and adoption of open research practices is growing, including new policies that increase public access to the academic literature (open access Björk et al., 2014 Swan et al., 2015) and encourage sharing of data (open data Heimstädt et al., 2014 Michener, 2015 Stodden et al., 2013), and code (open source Stodden et al., 2013 Shamir et al., 2013).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |