Quality assessment of studies published in open access and subscription journals: Results of a systematic evaluation

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2016, Pages

  Pastorino, Roberta ^a   Milovanovic, Sonja ^a   Stojanovic, Jovana ^a   Efremov, Ljupcho ^a,b   Amore, Rosarita ^a   Boccia, Stefania ^c  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c FONDAZIONE POLICLINICO UNIVERSITARIO A GEMELLI IRCCS   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CHECKLIST; COHORT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; ONCOLOGY; POPULATION BASED CASE CONTROL STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIBLIOMETRICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84969802195     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154217     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Budapest Open Access Initiative | Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
2. http://www.doaj.org/. (last accession date: 20/02/2015). Available: (http://www.doaj.org/)
3. Butler D. PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature. Nature Publishing Group; 2008; 454: 11. doi: 10.1038/454011a PMID: 18596768
4. Suber P. Will open access undermine peer review?. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition; 2007. Available: http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4322578
5. Leopold SS. Editorial: Paying to publish - what is open access and why is it important? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472: 1665-6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3615-9 PMID: 24700447
6. Liesegang TJ. The continued movement for open access to peer-reviewed literature. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156: 423-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.04.033 PMID: 23769198
7. Tzarnas S, Tzarnas CD. Publish or Perish, and Pay-The New Paradigm of Open-Access Journals. J Surg Educ. 2014; doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.09.006
8. Agrawal AA. Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing. Trends Plant Sci. 2014; 19: 133. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.01.005 PMID: 24521978
9. Markovac J, Malicke D. Making Sense of Open Access. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. The Oxford University Press; 2014;. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyu108
10. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342: 60-5. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 PMID: 24092725
11. Miguel S, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, de Moya-Anegón F. Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011; 62: 1130-1145. doi: 10.1002/asi.21532
12. Björk B-C, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012; 10: 73. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 PMID: 22805105
13. McVeigh ME. Open Access journals in the ISI citation databases: analysis of impact factors and citation patterns: a citation study from Thomson Scientific. Thomson Corporation. 2004 p. 25.
14. Giglia E. The impact factor of open access journals:data and trends. 2010; Available: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/45796310-The-impact-factor-of-open-access-journalsdata-and-trends
15. Poltronieri E, Bravo E, Camerini T, Ferri M, Rizzo R, Solimini R, et al. Where on earth to publish? A sample survey comparing traditional and open access publishing in the oncological field. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 32: 4. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-32-4 PMID: 23339627
16. Crowe M, Carlyle D. Is open access sufficient? A review of the quality of open-access nursing journals. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015; 24: 59-64. doi: 10.1111/inm.12098 PMID: 25388929
17. Davis PM. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB J. 2011; 25: 2129-34. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988 PMID: 21450907
18. Wells G a, Shea B, Connell DO, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta- analyses [Internet]. 2000. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp
19. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 PMID: 17302989
20. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007; 335: 806-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD PMID: 17947786
21. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PMID: 19621070
22. Carletta J. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Comput Linguist. MIT Press; 1996; 22: 249-254. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=230386.230390
23. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M. The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6: 42. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-42 PMID: 16948835