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.

posted to
Science in the open on
Thu 16th Oct 08The third installment of the paper (first part, second part) where I discuss social issues around practicing more Open Science.Scientists are inherently rather conservative in their adoption of new approaches and tools. A conservative approach has served the...
There's been a good deal of online chatter about this recent Science article that discusses the effects of online access on scholarship -- see, e.g., discussions here and here and blog entries noted therein. The report is not available without paying...

posted to
Open Access News on
Thu 1st May 08Xavier Bosch, An open challenge. Open access and the challenges for scientific publishing, EMBO Reports, 9, 5 (2008) pp. 404-408. (Thanks to Garrett Eastman.) Bosch is in the Department of Internal Medicine at Hospital Clinic of the University of...

posted to
HubLog on
Thu 13th Mar 08Scopus has a new site listing the most cited papers (published between 2004 and 2008) in various scientific fields. In the overall top 20 list of most cited papers, only #10 (Journal of Molecular Biology), #15 (International Journal of Computer Vision) and...

posted to
Open Access News on
Fri 29th Feb 08Kevin Zelnio, Is the World of Taxonomy Ready for PLoS Systematics?, The Other 95% blog, February 20, 2008. (Thanks to C.R. McClain.) ... Taxonomists need to improve the visibility and relevance of the field to ensure a continued, or at the least renewed, interest...

posted to
Highlight HEALTH on
Thu 28th Feb 08Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at U.C. Davis Genome Center, has been named the first Academic Editor-in-Chief at the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journal PLoS Biology. He wrote an editorial published Tuesday on the PLoS Biology website that discusses...

linked to by 4 posted to
The Other 95% on
Wed 20th Feb 08Taxonomy has historically been relegated to the back alleys of the publishing world. In-house museum journals, obscure regional or specialty publications and even more obscure foreign language academy reports have hidden many species descriptions, revisions...
The word 'ONE' in PLoS ONE indicates that the journal publishes articles in all areas of science. This is not as easy as it sounds, of course. The majority of papers published so far have some kind of biomedical connection to them, which is not a surprise as...

posted to
Science in the open on
Thu 15th Nov 07Weird. I came across WebCite this morning while having a quick scan through the Eysenbach paper on Open Access increasing number of citations in PLoS Biology. At the bottom was the comment that all the web pages have been archived on WebCite. Going across to...

posted to
petermr's blog on
Sat 7th Jul 07Peter Suber reports:Download milestone for BMC article20:34 06/07/2007, Peter Suber, Open Access NewsIain Hrynaszkiewicz, Open access article on consensus definition of acute renal failure has been accessed more than 100,000 times, BioMed Central blog, July...

posted to
Open Access News on
Fri 6th Jul 07Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Open access article on consensus definition of acute renal failure has been accessed more than 100,000 times, BioMed Central blog, July 6, 2007. Hrynaszkiewicz is BMC's in-house Editor of Critical Care. Excerpt:The most...

linked to by 2 posted to
BioMed Central on
Fri 6th Jul 07The most highly accessed article on BioMed Central's most viewed articles page recently surpassed 100,000 accesses. Bellomo et al.s article, published in Critical Care in 2004, presented the first consensus definition of acute renal failure and followed a two...

posted to
Open Access News on
Fri 18th May 07The Publishing Research Consortium has released a new report, Do Open Access Articles Have Greater Citation Impact? A critical review of the literature, May 17, 2007. The authors are Iain D Craig (Wiley-Blackwell), Andrew M. Plume (Elsevier),...

posted to
Open Access News on
Thu 18th Jan 07Stevan Harnad, Citation Advantage For OA Self-Archiving Is Independent of Journal Impact Factor, Article Age, and Number of Co-Authors, Open Access Archivangelism, January 17, 2007. Summary: Eysenbach has suggested that the OA (Green) self-archiving...

posted to
Open Access News on
Wed 17th Jan 07Philip M. Davis, Citation advantage of Open Access articles likely explained by quality differential and media effects, PLoS Biology, a letter to the editor, January 16, 2007. Here's the abstract from Davis' self-archived edition of the letter: In...

posted to
Informaticopia on
Tue 16th May 06The Open Access AdvantageThis editorial by Gunther Eysenbach in the Journal of Medical Internet Research follows up his paper "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles" in PLoS BiologyHe suggests that the citation gap between open access and non-open access...

posted to
evolgen on
Wed 17th May 06PLoS Biology has an article with data that supports the hypothesis that open access articles receive more citations than articles hidden behind a toll (summary available here). The author compared open access and non-open access articles in PNAS, controlling...
Everybody felt it must be true, but there were no hard data on it. That is, until now. The new issue of PloS - Biology just published a study that demonstrates that papers published in Open Access journals get cited more than papers hidden behind the subscription...

posted to
Open Access News on
Wed 17th May 06Sophie Hebden, Open-access research makes a bigger splash, SciDev.Net, May 17, 2006. Excerpt: Scientific papers published in online journals that are open-access have a bigger impact and are cited more frequently than papers readers must pay for, according...

posted to
Open Access News on
Mon 15th May 06Gunther Eysenbach, Citation advantage of open access articles, PLoS Biology, May 2006. 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....

posted to
Open Access News on
Fri 26th May 06Dorothea Salo, Both/And, Caveat Lector, May 25, 2006. Excerpt: The author of last weeks open-access citation-advantage article has been getting strong pushback from Stevan Harnad. His latest response is well worth reading (except for one small quotation that...

posted to
Open Access News on
Wed 17th May 06Dorothea Salo, That's the stuff, Caveat Lector, May 16, 2006. Excerpt: So a couple months after the kerfuffle about how to explain citation advantages for open-access articles, a new study comes out saying no, no, it really is the open-access advantage.This...