Grades of Openness: Open and Closed Articles in Norway

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to the following three bibliographic services: (1) Google Scholar, (2) oaDOI by Impact Story, and (3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we found that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, the degrees of openness are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr at 31% and 52%, respectively. Varying degrees of openness are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being the most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the medicine and health sciences at the upper end and the humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using cited-by values in Google Scholar and applying year and subject normalization. We found a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this was not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category of open access journals was by far the lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

[1]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[2]  Christopher M. Snyder,et al.  Identifying the Effect of Open Access on Citations Using a Panel of Science Journals , 2013 .

[3]  Nicky Agate Looking into Pandora’s Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage , 2017 .

[4]  Iain D. Craig,et al.  Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: A critical review of the literature , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[5]  M. Wacha,et al.  The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles , 2017 .

[6]  M. HamidR.Jamali,et al.  Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles , 2017, Scientometrics.

[7]  Mikael Laakso,et al.  Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed , 2014, Scientometrics.

[8]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar , 2014, Scientometrics.

[9]  晋典 岡部,et al.  Budapest Open Access Initiativeの思想的背景とその受容 , 2011 .

[10]  Philip M. Davis,et al.  The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. , 2011, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[11]  B. Greshake Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage , 2017, bioRxiv.

[12]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Research impact of paywalled versus open access papers , 2016 .

[13]  Susanne Mikki Scholarly publications beyond pay-walls: increased citation advantage for open publishing , 2017, Scientometrics.

[14]  J. Bosman,et al.  Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data , 2018 .