Patterns of citations of open access and non-open access conservation biology journal papers and book chapters.

Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer-reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non-OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors' citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author-archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.

[1]  A.-L. Harrison.  Who's Who in Conservation Biology—an Authorship Analysis , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  L. Bornmann,et al.  The state of h index research , 2009, EMBO reports.

[3]  Michael C. Calver,et al.  Should we use the mean citations per paper to summarise a journal’s impact or to rank journals in the same field? , 2009, Scientometrics.

[4]  PLoS Biology at 5: The Future Is Open Access , 2008, PLoS biology.

[5]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2008, Scientometrics.

[7]  Susan K. Jacobson,et al.  Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals , 1999 .

[8]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  REFLECTIONS ON THE H-INDEX , 2012 .

[9]  Mike Calver,et al.  Pacific Conservation Biology: An Authorship and Citation Analysis , 2008 .

[10]  Philip M. Davis.  Author-choice open-access publishing in the biological and medical literature: A citation analysis , 2009 .

[11]  S. Harnad,et al.  Open access to peer-reviewed research through author/institution self-archiving: maximizing research impact by maximizing online access. , 2003, Journal of postgraduate medicine.

[12]  Susan K. Jacobson,et al.  Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques , 2006 .

[13]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis , 2008 .

[14]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[15]  Daniel Pauly,et al.  Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service , 2005 .

[16]  C. Oppenheim,et al.  The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update , 2008 .

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

[18]  Matthew E. Falagas,et al.  The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation , 2008, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis.

[19]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[20]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  Attracted to open access journals: a bibliometric author analysis in the field of biology , 2009, J. Documentation.

[21]  Philip M. Davis,et al.  Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Peter Suber.  Timeline of the open access movement , 2009 .

[23]  Brian D. Cameron,et al.  Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications , 2005 .

[24]  R. Fox.  Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna , 1997 .

[25]  S. Harnad,et al.  Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals , 2004 .

[26]  Andrew M. Odlyzko,et al.  The rapid evolution of scholarly communication , 2002, Learn. Publ..

[27]  J. Koricheva,et al.  What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  A. Swan,et al.  ISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey Report , 2004 .

[29]  Susan Gardner,et al.  Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences , 2005 .

[30]  P. Perakakis,et al.  The siege of science , 2008 .

[31]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar , 2007 .

[32]  Les Carr,et al.  The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update , 2008 .

[33]  C. Catterall,et al.  Fates of feathered fruit-eaters in fragmented forests , 2004 .