...
首页> 外文期刊>Ophthalmology >Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?
【24h】

Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?

机译:眼科的开放获取是否会影响随后在研究中引用文章的方式?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the concept of open access affects how articles are cited in the field of ophthalmology. DESIGN: Type of meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Examination of 480 articles in ophthalmology in the experimental protocol and 415 articles in the control protocol. METHODS: Four subject areas were chosen to search the ophthalmology literature in the PubMed database using the terms "cataract," "diabetic retinopathy," "glaucoma," and "refractive errors." Searching started in December of 2003 and worked back in time to the beginning of the year. The number of subsequent citations for equal numbers of both open access and closed access (by subscription) articles was quantified using the Scopus database and Google search engine. Number of authors, article type, country/region in which the article was published, language, and funding data were also collected for each article. A control protocol was also carried out to ascertain that the sampling method was not systematically biased by matching 6 ophthalmology journals (3 open access, 3 closed access) using their impact factors, and employing the same search methodology to sample open access and closed access articles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of citations. RESULTS: The total number of citations was significantly higher for open access articles compared to closed access articles for Scopus (mean 15.2 versus 11.5, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 20029, and Google (mean 6.4 versus 4.0, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 21281). However, univariate general linear model (GLM) analysis showed that access was not a significant factor that explained the citation data. Author number, country/region of publication, subject area, language, and funding were the variables that had the most effect and were statistically significant. Control protocol results showed no significant difference between open and closed access articles in regard to number of citations found by Scopus: open access: mean = 17.8; SD (standard deviation) = 23.70; closed access: mean = 19.1; SD = 20.31; Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.730, Mann-Whitney U = 20584. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike other fields of science, open access thus far has not affected how ophthalmology articles are cited in the literature.
机译:目的:确定开放获取的概念是否会影响眼科学领域中文章的引用方式。设计:荟萃分析的类型。参与者:在实验方案中检查了480篇眼科文章,在对照方案中检查了415篇文章。方法:选择四个主题领域,使用“白内障”,“糖尿病性视网膜病变”,“青光眼”和“屈光不正”来搜索PubMed数据库中的眼科文献。搜索工作始于2003年12月,但可以追溯到年初。使用Scopus数据库和Google搜索引擎量化了相同数量的开放式访问和封闭式访问(通过订阅)文章的后续引用次数。还为每篇文章收集了作者人数,文章类型,文章发表所在的国家/地区,语言和资助数据。还进行了控制协议,以确保通过使用影响因子匹配6种眼科期刊(3种开放获取,3种封闭获取)并使用相同的搜索方法对开放获取和封闭获取的文章进行采样,从而不会对抽样方法产生系统性的偏见。 。主要观察指标:引用次数。结果:与Scopus的封闭访问文章相比,开放获取文章的引用总数明显高于封闭访问文章(平均值15.2对11.5,P <.0005,Mann-Whitney U = 20029,和Google(平均值6.4对4.0,P <。 0005,Mann-Whitney U = 21281)。然而,单变量通用线性模型(GLM)分析表明,获取不是解释引文数据的重要因素,作者人数,出版国家/地区,主题领域,语言和经费是影响最大且具有统计学显着性的变量,控制方案结果表明,就Scopus发现的引用次数而言,开放获取和封闭获取的文章之间无显着差异:开放获取:平均值= 17.8; SD(标准差)= 23.70 ;封闭式访问:平均值= 19.1; SD = 20.31; Mann-Whitney检验,P = 0.730,Mann-Whitney U =20584。结论:到目前为止,与其他科学领域不同,开放访问并没有影响眼科学文章在论文中的引用方式。文艺e。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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