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.

Efficacy and safety of Syferol-IHP for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease: a pilot, double-blind randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there is no prior randomized study on the utility of Syferol-IHP (blend of virgin coconut oil and Ocimum sanctum oil) when coadministered with a triple therapy schedule. AIM: This study determined the efficacy and safety of Syferol-IHP as adjunct to conventional triple therapy for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). METHODS: A pilot double-blind randomized trial was conducted in patients with confirmed diagnosis (endoscopy-guided biopsy) of PUD. Eligible patients were randomized to Pylorest (a three-in-one tablet containing rabeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg) and Syferol-IHP for 2 weeks, followed by rabeprazole and Syferol-IHP for 2 weeks or Pylorest and placebo for 2 weeks, followed by rabeprazole and placebo for 2 weeks. Repeat endoscopy-guided biopsy and histology were done 4 weeks posttherapy. Primary outcome measures were the healing of ulcer and eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Secondary outcome measures were the disappearance of epigastric pain, gastritis, and duodenitis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients enrolled, 60 patients had complete evaluation, with 37 patients receiving Pylorest and Syferol-IHP and 23 patients receiving Pylorest and Placebo. Healing of the PUD in favor of Pylorest and Syferol-IHP was significantly higher for gastric ulcer (RR=0.000, 95% CI=undefined, P=0.048) but not for duodenal ulcer (RR=0.400, 95% CI=0.07-2.37, P=0.241). H. pylori eradication was 100% with Syferol-IHP vs 50% with placebo (P=0.066). Epigastric pain (reduction to 16.2% vs 43.5%; P=0.021), gastritis (reduction to 13.5% vs 39.1%; P = 0.024), and duodenitis (reduction to 0% vs 8.7%; P=0.327) were observed in the Syferol-IHP and Pylorest vs placebo and Pylorest groups, respectively. Adverse events (RR=0.971, 95% CI=0.46-2.04, P=0.937) and laboratory parameters were not significantly different pre- and posttherapies (P>0.05, for both groups). CONCLUSION: Although both treatment arms were equally safe, co-administration of Syferol-IHP and triple therapy is more efficacious than triple therapy alone for treating PUD. Pan African Clinical trial registry identifier number is PACTR201606001665364.