Open Access Increases Citation Rate 英文参考文献.docVIP

Editorial Open Access Increases Citation Rate Catriona J. MacCallum*, Hemai Parthasarathy P LoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles. One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing. The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal. Yes, you’re right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence. Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal. But sometimes a potential con?ict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor. In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish. Not only must the conclusions provide a signi?cant advance for the ?eld, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions. As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States). The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics. They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue. We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access). What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative streng