Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Five Simultaneous Primary Tumors in a Single Patient: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Multiple primary malignancies (MPMs) are present when a patient is diagnosed with more than one primary malignancy and when each tumor is histologically unrelated to the others. MPMs are considered synchronous when they present within 6 months of one another. Here, we report the case of a 57-year-old woman with a past medical history significant for melanoma in 1988, who presented in 2014 with 5 distinct tumors within 4 months: malignant melanoma of the right popliteal fossa, invasive lobular breast carcinoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma, nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, and a giant cell tumor of tendon sheath/pigmented villonodular synovitis. We discuss her treatment and also present a brief review of the literature. The incidence of MPMs appears to be on the rise, which demands an interdisciplinary, multimodal, and personalized approach to care.