Characterization of an Open-Access Medical News Platform's Readership During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There are many alternatives to direct journal access, such as podcasts, blogs, and news sites, that allow physicians and the general public to stay up to date with medical literature. However, there is a scarcity of literature that investigates the readership characteristics of open-access medical news sites and how these characteristics may have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess readership and survey data to characterize open-access medical news readership trends related to the COVID-19 pandemic and overall readership trends regarding pandemic-related information delivery. METHODS: Anonymous, aggregate readership data were obtained from 2 Minute Medicine, an open-access, physician-run medical news organization that has published over 8000 original, physician-written texts and visual summaries of new medical research since 2013. In this retrospective observational study, the average number of article views, number of actions (defined as the sum of the number of views, shares, and outbound link clicks), read times, and bounce rates (probability of leaving a page in <30 s) were compared between COVID-19 articles published from January 1 to May 31, 2020 (n=40) and non-COVID-19 articles (n=145) published in the same time period. A voluntary survey was also sent to subscribed 2 Minute Medicine readers to further characterize readership demographics and preferences, which were scored on a Likert scale. RESULTS: COVID-19 articles had a significantly higher median number of views than non-COVID-19 articles (296 vs 110; U=748.5; P<.001). There were no significant differences in average read times (P=.12) or bounce rates (P=.12). Non-COVID-19 articles had a higher median number of actions than COVID-19 articles (2.9 vs 2.5; U=2070.5; P=.02). On a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), our survey data revealed that 65.5% (78/119) of readers agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred staying up to date with emerging literature about COVID-19 by using sources such as 2 Minute Medicine instead of journals. A greater proportion of survey respondents also indicated that open-access news sources were one of their primary sources for staying informed (86/120, 71.7%) compared to the proportion who preferred direct journal article access (61/120, 50.8%). The proportion of readers indicating they were reading one or less full-length medical studies a month were lower following introduction to 2 Minute Medicine compared to prior (21/120, 17.5% vs 38/120, 31.6%; P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: The readership significantly increased for one open-access medical literature platform during the pandemic. This reinforces the idea that open-access, physician-written sources of medical news represent an important alternative to direct journal access for readers who want to stay up to date with medical literature.

Open access publishers: The new players.

The essential role of journals as registries of scientific activity in all areas of knowledge justifies concern about their ownership and type of access. The purpose of this research is to analyze the main characteristics of publishers with journals that have received the DOAJ Seal. The specific objectives are a) to identify publishers and journals registered with the DOAJ Seal; b) to characterize those publishers; and c) to analyze their article processing fees. The research method involved the use of the DOAJ database, the Seal option and the following indicators: publisher, title, country, number of articles, knowledge area, article processing charges in USD, time for publication in weeks, and year of indexing in DOAJ. The results reveal a fast-rising oligopoly, dominated by Springer with 35% of the titles and PLOS with more than 20% of the articles. We've identified three models of expansion: a) a few titles with hundreds of articles; b) a high number of titles with a mix of big and small journals; and c) a high number of titles with medium-size journals. We identify a high number of titles without APCs (27%) in all areas while medicine was found to be the most expensive area. Commercial publishers clearly exercise control over the scope of journals and the creation of new titles, according to the interests of their companies, which are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community or of society in general.

Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows.

INTRODUCTION: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access. METHODS: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing. RESULTS: The total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy. CONCLUSIONS: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.

Citation advantage for open access articles in European Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a difference in citation rate between open access and subscription access articles in the field of radiology. METHODS: This study included consecutive original articles published online in European Radiology. Pearson χ2, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess for any differences between open access and subscription access articles. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between open access publishing and citation rate, adjusted for continent of origin, subspeciality, study findings in article title, number of authors, number of references, length of the article, and number of days the article has been online. In a secondary analysis, we determined the association between open access and number of downloads and shares. RESULTS: A total of 500 original studies, of which 86 (17.2%) were open access and 414 (82.8%) were subscription access articles, were included. Articles from Europe or North America were significantly more frequently published open access (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001), while articles with corresponding authors from Asia were significantly less frequently published open access (p < 0.001). In adjusted linear regression analysis, open access articles were significantly more frequently cited (beta coefficient = 3.588, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.668 to 6.508, p = 0.016), downloaded (beta coefficient = 759.801, 95% CI 630.917 to 888.685, p < 0.001), and shared (beta coefficient = 0.748, 95% CI 0.124 to 1.372, p = 0.019) than subscription access articles (beta coefficient = 3.94, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 6.44, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Open access publishing is independently associated with an increased citation, download, and share rate in the field of radiology. KEY POINTS: • A minority of articles are currently published open access in European Radiology. • European and North American authors tend to publish more open access articles than Asian authors. • Open access publishing seems to offer an independent advantage in terms of citation, download, and share rate.

The Quality and Readability of English Wikipedia Anatomy Articles.

Forty anatomy articles were sampled from English Wikipedia and assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, each article's edit history was analyzed by Wikipedia X-tools, references and media were counted manually, and two readability indices were used to evaluate article readability. This analysis revealed that each article was updated 8.3 ± 6.8 times per month, and referenced with 33.5 ± 24.3 sources, such as journal articles and textbooks. Each article contained on average 14.0 ± 7.6 media items. The readability indices including: (1) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Test and (2) Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula demonstrated that the articles had low readability and were more appropriate for college students and above. Qualitatively, the sampled articles were evaluated by experts using a modified DISCERN survey. According to the modified DISCERN, 13 articles (32.5%), 24 articles (60%), 3 articles (7.5%), were rated as "good," "moderate," and "poor," respectively. There were positive correlations between the DISCERN score and the number of edits (r = 0.537), number of editors (r = 0.560), and article length (r = 0.536). Strengths reported by the panel included completeness and coverage in 11 articles (27.5%), anatomical details in 10 articles (25%), and clinical details in 5 articles (12.5%). The panel also noted areas which could be improved, such as providing missing information in 28 articles (70%), inaccuracies in 10 articles (25%), and lack or poor use of images in 17 articles (42.5%). In conclusion, this study revealed that many Wikipedia anatomy articles were difficult to read. Each article's quality was dependent on edit frequency and article length. Learners and students should be cautious when using Wikipedia articles for anatomy education due to these limitations.

A new era for research publication: Will Open Access become the norm?

The progress of JDI travels in optimistic paces with optimistic persons. A remarkable rise in Impact Factor was observed after the introduction of Open Access. It seems that there is a positive relationship between online usage and Impact Factor.

Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives.

Open access (OA) publishing is a recent phenomenon in scientific publishing, enabling free access to knowledge worldwide. In the Indian context, OA to science has been facilitated by government-funded repositories of student and doctoral theses, and many Indian society journals are published with platinum OA. The proportion of OA publications from India is significant in a global context, and Indian journals are increasingly available on OA repositories such as Pubmed Central, and Directory of Open Access Journals. However, OA in India faces numerous challenges, including low-quality or predatory OA journals, and the paucity of funds to afford gold OA publication charges. There is a need to increase awareness amongst Indian academics regarding publication practices, including OA, and its potential benefits, and utilize this modality of publication whenever feasible, as in publicly-funded research, or when platinum OA is available, while avoiding falling prey to poor quality OA journals.

Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools.

The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice.

Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature.

Open access publication rates have been steadily increasing over time. In spite of this growth, academics in low income settings struggle to gain access to the full canon of research literature. While the vast majority of open access repositories and funding organizations with open access policies are based in high income countries, the geographic patterns of open access publication itself are not well characterized. In this study, we developed a computational approach to better understand the topical and geographical landscape of open access publications in the biomedical research literature. Surprisingly, we found a strong negative correlation between country per capita income and the percentage of open access publication. Open access publication rates were particularly high in sub-Saharan Africa, but vastly lower in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific. These effects persisted when considering papers only bearing authors from within each region and income group. However, papers resulting from international collaborations did have a higher percentage of OA than single-country papers, and inter-regional collaboration increased OA publication for all world regions. There was no clear relationship between the number of open access policies in a region and the percentage of open access publications in that region. To understand the distribution of open access across topics of biomedical research, we examined keywords that were most enriched and depleted in open access papers. Keywords related to genomics, computational biology, animal models, and infectious disease were enriched in open access publications, while keywords related to the environment, nursing, and surgery were depleted in open access publications. This work identifies geographic regions and fields of research that could be priority areas for open access advocacy. The finding that open access publication rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and low income countries suggests that factors other than open access policy strongly influence authors' decisions to make their work openly accessible. The high proportion of OA resulting from international collaborations indicates yet another benefit of collaborative research. Certain applied fields of medical research, notably nursing, surgery, and environmental fields, appear to have a greater proportion of fee-for-access publications, which presumably creates barriers that prevent researchers and practitioners in low income settings from accessing the literature in those fields.

Open Access Publishing and Subsequent Citations Among Articles in Major Cardiovascular Journals.

BACKGROUND: While open access publishing among cardiovascular journals has increased in scope over the last decade, the relationship between open access and article citation volume remains unclear. METHODS: We evaluated the association between open access publishing and citation number in 2017 among 4 major cardiovascular journals. Articles indexed to PubMed with ≥5 citations were identified among the following journals: Circulation, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and JAMA Cardiology. Multivariable Poisson regression models were adjusted for journal and article type. RESULTS: Of the 916 articles published in 2017, original investigations accounted for most articles (66.7%), followed by reviews (14.5%), guideline/scientific statements (8.4%), research letters (3.7%), viewpoints (3.7%), and editorials (2.9%). Among all articles, 43% (n = 391) were open access. Citation number was higher among open access articles compared with those with subscription access (14 [25th-75th percentile: 9-23] vs 11 [25th-75th percentile: 7-17]; P < .001). Open access status was significantly associated with higher number of citations after multivariable adjustment (ß coefficient: +0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.45, P < .001). Open access articles had consistently higher citations compared with subscription access articles across the 3 most frequent article types. CONCLUSION: Among contemporary articles published in major cardiovascular journals, open access publishing accounted for over 40% of articles and was significantly associated with increased short-term citations. Further research is required to assess the variation in long-term citation rates based on open access publishing status.

Automatic detection of image manipulations in the biomedical literature.

Images in scientific papers are used to support the experimental description and the discussion of the findings since several centuries. In the field of biomedical sciences, in particular, the use of images to depict laboratory results is widely diffused, at such a level that one would not err in saying that there is barely any experimental paper devoid of images to document the attained results. With the advent of software for digital image manipulation, however, even photographic reproductions of experimental results may be easily altered by researchers, leading to an increasingly high rate of scientific papers containing unreliable images. In this paper I introduce a software pipeline to detect some of the most diffuse misbehaviours, running two independent tests on a random set of papers and on the full publishing record of a single journal. The results obtained by these two tests support the feasibility of the software approach and imply an alarming level of image manipulation in the published record.

Poor Access for African Researchers to African Emergency Care Publications: A Cross-sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Based on relative population size and burden of disease, emergency care publication outputs from low- and middle-income regions are disproportionately lower than those of high-income regions. Ironically, outputs from regions with higher publication rates are often less relevant in the African context. As a result, the dissemination of and access to local research is essential to local researchers, but the cost of this access (actual and cost-wise) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to describe access to African emergency care publications in terms of publisher-based access (open access or subscription) and alternate access (self-archived or author provided), as well as the cost of access. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study using all emergency medicine publications included in Scopus between 2011 and 2015. A sequential search strategy described access to each article, and we calculated mean article charges against the purchasing power parity index (used to describe out-of-pocket expense). RESULTS: We included 666 publications from 49 journals, of which 395 (59.3%) were open access. For subscription-based articles, 106 (39.1%) were self-archived, 60 (22.1%) were author-provided, and 105 (38.8%) were inaccessible. Mean article access cost was $36.44, and mean processing charge was $2,319.34. Using the purchasing power parity index it was calculated that equivalent out-of-pocket expenditure for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors would respectively be $15.77, $10.44 and $13.04 for access, and $1,004.02, $664.36 and $830.27 for processing. Based on this, the corrected cost of a single-unit article access or process charge for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors, respectively, was 2.3, 3.5 and 2.8 times higher than the standard rate. CONCLUSION: One in six African emergency care publications are inaccessible outside institutional library subscriptions; additionally, the cost of access to publications in low- and middle-income countries appears prohibitive. Publishers should strongly consider revising pricing for more equitable access for researchers from low- and middle-income countries.