Elsevier

Journal of Critical Care

Volume 46, August 2018, Pages 88-93
Journal of Critical Care

Education and Publishing
An examination of the effect of open versus paywalled access publication on the disseminative impact and citation count of publications in intensive care medicine and anesthesia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We aimed to determine if publishing in the open access forum increases dissemination of scholarly articles

  • ICM researchers have embraced open access publication as shown by a high proportion of articles available as open access

  • Allowing a scholarly article to be available as open access in the medium term can potentially increase its dissemination

  • The hybrid publishing approach has a strong influence over what articles are shared online

  • Altmetrics appear to correlate with future citation counts although a prospective study is needed to confirm this

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to assess the impact of open access (OA) versus paywalled access (PA) publication on Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) and whether AAS correlates with future citation count access in the context of intensive care medicine (ICM) and anesthesia.

Methods

1854 and 2935 publications, in the year 2015, were identified in ICM and anesthesia respectively, using a Pubmed search. The mean AAS was measured for each article.

Results

More ICM articles were OA, compared to of anesthesia articles (38.9% v 35.0% p = 0.02). The mean AAS for OA ICM publications was significantly higher than that of PA ICM publications (17.34 vs 8.45, p < 0.01), however, this was not observed when examined in a fixed follow up time frame. AAS appear to correlate with future citation counts.

Conclusions

ICM publications that are available as OA in the medium term result in higher AAS when compared to PA publications, this phenomenon was not observed in anesthesia. AAS correlate with future citation counts, however, a larger study is required to confirm this.

Introduction

There are approximately 28,100 active science and medical peer-review journals (in English), publishing approximately 2.5 million articles per year. The volume scientific publishing is accelerating annually [1]. Historically, medical journals have been available in paper format only and subject to subscription fees. This model has now evolved to become more nuanced, where most major journals now use a hybrid approach that sees some articles published as open access (OA) and others behind a paywall (i.e. paywalled access – PA) for a prescribed amount of time. Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of OA medical journals. There are approximately 28,100 active peer-review journals, 7245 (25.8%) of which, are fully OA [1]. This number is increasing annually [2]. OA, in theory, promotes free sharing of scientific publication and the potential for wider circulation of a publication.

The specialties of intensive care medicine (ICM) and emergency medicine have moved towards ‘free open access medical education’, or FOAMEd [3]. The aim is to promote free medical information across a number of online media. FOAMEd resources are frequently shared with the use of Twitter and the hashtag ‘#FOAMed’. In addition, the number of registered users of scientific social networks including academia.edu, ResearchGate and Mendeley has rapidly grown [1]. This could indicate a change in attitude and increased willingness for scientists to adapt modern social media platforms.

Traditionally, the impact of a publication has been measured using citation count and, for a journal, impact factor. Citation counts and impact factor [4,5] have both been subject to scrutiny. New, ‘alternative’ metrics have evolved and have sought to account for the increase in sharing of medical research over social media platforms. One such example is the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS – Altmetric.com) which measures the impact of an individual article's online dissemination [6]. It is calculated with a score based on weighted, composite quantitative measure of online attention based on volume, authors and sources [7]. The AAS uses an algorithm based on multiple media outlets which are weighted depending on the relative reach of each source [8]. A high AAS suggests greater dissemination. However, the AAS is sensitive to many modes of free social media (such as Twitter and Facebook) and thus, there is potential for manipulation by authors and publishers to falsely inflate their AAS. It is therefore difficult to determine if a high AAS is due to the significance and quality of an article or due to whimsical sharing of articles across social media.

To our knowledge, there has been no study thus far examining whether OA or PA publication influences dissemination metrics as measured by Altmetric scores in ICM and anesthesia.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The primary aim of this study was to determine whether the access status (OA vs PA) of an article had any influence on the online dissemination of publications as measured by the AAS. We hypothesised that the rapid adaptation of the ICM community to free sharing of information via social media would lead to a high proportion of OA publications and subsequently higher Altmetric scores for OA versus PA publications. As a comparison, the closely related field of anesthesia was also studied. A

Results

4799 publications in ICM were identified, of which 1854 were included. 2935 publications in anesthesia were identified of which, 1527 were included. All articles from ICM and anesthesia specific journals and articles from other medical journals with relevant clinical application were included. The broad search terms resulted in many articles from unrelated disciplines (e.g. veterinary medicine, psychology, epidemiology), nursing journals, dietetics and laboratory sciences appearing in the

Discussion

This study demonstrates that a higher proportion of ICM articles are available as OA when compared to anesthesia (38.9% vs 35.0%, p = 0.02). It also demonstrates that ICM manuscript dissemination appears to be higher in papers published as oA when compared to PA as measured by AAS. This phenomenon was not observed in anesthesia. All ICM articles, regardless of access status, had higher AAS compared to anesthesia. If taken at face value, this appears to satisfy our overall aim of determining

Conclusion

ICM publications that are available as OA in the medium term result in higher AAS when compared to PA publications, this phenomenon was not observed in anesthesia. AAS correlate with future citation counts, however, a larger study is required to confirm this.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Declarations of interest

None.

Author's contributions

C.S.B.: Conception, data collection, preparation of manuscript.

D.L: Data collection.

C.B.: Statistical analysis.

B.D.O'D: Preparation of manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

None.

References (21)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (9)

  • The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis

    2022, Journal of Dentistry
    Citation Excerpt :

    The dissemination of medical research in the mass media can affect patients, public, researchers, physicians and healthcare providers and their behaviors [55]. However, before promoting OA for its ‘altmetrics advantage’, it is worth noting that high AAS might accrue as a result of social media sharing and cannot be a substitute for standard peer-review [31], and that there is inherent difficulty in determining whether sharing a scientific article on social media implies its quality or scientific merit [52]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the long-term impact of OA on citation count and AAS of dental journal articles.

  • Manuscript characteristics associated with the altmetrics score and social media presence: an analysis of seven spine journals

    2021, Spine Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    Additional advantages include its immediate availability after publication, incorporation of a more diverse audience readership, and ability to track attention over time [8,9]. Increasing interest in the AAS has led to research in the fields of cardiology [10], neurology [11], dermatology [12], orthopaedics [13,14], plastic surgery [15], anesthesiology [16], radiology [17], and urology [18]. Major spine journals that currently report AAS for each article on their official website include Spine, Clinical Spine Surgery, Global Spine Journal, and European Spine Journal.

  • How do self-archiving and Author-pays models associate and contribute to OA citation advantage within hybrid journals

    2019, Journal of Academic Librarianship
    Citation Excerpt :

    The second dimension of the association relates to citation performance of OA papers. According to OA literature, OA papers experience citation advantage (OACA) (Black, Lehane, & Burns, 2018; Breugelmans et al., 2018; Nelson & Eggett, 2017; Xia, Myers, & Wilhoite, 2011). OACA is defined as the surplus of citations received by OA papers compared to non-open access (NOA) papers.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text