ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2011
The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research.
Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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 societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- How an international research programme can contribute to improvements in the research environment: the perspective of doctoral students in sub-Saharan Africa.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Research artifacts and citations in computer systems papers.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using a Novel Method.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Annotated primary scientific literature: A pedagogical tool for undergraduate courses.PLoS biology · 2019Article
- The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles.PeerJ · 2018Article
- Current state of open access to journal publications from the University of Zagreb School of Medicine.Croatian medical journal · 2016Article
- Article
- Article
- Research articles, labels, and prestige.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2015Article
- Current status on health sciences research productivity pertaining to Angola up to 2014.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Tips on writing and reviewing articles as a non-english speaking medical doctor.Archives of plastic surgery · 2015Article
- Is Biblioleaks inevitable?Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
- From student to steward: the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown University as a case study in professional development during doctoral training.Medical education online · 2014Article
- Pubmed/PMC as the First Line Resource in Biomedicine Field.Journal of reproduction & infertility · 2013Article
- Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure.BMC medicine · 2012Article
- The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe paper reviews recent studies that evaluate the impact of free access (open access) on the behavior of scientists as authors, readers, and citers in developed and developing nations. It also examines the extent to which the biomedical literature is used by the general public.
methodThe paper is a critical review of the literature, with systematic description of key studies.
resultsResearchers report that their access to the scientific literature is generally good and improving. For authors, the access status of a journal is not an important consideration when deciding where to publish. There is clear evidence that free access increases the number of article downloads, although its impact on article citations is not clear. Recent studies indicate that large citation advantages are simply artifacts of the failure to adequately control for confounding variables. The effect of free access on the general public's use of the primary medical literature has not been thoroughly evaluated.
conclusionsRecent studies provide little evidence to support the idea that there is a crisis in access to the scholarly literature. Further research is needed to investigate whether free access is making a difference in non-research contexts and to better understand the dissemination of scientific literature through peer-to-peer networks and other informal mechanisms.
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.