Abstract: Both the impact factor of the journal and immediate full-text availability in Pubmed Central (PMC) have featured in editorials before.1-3 In 2004, the editor of the Cardiovascular Journal of Africa (CVJA) lamented, like so many others, the injustice of not having an impact factor, its validity as a tool for measuring science output, and the negative effect of a low perceived impact in drawing attention from publications from developing countries.1,4
Since then, after a selection process, we have been indexed by the Web of Science® (WoS) and Thomson Reuters (Philadelphia, PA, USA), and have seen a growing impact factor. In the case of PMC, our acceptance to this database was announced in 2012,2 and now we are proud that it is active and full-text articles are available dating back to 2009. The journal opted for immediate full open access (OA), which means that full-text articles are available on publication date for anybody with access to the internet.
“Like the proverbial tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it, science discoveries cannot have an impact unless people learn about them. The act of communication is part and parcel of doing research. And in an era increasingly defined by open access, crowdfunding, and citizen science endeavors, there is a growing demand for researchers to communicate their findings not just within their field—via institutional seminars, conference presentations, and peer-reviewed publications—but to general audiences as well. One of our main endeavors as scientists then, must be to present discoveries about which the public will care….To succeed as science communicators, we must go beyond making the science facts accessible to general audiences….”
Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles.
“Moedas has also sketched out the objectives around which he wishes to see FP9 revolve. These are Open Science, Open Innovation, and Open to the World. These are useful umbrella terms with which to frame FP9 but to this point they have been described too narrowly and unambitiously, in our view, in order to develop the next step in EU Framework Programmes….Narrow understandings of innovation and impact have hampered Horizon 2020’s ability to be an open research and innovation programme that speaks to all disciplines, participants, companies and countries, and most importantly have meant that innovative and impactful research has not always been supported where it could. This is particularly the case for the humanities and social sciences….In addition, we would recommend that impact and the desire for open science should encapsulate support for the digitisation and the translation of research into widely read languages….We recommend that the Commission begins now in discussing with counterparts how an Open to the World strategy in the mould of a Global Research Area can be developed in time for the start of FP9….The Commission should be aiming to enable an open framework for creativity to flourish, which focuses on setting simple and encouraging ground rules and foundations for researchers then to apply and work creatively within….”
“A collection of studies that have investigated the potential Open Access citation advantage. The majority, to date, have concluded that there is a significant citation advantage for Open Access articles. Much of the data here is sourced from The Open Access Citation Advantage Service, SPARC Europe (accessed August 2017) …”
“Research has always had a wide impact on society, but this does not always come in the form of a clearly defined outcome, application, or effect. It frequently occurs as a more gradual development in the understanding of the consequences of new knowledge. It may also happen long after the corresponding research was done, or be the outcome of repeated interactions between research and society. This can make societal impact difficult or impossible to trace back and attribute to the specific research from which it originated. In addition, that research may have already been evaluated without this impact having been taken into account.”
“Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2–5 following an article’s publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8–42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14–40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits ?27–3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.”
“A new assessment of the first years of Horizon 2020, the EU’s research and innovation programme, shows that it is on track to help create jobs and growth, tackle our biggest societal challenges and improve people’s lives. Horizon 2020 has clear European added value by producing demonstrable benefits compared to national or regional-level support, but it has been so successful in attracting the best researchers and innovators that it could have spent four times its budget in support of excellent projects.
Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation said: “Horizon 2020’s interim evaluation and stakeholder feedback confirm that an EU programme for research and innovation is an invaluable asset for Europe that fuels economic growth, creates the jobs of tomorrow and tackles the societal challenges of our time. However, we can always do even better, and will use the lessons learned to make Horizon 2020’s last three years even more effective, and to design a fit-for-purpose successor programme“. …”
“The EC has released an interim set of working documents to measure the impact and effectiveness of the Horizon2020 Work Programme. Although it is still in the early days, the Work Programme is proving so far a success in terms of relevance, efficiency, and coherence. OpenAIRE is happy to announce that the EC is actively incorporating OpenAIRE’s data in the report: “The OpenAire database indicates that 65.2% of Horizon 2020 publications are in open-access and 65.4% of the projects covered by the Open Data pilot make scientific data accessible and re-usable” (1) Important to note: 11,000 projects have been funded, and only 10% of projects have finished….”