ArticlePloS one2022
The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is it worth publishing Open Access? - the scientific impact of Open Access publications in the field of medical education.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Global research trends and frontier evolution in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Open access and digital morphology data in evolutionary biology: expanding frontiers of knowledge.BMC ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- A strategic approach to multi-omics literature retrieval in next generation mammalian cell bioprocessing.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025Review
- FAIR data for optical tweezers experiments.Biophysical journal · 2025Review
- Study on the impact and attention of cover papers for PLOS journals: Evidence from propensity score matching.PloS one · 2025Article
- Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS.PloS one · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the research outcome of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum 2019-2023.Sudanese journal of paediatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- 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
With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.
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.