Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts.

IF 4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-18 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211

Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M Odeh, Shawn M Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

{"title":"Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts.","authors":"Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M Odeh, Shawn M Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.Methods: The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).Conclusions: Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.

Methods: The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).

Conclusions: Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较开放获取期刊与传统期刊。

背景：许多传统期刊都推出了类似的开放获取（cOA）期刊。这些期刊通过取消付费墙和使用文章处理费（apc）来寻求更好的文章传播。传统期刊通常建议将论文转移到他们的cOA期刊，让作者决定接受转移并支付APC或在其他地方重新提交。我们的目标是比较这些期刊的成本和影响，以便更好地为作者提供信息。方法：美国排名前15位基于2023年影响因子对美国医学、外科、儿科和妇产科的传统期刊进行鉴定。纳入cOA期刊，提取2011 - 2023年的所有发表数据。引用数采用泊松回归进行比较；采用多变量logistic回归分析作者人口统计学特征。结果：有cOA对应文献的传统期刊有14种，共发表论文52,232篇，作者36,577人。cOA文章的引用次数是传统出版物的一半（9.4次对18.2次），apc估计为3500万美元。女性和中低收入国家（LMIC）的作者更有可能在cOA期刊上发表文章（aOR分别为1.23和1.14）。结论：在开放获取期刊上发表文章的作者会产生更高的出版成本，但每篇文章的引用次数却更少。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.