“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)”
“This report presents the first major comparative analysis of usage data for OA and non-OA scholarly books, and provides an informed view of how a book benefits from OA publication. It also highlights the challenges involved in measuring the impact of OA on scholarly books and suggests that there is much to do across the whole scholarly communications network in supporting authors and their funders.”
“Global Access in Action, a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, seeks to expand access to lifesaving medicines and combat the communicable disease burden that disproportionately harms the world’s most vulnerable populations. We accomplish this by conducting action-oriented research, supporting breakthrough initiatives, facilitating stakeholder dialogue, and providing policy advice to pharmaceutical firms on best practices to increase impact. GAIA uses its pragmatic and neutral viewpoint to enable dialogue across traditional boundaries between government, industry, nonprofits, and academia, and to promote new, innovative solutions amongst these parties to create better outcomes.”
“In deciding where to publish our research, we have to consider why we do research. While some of us would probably undertake research for the intellectual challenge or excitement of discovery alone, for many of us it is important that our research will impact society in some way. This may be from contributing to the advance of our scientific discipline, or through the use of our research by the public, policymakers or industry. For all of these to come to pass, there is a basic premise that our publications can be found and accessed by those who can make use of the information they contain. Hence one of the key decisions around choice of where to publish is to think of the audience that reads the journal, and whether to make your paper Open Access.”
“This work looks in depth at several studies that have attempted to automate the process of citation importance classification based on the publications full text. We analyse a range of features that have been previously used in this task. Our experimental results confirm that the number of in text references are highly predictive of influence. Contrary to the work of Valenzuela et al. we find abstract similarity one of the most predictive features. Overall, we show that many of the features previously described in literature are not particularly predictive. Consequently, we discuss challenges and potential improvements in the classification pipeline, provide a critical review of the performance of individual features and address the importance of constructing a large scale gold standard reference dataset.”
“Brazil stands out on the international landscape when it comes to open access, a movement launched in the early 2000s with the aim of making scientific output freely available online. According to data compiled by Spanish research group Scimago, 33.5% of the Brazilian articles indexed in the Scopus database in 2016 were published in journals whose content is free to read online as soon as it is published, under a model known as the “golden road.” This is the largest proportion among the 15 nations with the highest volume of scientific output recorded on Scopus. Brazil is also top of the list of nations with the highest number of open access scientific journals (see charts).”
“In their comment, Janssens et al.  offer a critique of the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), objecting to the construction of both the numerator and denominator of the metric. While we strongly agree that any measure used to assess the productivity of research programs should be thoughtfully designed and carefully validated, we believe that the specific concerns outlined in their correspondence are unfounded.
Our original article acknowledged that RCR or, for that matter, any bibliometric measure has limited power to quantify the influence of any very recently published paper, because citation rates are inherently noisy when the absolute number of citations is small . For this reason, in our iCite tool, we have not reported RCRs for papers published in the calendar year previous to the current year . However, while agreeing with our initial assertion that RCR cannot be used to conclusively evaluate recent papers, Janssens et al. also suggest that the failure to report RCRs for new publications might unfairly penalize some researchers. While it is widely understood that it takes time to accurately assess the influence that new papers have on their field, we have attempted to accommodate this concern by updating iCite so that RCRs are now reported for all papers in the database that have at least 5 citations and by adding a visual indicator to flag values for papers published in the last 18 months, which should be considered provisional . This modified practice will be maintained going forward.
Regarding article citation rates of older articles, we have added data on the stability of RCR values to the “Statistics” page of the iCite website [4, 5]. We believe that these new data, which demonstrate that the vast majority of influential papers retain their influence over the period of an investigator’s career, should reassure users that RCR does not unfairly disadvantage older papers. Our analysis of the year-by-year changes in RCR values of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded articles published in 1991 reinforces this point (Fig 1). From 1992–2014, both on the individual level and in aggregate, RCR values are remarkably stable. For cases in which RCRs change significantly, the values typically increase. That said, we strongly believe that the potential for RCR to decrease over time is necessary and important; as knowledge advances and old models are replaced, publications rooted in those outdated models naturally become less influential….”
“A recent study, out as a preprint, offers something of a muddled bag of methodological choices and compromises, but presents several surprising data points, namely that voluntary publisher efforts may be providing broader access to the literature than Gold or Green open access (OA), and some confounding shifts in claims of an open access citation advantage.”
“Has Open Access had a positive impact on your publication or research?
The Open Access Team would love to hear if you or your colleagues have experienced a positive impact on your publication or research as a direct result of it being open access….”
The OA team then posts faculty responses to the web page.
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.