IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals

Author

Listed:
  • A Townsend Peterson
  • Paul E Johnson
  • Narayani Barve
  • Ada Emmett
  • Marc L Greenberg
  • Josh Bolick
  • Huijie Qiao

Abstract

The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) imposed a public access policy on all publications for which the research was supported by their grants; the policy was drafted in 2004 and took effect in 2008. The policy is now 11 years old, yet no analysis has been presented to assess whether in fact this largest-scale US-based public access policy affected the vitality of the scholarly publishing enterprise, as manifested in changed mortality or natality rates of biomedical journals. We show here that implementation of the NIH policy was associated with slightly elevated mortality rates and mildly depressed natality rates of biomedical journals, but that birth rates so exceeded death rates that numbers of biomedical journals continued to rise, even in the face of the implementation of such a sweeping public access policy.This Perspective article analyzes whether the US National Institutes of Health open access policy, which from 2008 forced open access on thousands of papers, had a detectable effect on the "demography" of biomedical journals.

Suggested Citation

  • A Townsend Peterson & Paul E Johnson & Narayani Barve & Ada Emmett & Marc L Greenberg & Josh Bolick & Huijie Qiao, 2019. "The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-7, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000352
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000352?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim Ottaviani, 2016. "The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It’s Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-11, August.
    2. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    3. John Willinsky, 2009. "The Publisher's Pushback against NIH's Public Access and Scholarly Publishing Sustainability," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-3, January.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Xin Gu & Karen L. Blackmore, 2016. "Recent trends in academic journal growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 693-716, August.
    6. Ewen Callaway & Kendall Powell, 2016. "Biologists urged to hug a preprint," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7590), pages 265-265, February.
    7. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao & Wang, Yuandi & Shi, Dongbo, 2018. "Survive or perish: Investigating the life cycle of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 using survival analysis methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 344-364.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qianjin Zong & Zhihong Huang & Jiaru Huang, 2023. "Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact? Using regression analysis and causal inference," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4825-4854, August.

    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. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    2. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    4. Zait, Adriana, 2020. "Academic Publishing – An Annotated Inventory of Challenges and chosen Pathways," MPRA Paper 116499, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 25 Oct 2020.
    5. Frank, John & Foster, Rosemary & Pagliari, Claudia, 2023. "Open access publishing – noble intention, flawed reality," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    6. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    7. Solomon, David J. & Laakso, Mikael & Björk, Bo-Christer, 2013. "A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 642-650.
    8. Mohammad Rabiei & Seyyed-Mahdi Hosseini-Motlagh & Abdorrahman Haeri, 2017. "Using text mining techniques for identifying research gaps and priorities: a case study of the environmental science in Iran," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 815-842, February.
    9. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    10. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    11. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    12. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    13. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    14. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    15. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Mark Armstrong, 2015. "Opening Access to Research," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(586), pages 1-30, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2021. "The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    20. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pbio00:3000352. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.