The Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA) has been a major topic of discussion in the literature over the past twenty years. In this paper, we propose a method to constitute a control group to isolate the OACA effect. Thus, we compared citation impact (MNCS) of 2,458,378 publications in fully OA journals to that (weighted MNCS) of a control group of non-OA publications (\#10,310,842). Similarly, we did the same exercise for OA publications in hybrid journals (\#1,024,430) and their control group (\#11,533,001), over the period 2010-2020. The results showed that there is no OACA for publications in fully OA journals, and that there is rather a disadvantage. Conversely, the OACA seems to be a reality in hybrid journals, suggesting that a better accessibility in this context tends to improve the visibility of publications. The lack of OACA for publications in fully OA journals is to be expected, as a great proportion of OA journals are newly created and less attractive to high-impact senior researchers.Another striking result of this paper is the fall of the OACA from 2016. The citation advantage fell from 70% to 9% between 2016 and 2020 (for publications in hybrid journals). We wonder if this fall is linked to the increase in the notoriety of pirate sites (eg Sci-Hub) from 2016. In other words, the democratization of pirate sites instantly cancels the positive effect of OA publication insofar as the question of access to scientific content no longer arises.
翻译:在过去二十年中,开放查阅指数(OACA)一直是文献中的一个主要讨论话题。在本文中,我们建议了一种方法来组成一个控制小组,以孤立 OACA效应。因此,我们把完全OA杂志2,458,378份出版物的引用影响(MMCS)与非OA出版物控制组( ⁇ 10,310,842)的引用影响(加权MNCS)相比较。同样,我们在2010-2020年期间对混合期刊( ⁇ 1,024,430)及其控制组( ⁇ 11,533,001)的OA出版物也做了同样的工作。结果显示,在完全OA杂志上没有OACA出版物的查阅影响,而且相当不利。相反,OAC出版物在混合期刊中似乎是一种现实(加权MNCSS),表明在这方面更容易获得非OA出版物。同样,OA期刊的全文是新创造出来的,对高影响力的高级研究人员来说吸引力较小。 2016年,OAC出版物在OA出版物中排名第70 %。