Anomalies in Open-Access & Traditional Biomedical Literature: A Comparative Analysis
Anomalies in Open-Access & Traditional Biomedical Literature: A Comparative Analysis
AbstractThis research compares rates of anomaly and
post-publication modification of open access and traditionally published journal articles in the
biomedical sciences.
Preliminary results indicate that open access journals do not show a higher incidence of
post-publication modification than traditionally published journals.
AbstractThis research compares rates of anomaly and
post-publication modification of open access and traditionally published journal articles in the
biomedical sciences.
Preliminary results indicate that open access journals do not show a higher incidence of
post-publication modification than traditionally published journals.
Open Access Biomedical Literature
Open access journals are characterized by: “free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print,
search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the
integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." [2]
Open access publishing is growing in the biomedical sciences.
In 2004 WoS included 239 Open Access biomedical journals.
At least 280 journals found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) are currently indexed for Medline
20% of journals indexed in Medline offer free, full-text access via PubMed Central (1080/5487)
Open Access Biomedical Literature
Open access journals are characterized by: “free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print,
search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the
integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." [2]
Open access publishing is growing in the biomedical sciences.
In 2004 WoS included 239 Open Access biomedical journals.
At least 280 journals found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) are currently indexed for Medline
20% of journals indexed in Medline offer free, full-text access via PubMed Central (1080/5487)
Research design
The sample was generated by identifying 12 open access medical and life science journals with particularly high impact factors. [1] Using data from Journal Citation Reports 2009,
these journals were then paired with fee-based access journals with comparable subjects and impact factors.
An advanced search of PubMed for these journal pairs and document types "Publication of Retraction", "Correction & Republication" and "Publication of Errata" from the last 10
years yielded 27 anomalous articles from a pool of approximately 76,000 articles.
Subsequently, all anomalous articles from July 2000-2010 were retrieved, yielding 1681 articles. Of these, full-text access is available for 353 on PubMed Central, 73 from DOAJ.org, and 47 are available from Web of Science.
Research design
The sample was generated by identifying 12 open access medical and life science journals with particularly high impact factors. [1] Using data from Journal Citation Reports 2009,
these journals were then paired with fee-based access journals with comparable subjects and impact factors.
An advanced search of PubMed for these journal pairs and document types "Publication of Retraction", "Correction & Republication" and "Publication of Errata" from the last 10
years yielded 27 anomalous articles from a pool of approximately 76,000 articles.
Subsequently, all anomalous articles from July 2000-2010 were retrieved, yielding 1681 articles. Of these, full-text access is available for 353 on PubMed Central, 73 from DOAJ.org, and 47 are available from Web of Science.
IntroductionOpen access publishing is gaining increasing
prominence in the biomedical literature; of the 20 most highly ranked medical and life
science journals, (as sorted by impact factor by Journal Citation Reports), 7 provide free
public access to content.
This study compares open access and traditional, subscription-based biomedical literature for differences in the incidence of retraction, correction & republication
or publication of errata.
If there is no difference between the groups, or open access publications have fewer anomalies, the data suggest that open
access publications are not more likely to publish flawed literature, despite differences
in editorial and publishing practices.
IntroductionOpen access publishing is gaining increasing
prominence in the biomedical literature; of the 20 most highly ranked medical and life
science journals, (as sorted by impact factor by Journal Citation Reports), 7 provide free
public access to content.
This study compares open access and traditional, subscription-based biomedical literature for differences in the incidence of retraction, correction & republication
or publication of errata.
If there is no difference between the groups, or open access publications have fewer anomalies, the data suggest that open
access publications are not more likely to publish flawed literature, despite differences
in editorial and publishing practices.
Address for correspondence:Gabriel M. PetersonNorth Carolina Central University School of Library and Information Sciences321 Shepard Library, Durham, NC 27707, [email protected]
Address for correspondence:Gabriel M. PetersonNorth Carolina Central University School of Library and Information Sciences321 Shepard Library, Durham, NC 27707, [email protected]
Gabriel M. Peterson, PhDSchool of Library and Information Sciences – North Carolina Central University
Gabriel M. Peterson, PhDSchool of Library and Information Sciences – North Carolina Central University
References[1] McVeigh ME (2004) Open access journals in the ISI citation databases: Analysis of impact factors and
citation patterns. Available: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=9515 4. Accessed 2010-10-21[2] Anonymous (2002 February) Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available:http://www.webcitation.org/query?
id=3046. Accessed 2010-10-21[3] Eysenbach G, 2006 Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS
Biol 4(5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 Accessed 2010-10-21
References[1] McVeigh ME (2004) Open access journals in the ISI citation databases: Analysis of impact factors and
citation patterns. Available: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=9515 4. Accessed 2010-10-21[2] Anonymous (2002 February) Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available:http://www.webcitation.org/query?
id=3046. Accessed 2010-10-21[3] Eysenbach G, 2006 Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS
Biol 4(5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 Accessed 2010-10-21
Poster presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the. American Society of Information Science & Technology,, 2010-10-25, Pittsburgh, PA
Incidence of post-publication modification of Open Access and Traditional biomedical literature, 2000-
2010Implications for researchers
The open-access biomedical literature does not contain more anomalies than traditionally available, fee-for-access
literature, though approximately 13,500 more articles were published in open-access journals than traditional ones in
this time.
Open access literature has higher rates of citation than other literature, yet increased scrutiny has not resulted in higher
levels of post-publication modification.
Research published using the open access model appears to be as reliable as traditionally available scholarly literature.
Implications for researchers
The open-access biomedical literature does not contain more anomalies than traditionally available, fee-for-access
literature, though approximately 13,500 more articles were published in open-access journals than traditional ones in
this time.
Open access literature has higher rates of citation than other literature, yet increased scrutiny has not resulted in higher
levels of post-publication modification.
Research published using the open access model appears to be as reliable as traditionally available scholarly literature.
t-score of 0.7733 yields a p-value of 0.7209 (8 df)
The hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference in the incidence of post-publication modification of open access and
traditionally published biomedical literature is rejected.
OAJ Name Total PPM Impact factor TJ Name Total PPM2 Impact factor3British Medical Journal 3 13.66 ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 4 16.225
Journal of Clinical Investigation 4 15.387 JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE 5 14.505
Emerging Infectious Diseases 2 6.794 ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 2 9.813
Molecular Vision 1 2.541 EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH 5 2.538
International Journal of Molecular Medicine 1 1.98 Statistics in medicine 0 1.99
11 16 0.298014812 t-score of 0.298 yields a p-value of 0.7733 (8 df)
Reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference in incidence of post-publication modification of biomedical literature between open access and traditional publishing models.
Percentage of anomalous literature in PMC journals: 21% (353/1681)
Percentage of PMC journals to total indexed in Medline: 20% (1080/5487)
Incidence of anomaly in highly cited biomedical articles, 2000-2010: Open Access: 11
Fee-for-Access: 16
