Articles in companion open access journals received nearly half as many citations as those in traditional journals despite generating an estimated $34.9 million in publication fees, according to a recent study published in Accountability and Research.
Using Journal Citation Reports and the Scopus database, the researchers identified the top 15 journals in internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology based on 2023 impact factors. Of these, 14 traditional journals had affiliated companion open access titles. Using multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models, the researchers assessed citation performance, author demographics, and journal characteristics, while adjusting for author sex, country of origin, specialty, and publication year. Data from 2011 through 2023 included 52,232 original articles authored by 36,577 first authors.
On average, companion open access (cOA) publications had 9.4 citations compared with 18.2 for traditional journals—a 48% decrease. The citation gap widened over time, with open access articles receiving four fewer citations on average 5 years after publication. Among all publications, 12,365—or roughly one-third—were published in cOA journals. Median article processing charges for cOA publications were $2,000, ranging from $1,190 in obstetrics and gynecology to $2,997 in internal medicine. The American Medical Association’s companion titles accounted for $25.7 million—nearly three-fourths of overall expenditures.
Female first authors represented 43% of all publications but were more likely to publish in cOA journals than in traditional journals (45% vs 42%). On multivariable analysis, those from low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to publish in cOA journals.
“Improvements to the cOA publishing model from the journals’ perspective could include clearer, publicly available editorial policies, specific criteria for transfer to cOA journals, criteria for APC [article processing charge] waivers, overall reduction in publication costs, and blinded peer review to increase transparency and decrease bias in the publication process.,” noted the lead author Alexander Pohlman, of the Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, and colleagues.
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
Source: Accountability in Research
