IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02328158.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Construction of a Normalized Open Access Indicator (NOAI)

Author

Listed:
  • Abdelghani Maddi

    (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord - UP13 - Université Paris 13 - USPC - Université Sorbonne Paris Cité - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors. Abstract The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdelghani Maddi, 2019. "Construction of a Normalized Open Access Indicator (NOAI)," Working Papers hal-02328158, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02328158
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02328158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02328158/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gunther Eysenbach, 2006. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," Working Papers id:626, eSocialSciences.
    2. Bo-Christer Björk & Mikael Laakso & Patrik Welling & Patrik Paetau, 2014. "Anatomy of green open access," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 237-250, February.
    3. Ángel Borrego, 2016. "Measuring compliance with a Spanish Government open access mandate," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 757-764, April.
    4. Quirin Schiermeier & Emiliano Rodríguez Mega, 2017. "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7635), pages 13-13, January.
    5. Mikael Laakso & Bo‐Christer Björk, 2013. "Delayed open access: An overlooked high‐impact category of openly available scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1323-1329, July.
    6. Mikael Laakso & Bo-Christer Björk, 2013. "Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1323-1329, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin Zhang & Yahui Wei & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7653-7679, December.
    2. Abdelghani Maddi, 2020. "Measuring open access publications: a novel normalized open access indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 379-398, July.
    3. Hajar Sotudeh & Zahra Ghasempour & Maryam Yaghtin, 2015. "The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 581-608, August.
    4. Kendall Faulkner, 2021. "Faculty Use of Open-Access Journals: A Case Study of Faculty Publications and Cited References at a California University," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Hajar Sotudeh & Zohreh Estakhr, 2018. "Sustainability of open access citation advantage: the case of Elsevier’s author-pays hybrid open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 563-576, April.
    6. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    7. Li Zhang & Erin Watson, 2018. "The prevalence of green and grey open access: Where do physical science researchers archive their publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2021-2035, December.
    8. Paul Kudlow & Devin Bissky Dziadyk & Alan Rutledge & Aviv Shachak & Gunther Eysenbach, 2020. "The citation advantage of promoted articles in a cross‐publisher distribution platform: A 12‐month randomized controlled trial," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1257-1274, October.
    9. Wei Ming & Zhenyue Zhao, 2022. "Rethinking the open access citation advantage: Evidence from the “reverse‐flipping” journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(11), pages 1608-1620, November.
    10. Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 101-109, May.
    11. Laakso, Mikael & Björk, Bo-Christer, 2016. "Hybrid open access—A longitudinal study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 919-932.
    12. Fernanda Morillo, 2020. "Is open access publication useful for all research fields? Presence of funding, collaboration and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 689-716, October.
    13. Mikael Laakso, 2014. "Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 475-494, May.
    14. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Costas, Rodrigo & van Leeuwen, Thed & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 819-841.
    15. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 144-165, March.
    16. Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Emilio Abad-Segura, 2021. "Sustainable Business Model in the Product-Service System: Analysis of Global Research and Associated EU Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-33, September.
    17. Heather A Piwowar & Roger S Day & Douglas B Fridsma, 2007. "Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-5, March.
    18. Juliana Loureiro Almeida Campos & André Sobral & Josivan Soares Silva & Thiago Antonio Sousa Araújo & Washington Soares Ferreira-Júnior & Flávia Rosa Santoro & Gilney Charll Santos & Ulysses Paulino A, 2016. "Insularity and citation behavior of scientific articles in young fields: the case of ethnobiology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1037-1055, November.
    19. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    20. Eberhard Feess & Marc Scheufen, 2016. "Academic copyright in the publishing game: a contest perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 263-294, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open Access; normalisation; ranking; institution; bibliometrics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02328158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.