Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology
  1. Gabriel Levin1,2,
  2. Ross Harrison3,
  3. Jonathan Ledermann4,
  4. Raanan Meyer5,6,
  5. Robert L Coleman7 and
  6. Pedro T Ramirez8
  1. 1Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  2. 2The Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  3. 3Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  4. 4University College, UCL Cancer Institute, London, England, UK
  5. 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
  6. 6Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
  7. 7Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI), HCA Healthcare, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
  8. 8Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gabriel Levin, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, Canada; levin.gaby{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.

Method A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980–2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.

Results Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018–2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%–41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5–5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6–2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).

Conclusion OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.

  • Surgical Oncology

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Overall, 18,515 articles were included of which 2,398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018-2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range; 28.5%-41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median [IQR], 3.0 [1.5-5.3] vs. 1.3 [0.6-2.7], p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle income countries were less common among OA articles compared to non-OA articles (5.5% vs. 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle income countries were less common in the high CPY group compared to articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs. 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.2-5.7]), research funding reported (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and being published OA (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8; Asia, aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7).

  • Twitter @rcoledude, @pedroramirezMD

  • Contributors GL: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review, editing and guarantor. RM: data curation, investigation, methodology, writing—review. RH, JL, and RLC: writing—review, and editing. PTR: conceptualization, methodology, writing—review, and editing, supervision, conceptualization, project administration.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.