Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23986284›Full record

ArticleCroatian medical journal2013

Open access: changing global science publishing.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Lilit Ayvazyan, George D Kitas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Croatian medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Article
  4. Modern Health Journalism and the Impact of Social Media.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Steps towards quality of open access publishing.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Should We be More "Open" About Publishing Research?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Turkish journal of hematology: from "istanbul contribution to clinical science" to "pubmed central".Turkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Armen Yuri GasparyanArmen Yuri Gasparyan, Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (A Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, United Kingdom, a.gasparyan@gmail.com.
Lilit Ayvazyan
George D Kitas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The article reflects on open access as a strategy of changing the quality of science communication globally. Successful examples of open-access journals are presented to highlight implications of archiving in open digital repositories for the quality and citability of research output. Advantages and downsides of gold, green, and hybrid models of open access operating in diverse scientific environments are described. It is assumed that open access is a global trend which influences the workflow in scholarly journals, changing their quality, credibility, and indexability.

Indexed as

Access to InformationHumansPeriodicals as TopicPublishing

Identifiers

PMID23986284
PMCPMC3760666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.