首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It’s Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)
【2h】

The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It’s Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)

机译:禁运后开放获取引文的优势:存在(大概),适度(通常)和致富(当然)

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles—articles from scholarly journals made freely available to readers without requiring subscription fees—are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. Assertions that OA articles are also cited more often generate more controversy. Confounding factors (authors may self-select only the best articles to make OA; absence of an appropriate control group of non-OA articles with which to compare citation figures; conflation of pre-publication vs. published/publisher versions of articles, etc.) make demonstrating a real citation difference difficult. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years. Not surprisingly, better (defined as above median) articles gain more when made OA.
机译:许多研究表明,开放存取(OA)文章(即学术期刊上的文章可免费提供给读者,而无需支付订阅费用)相对于封闭访问/仅订阅文章,其下载和阅读频率可能更高。关于OA文章也被引用的断言经常引起更多争议。混杂因素(作者可能只能自行选择最适合进行OA的文章;没有适当的非OA文章对照组来与引文数字进行比较;将出版物的预出版版本与发布版本/出版版本进行合并等)。 )很难证明真正的引文差异。这项研究解决了这些因素,并表明即使在某些或所有主要引用年中都对商品进行了禁运,仍存在高达19%的开放获取引用优势。毫不奇怪,制作OA时,更好的文章(定义为中位数以上)可获得更多收益。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 PLoS Clinical Trials
  • 作者

    Jim Ottaviani;

  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 2011(11),8
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 e0159614
  • 总页数 11
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号