Article Text
PDF
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
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
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.