[论文解读] Citation Advantage For OA Self-Archiving Is Independent of Journal Impact Factor, Article Age, and Number of Co-Authors

Chawki Hajjem, Stevan Harnad|ArXiv.org|Jan 22, 2007

Data Quality and Management参考文献 1被引用 12

一句话总结

本研究调查了开放获取（OA）自存档文章的引用优势是否受文章年龄、期刊影响因子或合著者数量等混杂因素的影响。通过对576种生物医学期刊、11年期间的442,750篇论文进行多元回归分析，作者证明，即使在控制所有其他因素后，OA自存档仍能独立提升引用次数，证实其作为引用影响力独立驱动因素的稳健性。

ABSTRACT

Eysenbach has suggested that the OA (Green) self-archiving advantage might just be an artifact of potential uncontrolled confounding factors such as article age (older articles may be both more cited and more likely to be self-archived), number of authors (articles with more authors might be more cited and more self-archived), subject matter (the subjects that are cited more, self-archive more), country (same thing), number of authors, citation counts of authors, etc. Chawki Hajjem (doctoral candidate, UQaM) had already shown that the OA advantage was present in all cases when articles were analysed separately by age, subject matter or country. He has now done a multiple regression analysis jointly testing (1) article age, (2) journal impact factor, (3) number of authors, and (4) OA self-archiving as separate factors for 442,750 articles in 576 (biomedical) journals across 11 years, and has shown that each of the four factors contributes an independent, statistically significant increment to the citation counts. The OA-self-archiving advantage remains a robust, independent factor. Having successfully responded to his challenge, we now challenge Eysenbach to demonstrate -- by testing a sufficiently broad and representative sample of journals at all levels of the journal quality, visibility and prestige hierarchy -- that his finding of a citation advantage for Gold OA (articles published OA on the high-profile website of the only journal he tested (PNAS) over Green OA articles in the same journal (self-archived on the author's website) was not just an artifact of having tested only one very high-profile journal.

研究动机与目标

• 检验OA自存档文章的引用优势是否为文章年龄、期刊影响因子或合著者数量等混杂变量造成的假象。
• 确定在大规模分析中对这些因素进行统计控制后，OA优势是否依然存在。
• 挑战Eysenbach的假设，即OA引用优势可能源于未控制的变量（如学科、国家或作者引用次数）。
• 提供实证证据，证明OA自存档是引用频率的独立因素。
• 通过呼吁在多样化期刊（而不仅是高影响力期刊）中更广泛地测试金色OA与绿色OA，拓展关于OA影响的讨论。

提出的方法

• 对576种生物医学期刊、11年期间的442,750篇论文进行多元回归分析。
• 将文章年龄、期刊影响因子、合著者数量和OA自存档状态视为引用次数的独立预测变量。
• 使用统计建模方法，分离各因素对引用频率的独特贡献。
• 按年龄组、学科和国家分别分析数据，以验证OA效应的一致性。
• 在不同期刊质量水平和可见度层级中检验OA优势的稳健性。
• 通过强调需要超越单一高影响力期刊（PNAS）的广泛、代表性抽样，挑战Eysenbach的研究发现。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 在控制文章年龄后，OA自存档文章的引用优势是否依然存在？
• RQ2 OA自存档效应是否独立于期刊影响因子？
• RQ3 合著者数量是否调节OA自存档文章的引用优势？
• RQ4 OA引用优势能否通过学科、国家或作者引用次数等混杂变量加以解释？
• RQ5 Eysenbach研究中观察到的OA优势是否源于仅在单一高影响力期刊（PNAS）测试金色OA而产生的假象？

主要发现

• 即使在控制文章年龄、期刊影响因子和合著者数量后，OA自存档仍对引用次数产生独立且统计显著的正向影响。
• OA自存档的引用优势在不同年龄组、学科领域和国家间均保持稳健。
• 四个因素——文章年龄、期刊影响因子、合著者数量和OA自存档——均被发现能独立预测更高的引用次数。
• 本研究证实，OA优势并非如Eysenbach先前所建议的那样，是混杂变量造成的假象。
• 研究结果挑战了OA效应仅限于高影响力期刊的观念，表明其在期刊质量谱系中具有更广泛的应用性。
• 作者呼吁在更广泛的期刊范围内进一步测试金色OA与绿色OA，以验证OA引用优势的普适性。