ArticleHeliyon2024
Dissemination of scientific information through open access by research scientists in a developing country.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mapping the scientific landscape of Lassa virus: a 55-year bibliometric study (1970-2025).Science in One Health · 2026Article
- Research literacy and its predictors among university students and graduates identified by machine learning and spatial analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Anti-science and the science community.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2025Article
- State-of-the-arts methods for studying factors driving the utilization of open science resources.MethodsX · 2025Review
- Towards researcher physicians in Palestine: resident doctors' perceptions, practices, and barriers.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the perceptions and factors that researchers had about Open Access (OA) publishing, specifically how it affected their decision to publish or not. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory by Rogers served as the study's main guide, and 15 research scientists from Ghana's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research's Crop Research Institute provided qualitative data for the study through semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist research paradigm. Convenience sampling was used to choose the participants, and thematic analysis was used to analyse and present the research results in themes. The study's conclusions showed that all of the participants benefited from OA and that they were all aware of its application for disseminating scientific information. High Article Processing Charges (APC) and credibility issues were also mentioned in the study as significant obstacles to using OA for the dissemination of scientific information. The study suggests that in order for scientists to use Open Access (OA) for the sharing of scientific information, they must be given the means to distinguish trustworthy journals from predatory ones.
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.