Open Access: Opening or Closing Doors for Junior Faculty?

The Open Access movement has transformed the landscape of medical publishing. Federal regulations regarding Open Access have expanded in the USA, and journals have adapted by offering a variety of Open Access models that range widely in cost and accessibility. For junior faculty with little to no funding, navigating this ever-changing landscape while simultaneously balancing the pressures of publication and promotion may present a particular challenge. Open Access provides the opportunity to amplify the reach and impact of scientific research, yet it often comes at a cost that may not be universally affordable. In this perspective, we discuss the impact of Open Access through the lens of junior faculty in general internal medicine. We describe the potential benefits and pitfalls of Open Access on junior faculty with a focus on research dissemination and cost. Finally, we propose sustainable solutions at the individual and systems-level to help navigate the world of Open Access to promote career growth and development.

Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?

Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.

Impact of Open Access Policy on Brazilian Science and Global Trends.

Open access (OA) publishing provides free online access to research articles without subscription fees. In Brazil, absence of financial support from academic institutions and limited government policies pose challenges to OA publication. Here, we used data from the Web of Science and Scopus to compare with global trends in journal accessibility and scientific quality metrics. Brazilian authors publish more OA articles, particularly in Global South journals. While OA correlates with quality for global authors, it had no impact on Brazilian science. To maximize impact, Brazilian authors should prioritize Q1 journals regardless of OA status. High-impact or Global North journal publication seems more relevant for Brazilian science than OA. Our findings indicate that the present open access policy has been ineffective to improve the impact of Brazilian science, providing insights to guide the formulation of scientific public policies.

Can You Pay Your Way to Readership? Free to Publish Open Access Formats Receive Greater Readership and Citations Than Paid Open Access Formats in Total Knee Arthroplasty Literature.

BACKGROUND: As publishing with open access is becoming increasingly popular within orthopaedics, understanding the types of publishing options available and what each may deliver is critically important. Hybrid articles require a high article processing charge. Open journal articles have a lower fee, while closed license articles are freely accessible at no charge. Open repository articles are peer-reviewed manuscripts posted freely online. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between article type and resulting citations, social media attention, and readership in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature. METHODS: Open access TKA journal articles published since 2016 were found using the Altmetric Explorer Database. Data gathered included the Altmetric Attention Score (attention), Mendeley Readership Score (readership), and citations per article. Articles were grouped by type: open journal, hybrid, closed license, and open repository. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Tukey's analysis; α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 9,606 publications were included. The open repository had the greatest mean citations (14.40), while open journal (9.55) had fewer than all other categories (P < .001). Hybrid had the greatest mean attention (10.35), and open journal (6.16) had a lower mean attention than all other categories (P ≤ .002). Open repository had the greatest mean readership (44.68), and open journal (34.00) had a lower mean readership than all other categories (P ≤ .012). The mean publication fee for paid publication options was $1,792 United States dollars. CONCLUSIONS: In open access TKA literature, free-to-publish open repositories had the greatest mean citations and readership. Free publication options, open repositories and closed licenses, had greater readership compared to paid publication options.

The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals.

The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) imposed a public access policy on all publications for which the research was supported by their grants; the policy was drafted in 2004 and took effect in 2008. The policy is now 11 years old, yet no analysis has been presented to assess whether in fact this largest-scale US-based public access policy affected the vitality of the scholarly publishing enterprise, as manifested in changed mortality or natality rates of biomedical journals. We show here that implementation of the NIH policy was associated with slightly elevated mortality rates and mildly depressed natality rates of biomedical journals, but that birth rates so exceeded death rates that numbers of biomedical journals continued to rise, even in the face of the implementation of such a sweeping public access policy.

The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource.

Citation data have remained hidden behind proprietary, restrictive licensing agreements, which raises barriers to entry for analysts wishing to use the data, increases the expense of performing large-scale analyses, and reduces the robustness and reproducibility of the conclusions. For the past several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) has been aggregating and enhancing citation data that can be shared publicly. Here, we describe the NIH Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), a public access database for biomedical research that is made freely available to the community. This dataset, which has been carefully generated from unrestricted data sources such as MedLine, PubMed Central (PMC), and CrossRef, now underlies the citation statistics delivered in the NIH iCite analytic platform. We have also included data from a machine learning pipeline that identifies, extracts, resolves, and disambiguates references from full-text articles available on the internet. Open citation links are available to the public in a major update of iCite (https://icite.od.nih.gov).