ArticlePLoS biology2006
Citation advantage of open access articles.
Article in PLoS biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
118 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial of social media promotion in neurosurgical publishing.Neurosurgical review · 2024Trial
- Citation Advantage of Promoted Articles in a Cross-Publisher Distribution Platform: 36-Month Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Trial
- Authorship, titles and open access as drivers of citation performance in orthopaedics: a scientometric analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
- Two decades (2005 to 2025) of avian influenza research trends, knowledge gaps and distribution of emerging H5N1 2.3.4.4b clade in South Asia.One health outlook · 2026Article
- The Top 50 Cited Articles in Pediatric Neurology: A Bibliometric Analysis.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2026Article
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Pediatric Orthopaedic Studies Published Open Access are Associated with Increased Citation Rates.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024Article
- Bibliometric insights into drug resistance in bladder cancer: Two decades of progress (1999-2022).Heliyon · 2024Article
- Medical magnetic resonance imaging publications in Arab countries: A 25-year bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Research on aerobic fitness in children and adolescents: a bibliometric analysis based on the 100 most-cited articles.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
- Developing a standardized but extendable framework to increase the findability of infectious disease datasets.Scientific data · 2023Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Bacterial Persisters.BioMed research international · 2023Article
- Open reproducible scientometric research with Alexandria3k.PloS one · 2023Article
- Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective.Cureus · 2022Review
- mHealth Research for Weight Loss, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behavior: Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at "quasi-baseline" (December 2004, 0-6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4-10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10-16 mo after publication). Potentially confounding variables, including number of authors, authors' lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2% of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8%) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0%) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8%) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk = 1.3 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.1-1.6]; p = 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 [13.6%], OA: 11 [5.2%]; relative risk = 2.6 [1.4-4.7]; p < 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]) in the first 4-10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5-5.5) 10-16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.