ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2016
Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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 academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Mapping out the scientific literature on extraction and socket preservation: A Scopus based analysis (1968-2020).The Saudi dental journal · 2022Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of Literature Published on Antibacterial Dental Adhesive from 1996-2020.Polymers · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOpen access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
methodsWe investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies.
results3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals. DISCUSSION: These findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re- assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscription-only format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
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.