Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.11.08.467687

Open Access publishing in Medicine: lights and shadows.

Abstract

The widespread use of internet has had enormous consequences in changing the way of accessing to scientific literature in all domains of knowledge and, in particular, in medicine. One of the most important related factors is the idea of making research output freely available: the so-called Open Access (OA) option. OA is considered very important in spreading of knowledge, breaking down barriers in benefit of research, and increasing the impact of research outputs within the scientific community. Here, we carried out a comparison between Non-Open Access (NOA) and OA medical Journals in terms of growing rate, geographical distribution, and the impact on scientific community. We collected the bibliometric data on the scientific Journals indexed in Scopus starting from 2001 to 2016 published either as NOA or OA. Then, we analysed the number of Journals, their geolocalization, their impact on the scientific community, and the parameters as SJR, H index, and cites for document (2 years). As a result, we found that while the number of NOA Journals is virtually stable, that of OA is dramatically increasing, with a growing rate higher than 400% in 2016. Then, the majority of OA Journals are published in developing Countries (Brazil, India, South Africa, South Korea, New Zealand, Serbia, and Poland) and their impact within researchers is lower compared to the NOA Journals. In conclusion, our data provide an updated and unprecedented picture of OA adoption in medical field, with its lights and shadows. Article HighlightsO_LIWe are seeing in medicine a huge increase in the number of Journals that use OA; C_LIO_LIThis trend is mainly due to the increase in publishing Journals in Countries with emergent economies; C_LIO_LIThe use of OA for Journals in the medical field, did not guarantee a vantage in term of bibliometric parameters. C_LI MCS92C99 JELI30

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bernabo, N., Valbonetti, L., Ordinelli, A., Ciccarelli, R., Barboni, B.. 2021-11-08. Open Access publishing in Medicine: lights and shadows.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.08.467687

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

The logical structure of experiments lays the foundation for a theory of reproducibility

The scientific reform movement has proposed openness as a potential remedy to the putative reproducibility or replication crisis. However, the conceptual relationship between openness, replication experiments, and results reproducibility has been obscure. We analyze the logical structure of experiments, define the mathematical notion of idealized experiment, and use this notion to advance a theory of reproducibility. Idealized experiments clearly delineate the concepts of replication and results reproducibility, and capture key differences with precision, allowing us to study the relationship among them. We show how results reproducibility varies as a function of: the elements of an idealized experiment, the true data generating mechanism, and the closeness of the replication experiment to an original experiment. We clarify how openness of experiments is related to designing informative replication experiments and to obtaining reproducible results. With formal backing and evidence, we argue that the current "crisis" reflects inadequate attention to a theoretical understanding of results reproducibility.

scientific communication and education↗

Cloud-controlled microscopy enables remote project-based biology education in Latinx communities in the United States and Latin America

Project-based learning (PBL) has long been recognized as an effective way to teach complex biology concepts. However, not all institutions have the resources to facilitate effective project-based coursework for students. We have developed a framework for facilitating PBL using remote-controlled internet-connected microscopes. Through this approach, one lab facility can host an experiment allowing simultaneous interaction by many students worldwide. Experiments on this platform can be run on long timescales and with materials that are typically unavailable to high school classrooms. This allows students to perform novel research projects rather than just repeat standard classroom experiments. To investigate the impact of this program, we designed and ran six user studies with students worldwide. All experiments were executed in Santa Cruz and San Francisco, California, with observations and decisions made remotely by the students using their personal computers and cellphones. In surveys gathered after the experiments conclusion, students reported increased excitement for science and a greater desire to pursue a career in STEM. This framework represents a novel, scalable, and effective PBL approach that has the potential to democratize biology and STEM education around the world.

scientific communication and education↗