4.2 Article

The state and evolution of Gold open access: a country and discipline level analysis

期刊

ASLIB JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
卷 70, 期 5, 页码 573-584

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-02-2018-0023

关键词

Open access; Web of science; Country comparison; Discipline analysis; Gold OA; Toll access

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71673038, 71503031]
  2. project of Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT18JC32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evolution of Gold open access (OA) rates in different countries and disciplines, as well as explore the influencing factors. Design/methodology/approach - In this study, employing the OA filter option of Web of Science (WoS), the authors perform a large-scale evaluation of the OA state of countries and disciplines from 1990 to 2016. Particularly, the authors consider not only the absolute number of Gold OA literature but also the ratio of them among all literature. Findings - Currently, one-quarter of the WoS articles is Gold OA articles. Brazil is the most active country in OA publishing, while Russia, India and China have the lowest OA ratios. The OA percentage of Brazil has been decreasing dramatically in recent years, while the OA percentages of China, UK and the Netherlands have been increasing. There also exist huge differences of OA percentages across different subject categories. The percentages of OA articles in biology, life, and health-related areas are high, while those in physics and chemistry-related subject categories are very low. Originality/value - With the availability of large-scale data from WoS, this study conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the Gold OA state of major countries for the first time. The variation of OA percentages is considered in light of the research profiles. OA policies in different countries and funding organizations also have an influence on the OA development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据