Abstract
Background: Open access (OA) publishing is rapidly emerging in almost all disciplines,
with variable intensity and effect on the discipline itself. The move toward OA is also observed in the
field of respiratory and pulmonology, where both OA data repositories and OA journals are rapidly
emerging.
Objective: we aim to study the open-access status of respiratory and pulmonology journals and the
impact of the open-access status on journal indices.
Methods: We collected journal’s data from Scopus Source List on 1st of November 2018. We filtered
the list for respiratory and pulmonology journals. Open Access Journals covered by Scopus are
recognized as Open Access if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD). For each journal, we used
several metrics to measure its strength, and then we compared these metrics between OA and non-
OA journals.
Results: There were 125 respiratory and pulmonology journals, a number that has increased by
12.6% since 2011. Moreover, the percentage of OA journals has increased from 21.6% to 26.4%
during the same period. Non-OA journals have significantly higher scholarly output (p= 0.033), but
OA journals have significantly higher percentage of citation (p= 0.05).
Conclusion: Publishing in OA journals will yield a higher citation percentage compared to non-OA
journals. Although this should not be the only reason to publish in an OA journal, it is still an
important factor to decide where to publish.
Keywords:
Bibliometry, journals, open access, pulmonology, respiratory, impact.
Graphical Abstract
[1]
Dai N, Xu D, Zhong X, Li L, Ling Q, Bu Z. Publishing in open access era: Focus on respiratory journals. J Thorac Dis 2014; 6(5): 564.
[2]
Jones R. Open access publishing: A new direction for medical journals. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62(603): 514-5.
[3]
Björk BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med 2012; 10(1): 73.
[4]
Frank M. Open but not free-publishing in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(9): 787-9.
[5]
Eysenbach G. The open access advantage. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8(2): e8.
[6]
White ES, Brown KK, Collard HR, et al. Open-access biorepository for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The way forward. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11(8): 1171-5.
[7]
AlRyalat SA, Al-Essa M, Ghazal R, et al. Chest x-ray in sarcoidosis: The association of age, gender, and ethnicity with different radiological findings. Curr Respir Med Rev 2017; 13(4): 241-6.
[8]
Wise MP, Chapman SJ. BMJ Open Respiratory Research: 1 year on. BMJ Open 2015; 2(1): e000077.
[9]
Michalopoulos A, Falagas ME. A bibliometric analysis of global research production in respiratory medicine. Chest 2005; 128(6): 3993-8.
[10]
Bielsa S, Porcel JM. Trends in pleural effusion research: A bibliometric analysis from the scopus database. Pleura 2016; 3: 2373997516646555.
[11]
Sa’ed HZ. Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16(1): 255.
[12]
Björk BC, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, Guðnason G. Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One 2010; 5(6): e11273.
[13]
Davis PM. Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB J 2011; 25(7): 2129-34.
[14]
Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: A review of recent research. Journal of the Medical
Library Association: JMLA 2011; 99(3): 208.
[15]
Vassallo R, Confalonieri M, Yawn B. The value and scope of subspecialty biomedical journals: Perspectives from either side of the Atlantic. Cardiocore 2015; 50(2): 53-5.
[16]
Aldeen S, Alryalat S, Momani S. A Beginner’s Guide to Using
Open Access Data.1st ed.. CRC Press: Taylor and Francis Group 2019.
Download PDF Flyer