How open science helps researchers succeed

eLife

Volumn 5, Issue JULY, 2016, Pages

  McKiernan, Erin C ^a   Bourne, Philip E ^b   Brown, C Titus ^c   Buck, Stuart ^d   Kenall, Amye ^e   Lin, Jennifer ^f   McDougall, Damon ^g   Nosek, Brian A ^h   Ram, Karthik ⁱ   Soderberg, Courtney K ^h   Spies, Jeffrey R ^h,j   Thaney, Kaitlin ^k   Updegrove, Andrew ^f   Woo, Kara H ^l,m   Yarkoni, Tal ^g  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Laura and John Arnold Foundation   (United States)

^e BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

^f CrossRef ^*  (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^h Center for Open Science   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j University of Virginia   (United States)

^k Mozilla Science Lab   (United States)

^l WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ATTENTION; CAREER; FUNDING; HUMAN; LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH; TRENDS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84982683344     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16800     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. Adie E. 2014. Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles. Figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690
2. AllTrials. 2016. All trials registered, all results reported. Retrieved March 2016 at from http://www.alltrials.net/.
3. American Society for Cell Biology. 2013. San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.ascb.org/dora/.
4. Antelman K. 2004. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College & Research Libraries 65: 372-382. doi: 10.5860/crl.65.5.372
5. ASAPbio. 2016. Opinions on preprints in biology. Retrieved May 2016 from http://asapbio.org/survey. Data available via figshare https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.2247616.v1.
6. AsPredicted. 2016. Pre-registration made easy. Retrieved May 2016 from https://aspredicted.org/.
7. Atchison A, Bull J. 2015. Will open access get me cited? an analysis of the efficacy of open access publishing in political science. Political Science & Politics 48: 129-137. doi: 10.1017/S1049096514001668
8. Berg JM, Bhalla N, Bourne PE, Chalfie M, Drubin DG, Fraser JS, Greider CW, Hendricks M, Jones C, Kiley R, King S, Kirschner MW, Krumholz HM, Lehmann R, Leptin M, Pulverer B, Rosenzweig B, Spiro JE, Stebbins M, Strasser C, et al. 2016. Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352: 899-901. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf9133
9. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2015. Open Access Policy. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/Open-Access-Policy.
10. Biosharing.org. 2016. A catalogue of data preservation, management and sharing policies from international funding agencies, regulators and journals. Retrieved March 2016 from. biosharing.org/policies.
11. Björk B-C. 2012. The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63: 1496-1504. doi: 10. 1002/asi.22709
12. Björk B-C, Laakso M, Welling P, Paetau P. 2014. Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65: 237-250. doi: 10.1002/asi.22963
13. Björk B-C, Solomon D. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine 10: 73. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73
14. Bohannon J. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review?. Science 342: 60-65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154. 60
15. Bohannon J. 2014. Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal. Science Insider, 2014. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/updated-lax-reviewing-practice-prompts-60-retractions-sage-journal.
16. Borgman CL, Darch PT, Sands AE, Pasquetto IV, Golshan MS, Wallis JC, Traweek S. 2015. Knowledge infrastructures in science: data, diversity, and digital libraries. International Journal on Digital Libraries 16: 207-227. doi: 10.1007/s00799-015-0157-z
17. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. 2010. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One 5: e14331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331
18. Brembs B, Button K, Munafò M. 2013. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 291. doi: 10.3389/fnhum. 2013.00291
19. Brenner S. 1995. Loose end. Current Biology 5: 568. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00109-X
20. Brown C. 2001. The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52: 187-200. doi: 10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999: 9999<:: AID-ASI1586> 3.0.CO; 2-D
21. Brown CT, Howe A, Zhang Q, Pyrkosz AB, Brom TH. 2012. A reference-free algorithm for computational normalization of shotgun sequencing data. arXiv: 1203.4802.
22. Center for Open Science. 2016. The 1,000,000 Preregistration Challenge. Retrieved March 2016 from https://cos.io/prereg/.
23. CERN. 2014. Open Access Policy for CERN Physics Publications. Retrieved March 2016 from http://cds.cern.ch/record/1955574/files/CERN-OPEN-2014-049.pdf.
24. Chan L, Cuplinskas D, Eisen M, Friend F, Genova Y, Guédon J-C, Hagemann M, Harnad S, Johnson R, Kupryte R, La Manna M, Rév I, Segbert M, de Souza S, Suber P, Velterop J. 2002. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/.
25. Chavan V, Penev L. 2011. The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC Bioinformatics 12: S2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S2
26. Cofactor Ltd. 2016. Cofactor Journal Selector Tool. Retrieved March 2016 from http://cofactorscience.com/journal-selector.
27. COMPare. 2016. Tracking switched outcomes in clinical trials. Retrieved March 2016 from http://compare-trials.org/.
28. Court of Amsterdam. 2006. Adam Curry v. Audax Publishing. Retrieved March 2016 from http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI: NL: RBAMS: 2006: AV4204.
29. Crawford W. 2016. Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015. Cites & Insights Books.
30. Creative Commons. 2016. About The Licenses. Retrieved March 2016 from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/.
31. Darch PT, Borgman CL, Traweek S, Cummings RL, Wallis JC, Sands AE. 2015. What lies beneath?: Knowledge infrastructures in the subseafloor biosphere and beyond. International Journal on Digital Libraries 16: 61-77. doi: 10.1007/s00799-015-0137-3
32. Data Citation Synthesis Group. 2014. Joint declaration of data citation principles. Retrieved March 2016 from https://www.force11.org/group/joint-declaration-data-citation-principles-final.
33. Davis P, Fromerth M. 2007. Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?. Scientometrics 71: 203-215. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1661-8
34. Davis PM, Lewenstein BV, Simon DH, Booth JG, Connolly MJL. 2008. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337: a568. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a568
35. Davis PM. 2011. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB Journal 25: 2129-2134. doi: 10. 1096/fj.11-183988
36. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Poisot T, Gravel D. 2013. The case for open preprints in biology. PLOS Biology 11: e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563
37. Donovan JM, Watson CA, Osborne C. 2015. The open access advantage for American law reviews. Edison: Law + Technology 2015: 1-22.
38. Dorch SBF, Drachen TM, Ellegaard O. 2015. The data sharing advantage in astrophysics. arXiv: 1511. 02512.
39. Eigenfactor Project. 2016. No-fee open access journals for all fields. Retrieved March 2016 from www.eigenfactor.org/openaccess/fullfree.php.
40. Eysenbach G. 2006. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology 4: e157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157
41. Frandsen TF. 2009a. The effects of open access on un-published documents: a case study of economics working papers. Journal of Informetrics 3: 124-133. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.12.002
42. Frandsen TF. 2009b. The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: three science fields. Information Processing & Management 45: 131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2008. 06.001
43. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, Harnad S. 2010. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One 5: e13636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013636
44. Garlick M. 2006a. Creative Commons licenses upheld in Dutch court. Retrieved March 2016 from https://creativecommons.org/2006/03/16/creativecommonslicensesupheldindutchcourt/.
45. Garlick M. 2006b. Spanish Court Recognizes CC-Music. Retrieved March 2016 from https://creativecommons.org/2006/03/23/spanishcourtrecognizesccmusic/.
46. GauléP, Maystre N. 2011. Getting cited: Does open access help?. Research Policy 40: 1332-1338. doi: 10. 1016/j.respol.2011.05.025
47. Gentil-Beccot A, Mele S, Brooks TC. 2010. Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics. Scientometrics 84: 345-355. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0111-1
48. Gleditsch NP, Metelits C, Strand H. 2003. Posting your data: will you be scooped or will you be famous?. International Studies Perspectives 4: 89-97. doi: 10.1111/1528-3577.04105
49. Gorgolewski K, Esteban O, Burns C, Ziegler E, Pinsard B, Madison C, Waskom M, Ellis DG, Clark D, Dayan M, Manhães-Savio A, Notter MP, Johnson H, Dewey YO, Hamalainen C, Keshavan A, Clark D, Huntenburg JM, Hanke M, Nichols BN, et al. 2016. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.50186
50. Gorgolewski KJ, Margulies DS, Milham MP. 2013. Making data sharing count: a publication-based solution. Frontiers in Neuroscience 7: 9. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00009
51. Gorgolewski KJ, Poldrack R. 2016. A practical guide for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging research. bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/039354
52. Gunasekaran S, Arunachalam S. 2014. The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fields. Current Science 107: 380.
53. Haak LL, Fenner M, Paglione L, Pentz E, Ratner H. 2012. ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing 25: 259-264. doi: 10. 1087/20120404
54. Hajjem C, Harnad S, Gingras Y. 2006. Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. arXiv: cc/0606079.
55. Harnad S, Brody T. 2004. Comparing the impact of open access (oa) vs. non-oa articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine 10.
56. Harvard Library, Office for Scholarly Communication. 2014. Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Recommends Open-Access Deposit for Faculty Review Process. Retrieved March 2016 from http://bit.ly/1X8cLob.
57. Harvard Library, Office for Scholary Communication. 2016. Open access policies. Retrieved March 2016 from https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/.
58. Harvard Open Access Project. 2016. Good practices for university open-access policies. Retrieved March 2016 from http://bit.ly/goodoa.
59. Heimstädt M, Saunderson F, Heath T. 2014. From toddler to teen: growth of an open data ecosystem. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 6: 123-135.
60. Henneken EA, Accomazzi A. 2011. Linking to data-effect on citation rates in astronomy. arXiv: 1111. 3618.
61. Hitchcock S. 2016. The effect of open access and downloads (‘hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies. Retrieved March 2016 from Last updated March 2013 http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html.
62. Holdren JP. 2013. Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Retrieved March 2016 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.
63. Ince DC, Hatton L, Graham-Cumming J. 2012. The case for open computer programs. Nature 482: 485-488. doi: 10.1038/nature10836
64. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. 2016. IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.facultysenate.vcu.edu/tag/open-access-scholarship-promotion-and-tenure/.
65. Joseph H. 2013. Science magazine’s open access sting. SPARC blog, 2013. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.sparc.arl.org/blog/science-magazine-open-access-sting.
66. Journal of Vibration and Control. 2014. Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control 20: 1601-1604. doi: 10.1177/1077546314541924
67. Juzgado de Primera Instancia Número Seis de Badajoz, España. 2006. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores v. Ricardo Andres Utrera Fernández. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.internautas.org/archivos/sentencia_metropoli.pdf.
68. Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. 2015. Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time. PLoS One 10: e0132382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0132382
69. Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg LS, Kennett C, Slowik A, Sonnleitner C, Hess-Holden C, Errington TM, Fiedler S, Nosek BA. 2016. Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency. PLOS Biology 14: e1002456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
70. Kiernan V. 2003. Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication 25: 3-13. doi: 10.1177/1075547003255297
71. Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š, Bernstein MJ, Bocian K, Brandt MJ, Brooks B, Brumbaugh CC, Cemalcilar Z, Chandler J, Cheong W, Davis WE, Devos T, Eisner M, Frankowska N, Furrow D, Galliani EM, Hasselman F, et al. 2014. Investigating Variation in Replicability. Social Psychology 45: 142-152. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
72. Koler-Povh T, JužničP, Turk G. 2014. Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering. Scientometrics 98: 1033-1045. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1101-x
73. Kousha K, Abdoli M. 2010. The citation impact of open access agricultural research. Online Information Review 34: 772-785. doi: 10.1108/14684521011084618
74. Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Moylan EC. 2013. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models. F1000 Posters 4: 1252.
75. Kratz JE, Strasser C. 2015. Comment: Making data count. Scientific Data 2: 150039. doi: 10.1038/sdata. 2015.39
76. Lansingh VC, Carter MJ. 2009. Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?. Ophthalmology 116: 1425-1431. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.052
77. Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Macaluso B, Milojević S, Cronin B, Thelwall M. 2014. arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65: 1157-1169. doi: 10.1002/asi.23044
78. Lawrence S. 2001. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 411: 521. doi: 10. 1038/35079151
79. Lawson S. 2016. APC data for 27 UK higher education institutions in 2015. Figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1507481.v4
80. Linksvayer M. 2011. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license enforced in Germany. Creative Commons Blog, 2011. Retrieved March 2016 from https://creativecommons.org/2011/09/15/creative-commons-attribution-sharealike-license-enforced-in-germany/.
81. McCabe MJ, Snyder CM. 2014. Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journals. Economic Inquiry 52: 1284-1300. doi: 10. 1111/ecin.12064
82. McCabe MJ, Snyder CM. 2015. Does online availability increase citations? Theory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journals. Review of Economics and Statistics 97: 144-165. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00437
83. Metcalfe TS. 2006. The citation impact of digital preprint archives for solar physics papers. Solar Physics 239: 549-553. doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0262-7
84. Michener WK. 2015. Ecological data sharing. Ecological Informatics 29: 33-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.010
85. MIT Libraries, Scholarly Publishing. 2016. MIT Faculty Open Access Policy. Retrieved March 2016 from http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/.
86. Murray-Rust P, Neylon C, Pollock R, Wilbanks J. 2010. Panton Principles, Principles for open data in science. Retrieved March 2016 from http://pantonprinciples.org/.
87. National Institutes of Health. 2003. NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance. Retrieved March 2016 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm.
88. National Institutes of Health. 2012. Upcoming Changes to Public Access Policy Reporting Requirements and Related NIH Efforts to Enhance Compliance. Retrieved June 2016 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-160.html.
89. National Science Foundation. 2011. Digital Research Data Sharing and Management. Retrieved March 2016 from www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/nsb1124.pdf.
90. Nature Publishing Group. 2015. Author Insights 2015 Survey. Figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1425362.v7
91. NWO. 2016. Open Science. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.nwo.nl/en/policies/open+science.
92. Neuberger J, Counsell C. 2002. Impact factors: uses and abuses. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 14: 209-211. doi: 10.1097/00042737-200203000-00001
93. Norris M, Oppenheim C, Rowland F. 2008. The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 1963-1972. doi: 10.1002/asi.20898
94. Open Knowledge. 2005. The Open Definition. Retrieved March 2016 from http://opendefinition.org/.
95. Open Research Badges. 2016. Retrieved March 2016 from http://openresearchbadges.org/.
96. Open Science Collaboration. 2012. An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 657-660. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462588
97. Open Science Collaboration. 2014. The reproducibility project: a model of large-scale collaboration for empirical research on reproducibility. In: Stodden V, Leisch F, Peng RD (Eds). Implementing Reproducible Research. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. p 299-324
98. Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
99. Open Source Initiative. 2007. The Open Source Definition. Retrieved March 2016 from https://opensource.org/osd.
100. Oransky I, Marcus A. 2016. Retraction Watch: Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process. Retrieved March 2016 from http://retractionwatch.com/.
101. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E. 2011. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2825-2830.
102. PeerJ Staff. 2014. Who’s Afraid of Open Peer Review? PeerJblog, 2014. Retrieved March 2016 from https://peerj.com/blog/post/100580518238/whos-afraid-of-open-peer-review/.
103. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine 325: 1180-1183. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199110173251620
104. Pienta AM, Alter GC, Lyle JA. 2010. The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary research data. Presented at "The Organisation, Economics and Policy of Scientific Research" workshop in Torino, Italy. Retrieved March 2016 from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/78307.
105. Piwowar HA, Vision TJ. 2013. Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1: e175. doi: 10. 7717/peerj.175
106. PLOS Medicine Editors. 2006. The impact factor game. PLOS Medicine 3: e291. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291
107. Poline J-B, Breeze JL, Ghosh S, Gorgolewski K, Halchenko YO, Hanke M, Haselgrove C, Helmer KG, Keator DB, Marcus DS, Poldrack RA, Schwartz Y, Ashburner J, Kennedy DN. 2012. Data sharing in neuroimaging research. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 6: 9. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2012.00009
108. Public Library of Science. 2016. Open Access Funds. Retrieved March 2016 from www.plos.org/publications/publication-fees/open-access-funds/.
109. Publons. 2016. Get credit for peer review. Retrieved March 2016 from https://publons.com/.
110. Redhead C. 2013. OASPA’s response to the recent article in Science entitled "Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?". Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, 2013. Retrieved March 2016 from http://oaspa.org/response-to-the-recent-article-in-science/.
111. Research Information Network. 2014. Nature Communications: Citation analysis. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.nature.com/press_releases/ncomms-report2014.pdf.
112. Rockey S. 2012. Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research, Extramural Nexus. Retrieved June 2016 from http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/11/16/improving-public-access-to-research-results/.
113. Sahu DK, Gogtay NJ, Bavdekar SB. 2005. Effect of open access on citation rates for a small biomedical journal. Retrieved June 2016 from https://web.archive.org/web/20121130165349/http://openmed.nic.in/1174/.
114. Schwarz GJ, Kennicutt RC. 2004. Demographic and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and preprints. ArXiv: astro-ph/0411275.
115. Schönbrodt F. 2016. Changing hiring practices towards research transparency: The first open science statement in a professorship advertisement. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.nicebread.de/open-science-hiring-practices/.
116. Science Commons. 2016. Scholar’s Copyright Addendum Engine. Retrieved March 2016 from http://scholars.sciencecommons.org/.
117. Sears JRL. 2011. Data sharing effect on article citation rate in paleoceanography. Presented at Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 2011. Retrieved March 2016 from figshare 10.6084/m9.figshare.1222998.v1.
118. Seglen PO. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314: 497. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
119. Shamir L, Wallin JF, Allen A, Berriman B, Teuben P, Nemiroff RJ, Mink J, Hanisch RJ, DuPrie K. 2013. Practices in source code sharing in astrophysics. Astronomy and Computing 1: 54-58. doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2013.04.001
120. SHERPA/RoMEO. 2016. Publisher copyright policies and self-archiving. Accessed May 2016 at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php.
121. SHERPA/JULIET. 2016. Research funders’ open access policies. Accessed March 2016 at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php.
122. Solomon DJ. 2014. A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ 2: e365. doi: 10.7717/peerj. 365
123. SPARC. 2016. Author Rights & the SPARC Author Addendum. Retrieved March 2016 from http://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/.
124. SPARC Europe. 2016. The Open Access Citation Advantage Service. Retrieved June 2016 from http://sparceurope.org/oaca/.
125. Springer. 2014. Springer statement on SCIgen-generated papers in conference proceedings. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/statements?SGWID=0-1760813-6-1456249-0.
126. Stodden V, Guo P, Ma Z. 2013. Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals. PLoS One 8: e67111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067111
127. Stodden VC. 2011. Trust your science? Open your data and code. Amstat News 409: 21-22.
128. Suber P. 2003. The taxpayer argument for open access. SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved March 2016 from https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725013.
129. Suber P. 2012. Open Access. MIT Press. http://bit.ly/oa-book.
130. Swan A, Gargouri Y, Hunt M, Harnad S. 2015. Open access policy: Numbers, analysis, effectiveness. arXiv: 1504.02261.
131. Swan A. 2010. The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. eprints, 2010. Retrieved March 2016 from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/.
132. UNESCO. 2013. Open Access Policy concerning UNESCO publications. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ERI/pdf/oa_policy_rev2.pdf.
133. University of Liège. 2016. Open Access at the ULg. Open Repository and Bibliography. Retrieved March 2016 from https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/project?id=03.
134. Van Noorden R. 2014a. Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature.2014.14763
135. Van Noorden R. 2014b. Funders punish open-access dodgers. Nature 508: 161. doi: 10.1038/508161a
136. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ. 2010. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341: c5729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729
137. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318: 23-27. doi: 10.1136/bmj. 318.7175.23
138. Vandewalle P. 2012. Code sharing is associated with research impact in image processing. Computing in Science & Engineering 14: 42-47. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2012.63
139. Virginia Commonwealth University Faculty Senate. 2010. VCU Faculty Senate Resolution on Open Access Publishing. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.facultysenate.vcu.edu/tag/open-access-scholarship-promotion-and-tenure/.
140. Wagner B. 2010. Open access citation advantage: An annotated bibliography. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 60. doi: 10.5062/F4Q81B0W
141. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. 2000. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 176: 47-51. doi: 10. 1192/bjp.176.1.47
142. Wang X, Liu C, Mao W, Fang Z. 2015. The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics 103: 555-564. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0
143. Wellcome Trust. 2012. Wellcome Trust strengthens its open access policy. Retrieved June 2016 from https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/wellcome-trust-strengthens-its-open-access-policy.
144. Wellcome Trust. 2016a. Expert Advisory Group on Data Access. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Data-sharing/EAGDA/.
145. Wellcome Trust. 2016b. Position statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research. Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002766.htm.
146. Wellcome Trust. 2016c. Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15. Retrieved June 2016 from https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/. Data available via figshare https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3118936.v1.
147. West JD, Bergstrom T, Bergstorm CT. 2014. Cost effectiveness of open access publications. Economic Inquiry 52: 1315-1321. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12117
148. Whitmire A, Briney K, Nurnberger A, Henderson M, Atwood T, Janz M, Kozlowski W, Lake S, Vandegrift M, Zilinski L. 2015. A table summarizing the Federal public access policies resulting from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum of February 2013. Figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare. 1372041
149. Wicherts JM. 2016. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One 11: e0147913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
150. Wikipedia. 2016. List of academic journals by preprint policy. Retrieved March 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy.
151. Willinsky J. 2006. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press.
152. Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, Jones R, Kain R, Kerridge S, Thelwall M, Tinkler J, Viney I, Wouters P, Hill J, Johnson B. 2015. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
153. Wohlrabe K, Birkmeier D. 2014. Do open access articles in economics have a citation advantage?. Munich Personal RePEc Archive 56842 https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/56842.
154. Xia J, Nakanishi K. 2012. Self-selection and the citation advantage of open access articles. Online Information Review 36: 40-51. doi: 10.1108/14684521211206953
155. Xu L, Liu J, Fang Q. 2011. Analysis on open access citation advantage: an empirical study based on oxford open journals. 426-432.
156. Zawacki-Richter O, Anderson T, Tuncay N. 2010. The growing impact of open access distance education journals: a bibliometric analysis. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education 24.
157. Zhang Y. 2006. The effect of open access on citation impact: A comparison study based on web citation analysis. Libri 56: 145-156. doi: 10.1515/LIBR.2006. 145