Trends in reader access and article processing charges among urology journals: A systematic review.

Introduction: This bibliometric study is designed to investigate the relations of urology journals with access types and article processing charges (APCs) to assess the changing paradigm in urology publishing. Methods: The three major databases: The Master Journal List directory by Clavirate Analytics, Scopus® and PubMed were queried for relevant journals in urology and subspecialties. Characterization of urology journals was undertaken, and citation metrics and APCs were compared across access types. A partial sampling was used to investigate the number of open access (OA) articles according to access types and correlations with both APCs and CiteScore. Results: Seventy-seven journals were included into the study. Gold and diamond OA journals comprised 35.4% of urology journals in 2009 and were increased to 49.3% in 2022. No significant difference was found for change in the CiteScore of 2017 and 2021 between the access types, F (2,63) = 0.152, P = 0.859, η2 = 0.005. A moderate positive correlation was found between APCs and CiteScore for both hybrid (rs [27] =0.431, P < 0.0005) and gold OA (rs [27] =0.489, P = 0.007) journals. The authors need to pay $1175 more to publish their articles in OA model in hybrid journals. The number of articles published in OA model by hybrid journals were not correlated with APCs (rs = 0.332, P = 0.078) but correlated with CiteScore (rs = 0.393, P = 0.035). Conclusions: A paradigm shift in urology publishing toward OA model has been occurring. Authors choose prestige, OA model, rapid publication, and less rigorous peer-review to publish their articles. APCs bear only moderate correlation with the citation metrics of the urology journals.