ArticlePloS one2013
Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric Orthopaedic Studies Published Open Access are Associated with Increased Citation Rates.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024Article
- Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Assessing number and quality of urology open access journals: 2011 to 2018.Current urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Broadening Our Horizons: Increasing Diversity of Scientific Publications From Taiwan Emergency Physicians, 2012-2017.Journal of acute medicine · 2019Article
- The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: oncology journals.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Article
- Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant.GigaScience · 2018Article
- Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation.PloS one · 2017Article
- Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines.Lasers in medical science · 2016Article
- Make Data Sharing Routine to Prepare for Public Health Emergencies.PLoS medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Open Access to a High-Quality, Impartial, Point-of-Care Medical Summary Would Save Lives: Why Does It Not Exist?PLoS medicine · 2015Article
- A study with spoof paper - reflection of reviewing processes in open - access journals.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2014Article
- Ethical, Political and Societal Implications of the Open Access Journal Movement in the Era of Economic Crisis, with Emphasis on Public Health Pharmacogenomics.Current pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2013Article
- Open access - is this the future of medical publishing?Croatian medical journal · 2013Article
- Better reporting of scientific studies: why it matters.PLoS medicine · 2013Article
- The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Influence on Resident Research, 2015 to 2019.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Paying to publish: A cross-sectional analysis of article processing charges and journal characteristics among 87 pathology journals.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys.
methodsThe study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: "LinkOut" and "Limits."
resultsThe main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. "LinkOut" could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey. DISCUSSION: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.
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.