Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles [Open Access (OA) and Toll-Access (TA)] and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium and Low).Design/methodology/approach- Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology and Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography and Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (TA and OA) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting Journal Citation Report's Master Journal List (for the compilation of both Open Access and Toll Access journal list) and Directory of Open Access Journals (for the compilation of Open Access journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (Open Access or Toll Access), etc. were obtained from Ulrich's Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The data set was run on the WoS to collect the citation data.Findings - The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, TA articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.Originality/value - A novel approach has been adopted to understand and compare the research impact of open access (OA) and toll access (TA) journal articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences at three Impact factor zone levels to reveal the citation metrics encompassing three parameters, i.e. citedness, average citation count and year wise distribution of citations in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences.Peer review - The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/[DOI]/10. 1108/OIR-01-2021-0029
Citation pattern of open access and toll-based research articles in the field of biological and physical sciences: a comparative study
Review badges
Web of Science (Free Access)
Abstract
- Contribute
- pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
Decision Letter
2023/02/2828-Feb-2023
Dear Wani, Zahid Ashraf; Shah, Tariq
It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-01-2021-0029.R2, entitled "Citation Pattern of Open Access and Toll-based Research Articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences: A Comparative Study" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.
This email will be followed by a second message containing a copy of your author accepted manuscript (AAM) which is the version that we will typeset and publish in the journal.
Your article will now go through editorial checks by Emerald’s editorial team to ensure it meets our publication standards. These checks can take up to five days; we’ll be in touch if we have any queries at this stage. Once this step has been completed you will receive an email directing you to Emerald Submit to select your publishing licence and submit your article to production. If you are publishing in one of our subscription journals and wish to make your article open access you can choose this option in Emerald Submit.
If you have not received an email with editorial queries or an invitation to complete licensing on Emerald Submit within 10 working days of acceptance, please do contact the JEO (Journal Editorial Office), you can find their details on the journal homepage:
https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/oir?id=oir
Please note that it is the corresponding author who must sign the publishing licence on behalf of all authors of your article.
Once you have completed licensing on Emerald Submit, your article will enter the production process and you’ll be provided with a proof. You will need to approve your proof before your article is published. If you have any queries about the proofing system you can contact the journal’s Supplier Project Manager (SPM) whose contact details are on the journal homepage: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/oir?id=oir.
By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. Once the above steps are completed your article will be published online in EarlyCite. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will later be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.
Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.
Sincerely,
Dr. Eugenia Siapera
Co-Editor
eugenia.siapera@ucd.ieTell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.
Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.
Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2022/10/12Improved considerably
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Author Response
2022/07/09Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for sparing your precious time to critically review our manuscript. I am here clarifying following two points raised by you.- Citation comparison between OA research journals indexed in DOAJ with TA journals indexed in WOS doesn't augur well.
Response:
Your argument is cent percent right and we also agree to this. But our study has only compared OA and TA journals indexed by Web of Science and listed in JCR. The DOAJ was merely used to identify the OA journals that were later on cross cross checked in JCR’s Master Journal List to make sure these journals are indexed by the Web of Science. Therefore, list of all such OA journals in select fields was created that are indexed by the Web of Science. While as, all those OA journals that were listed in DOAJ but not indexed by Web of Science were discarded from the further study.- I would suggest to remove the first paragraph under heading 1.1 Subject selection from row 10-26, as same is not required.
Response:
This section was previously incorporated on the advice of other reviewer. Therefore, we would like to retain it for such users who may not be aware about DDC as such this section can offer them right context.Author response by
Cite this author response
- pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
Decision Letter
2022/06/1212-Jun-2022
Dear Dr. Wani,
Manuscript ID OIR-01-2021-0029.R1 entitled "Citation Pattern of Open Access and Toll-based Research Articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences: A Comparative Study" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication. Please read their suggestions and prepare a revised manuscript. Any changes that you make to your manuscipt should be highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.
Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."
To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.
Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.
Yours sincerely,
To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.Dr. Sean Goggins
Co-Editor
gogginss@missouri.edu, gogginss@missouri.eduReviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1Recommendation: Major Revision
Comments:
reflectedAdditional Questions:
Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The concept by no means can be considered as novel, as lot of work has already been done in this field and so have researchers evaluated a good amount of literature in this study. Yes, the present work adds to the existing body of knowledge in the given field, however the idea of drawing citation comparison between the OA research journal indexed in DoAJ with TA journals indexed in WoS doesn't augur well.The most questionable part of the study is that authors have tried to draw a citation comparison of journals from WoS which are rated as top quality journals with journals from DOAJ which although a mixed bag of journals but are generally rated as sub-standard by the research and scientific community of the world. So the comparison between the two to a greater extent can be considered as unfair.
DOAJ is not the type of index which may be consulted by the researchers to seek the details about the standard journals published in any given subject discipline.
It would have been ideal had the citation comparison drawn between the OA and TA research indexed in WoS alone. Secondly, the author should clearly mention in methodology part, as whether the research journals chosen from DOAJ from both the sciences are WoS indexed or not. Third, if the journals from DoAJ are not indexed in WoS, then the term Impact factor zone created by the authors is not applicable to the study.
The researcher needs to elaborate as whether all the OA journals selected from the DOAJ stand also indexed in the WoS? if so then only the researcher can talk about distributing journals in three IF Zones. there is need to understand that the term Impact Factor is propriety of Clarivate Analytics and can not be used arbitrarily. Still more if all the OA journals selected from DOAJ do fall in WoS journal list, then there is no need to consult DoAJ separately. Factually there is no need to indicate that these journals are OA because they are indexed in DOAJ.
Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Yes, the researchers have reviewed adequate amount of literature related to present study.
Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Methodology and methods followed are in line with the study.
Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Results are OK, however, i would suggest to remove the first paragraph under the heading 1.1 subject selection from row 10 to 26, as same is not required.
Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Ok
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Such a type of studies help in busting the myth that publishing research article in OA journal will help it fetching more citations than publishing article in a TA journal.
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: By and large the manuscript is well written, easy to understand and in coherent way, however proof reading is required if accepted.
Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons
Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2022/06/06reflected
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Author Response
2022/03/05Response to Comments made by the Reviewers
Reviewer 1
1. Conclusion section changed as advised
2. IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) followed
3. References updated. Page numbers inserted in references
4. Ampersand "&" changed to "and"
5. Full form of Acronyms and Abbreviations like SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) and DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) written.
Reviewer 2
1. As advised Table 1.2.1-A, Table 1.2.1-B, Table 1.2.2-A and Table 1.2.2-B consolidated into two tables, hence duplication of information in these tables is removed.
2. Errors addressed by removing Table 4.2.2-A and Table 4.3 that appeared due to typographical mistakes in the text.
3. Citedness defined in the footnote 1; while as Citation count and year wise distribution of citations are self-explanatory. Therefore, the explanation is avoided for the brevity of the manuscript.
4. As advised Methodology section has been reorganized like Sampling and Distribution of journals appeared in two separate headings in the previous version of the paper. These two separate portions in the Methodology have been reorganized under one sub section.
5. Conclusion part has been revised completely and an attempt has been made with regards to future areas of research.
6. Language of the manuscript is improved
Reviewer 3
1. Manuscript has been revised as advised.
2. Methodology: The resource corpus for the study constituted a total of 175976 research articles (25403 OA articles and 150573 TA articles) so the representative sample size of 40% of the population has been chosen that is sufficient to reach the valid findings for the study.
3. Discussion/Argument: A valid point has been raised by Reviewer 3 with regards to agreement or disagreement with the findings of earlier studies. This issue has been addressed properly in the revised manuscript.
4. Conclusion: The entire conclusion has been changed as advised by the Reviewer.
Reviewer 4
1. The sections identified by the Reviewer 4 like Introduction, Discussion, Future research directions have been improved in the revised manuscript.
2. Results and Discussions have been presented separately as suggested by the Reviewer
3. The Future Research directions section has been added in the revised manuscript.
4. Originality/Value: Originality/Value part has been revised as suggested
5. Methodology: A brief overview of Dewey Decimal Classification scheme has been provided as suggested.
6. Results: Results and Discussion sections have been presented separately for better clarity and understanding of the readers.
7. Discussion/Arguments: Findings of the study have been elaborated in detail in the discussion section and as suggested this section has been added separately.
8. Quality of communication: A sincere effort has been made to improve the quality of communication. The Ampersand (&) in the title has been changed to "and".
9. The problem of lengthy sentences has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
10. Extra words "he used" have been removed from the sentence " However, the author did not mention the number of Open access articles in the data set he used". This is mentioned in 1.3. Article Selection of the manuscript.Author response by
Cite this author response
- pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
Decision Letter
2022/01/16&PHPSESSID16-Jan-2022;
Dear Dr. Wani,
Manuscript ID OIR-01-2021-0029 entitled "Citation Pattern of Open Access & Toll-based Research Articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences: A Comparative Study" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication.
Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.
Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."
To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.
Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Sean Goggins
gogginss@missouri.edu, gogginss@missouri.eduReviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1Recommendation: Minor Revision
Comments:
The purpose of this paper, “Citation Pattern of Open Access & Toll-based Research Articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences: A Comparative Study” is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles (open access & toll based) and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium & Low). Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology & Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography & Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (toll based and open access) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting JCR's Master Journal List (for the compilation of both OA & TA journal list) and DOAJ (for the compilation of OA journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (open access or Toll based) etc., were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The dataset was run on the Web of Science to collect the citation data. The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, toll-based articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.
The paper draft has the following problems.
1. In the current conclusion section, authors have mentioned that the immediate citation boost as claimed by different researchers has also not been witnessed in this study. They should share some data in tabular or graphical form to substantiate their claims. Data analytics is needed.
2. In scientific writing, IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) is a common organizational structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMRAD). We should follow it. Please share an effective and concise “Conclusion” section. The current conclusion section is not up to the mark.
3. Referencing is also poor in the present draft. Page numbers are missing in many references.
4. Too many acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided in the technical articles. In this draft ‘&’ has been used a lot. Similarly, ‘SPSS’ and ‘DDC’ are common terms for us all but such terms should be written in complete form at least once in a lengthy article.Additional Questions:
Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: YesRelationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Yes
Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Yes
Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Acceptable
Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Acceptable
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Good
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Good
Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Acceptable
This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Reject
Comments:
1. The literature review should not just be a list of related research papers, but a conclusion of describing the status quos of the field to support the value of the paper.
2. The catalog of methodology is not necessary (Line 39-49 on page 5).
3. Table 1.2.1-A and 1.2.1-B is not necessary, and the information is duplicated with table 1.2.2-A and 1.2.2-B.
4. There are some obvious errors and problems in the paper. For example, where is the Table 4.2.2-A, Table 4.3, and the presentation of Web of Science of Line 26 and Line 27 on Page 7 is not consistent, etc.
5. Why do you divide the journals into high impact journals, medium impact journals and low impact journals and what’s the value and significance?
6. What do the citedness, citation count and year wise citation rates of research article refer to? Please provide the specific definitions.Additional Questions:
Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: No, there have been many related research.Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Yes, the paper demonstrate some relevant literature in the field, but the analysis is not sufficient.
Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodology is appropriate and the exact methods of sampling, data mining and analysis are presented. But the framework is not well designed and some content needs to be simplified and reorganized.
Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes, the results are presented clearly and analysed appropriately.
Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, it discussed the relation between any empirical findings and previous work. The theoretical concepts are articulated well and used appropriately
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, the implications are identified clearly. However, there are no new and valuable conclusions of this article. Many conclusions are the same as previous research.
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: No, the expressions need to be improved. There are many obvious errors and problems in the paper.
Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons
Reviewer: 3
Recommendation: Minor Revision
Comments:
Improve the manuscript as suggest.Additional Questions:
Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The concept though not that novel but is very interesting, when there is a continuous debate over the advantages of research articles published in OA research journals over those published in TA research journals. Be it in terms of visibility of articles or the citation count. The study has been very well conceived, relevant and within the scope of the journal.Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Researchers have undergone through a copious literature published earlier in relation of the existing study, which given a clear idea about the authors understanding about the subject. As authors have maintained that no earlier study in the area of Biological and Physical Sciences has been undertaken earlier so the constrain can be understood.
Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Research methods applied are appropriate, however the authors could have analyzed the whole data rather undertaking study on a small number of journals chosen though sampling. There was no need to do further sampling of the journals as the number was already small, as such researchers could have studies the whole data.
Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Appropriate in line with the methodology followed.
Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The authors of this particular study should understand that findings of this particular study with earlier studies cant be rated in agreement or disagreement with earlier studies. Had this study been undertaken on the same data and for the same time period then any difference between the two would have led to the situation of agreement or disagreement. since the present study has altogether been undertaken on different data for a different time period, so findings will definitely show some variance, The authors of this particular study can however say that over the years citation impact of OA and TA research articles has changed a great deal, the trend shown in earlier studies is contrary to the results reflected in present studies. so in a way these figures are bound to change in future studies of similar nature. The overall discussion is good and balanced.
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: it would be a good idea to provide the supplementary sheets indicating IF of both OA and TA research journals published in the area of Biological and Physical Sciences and considered for this particular study. Especially the OA journals indexed in WoS in the areas under study in their IF descending order.
Conclusion is simply repetition of results, it would be ideal if authors can rewrite entire conclusion in the light of objectives of the study and also keeping in view the introduction part of the study as well.
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Good
Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons
Reviewer: 4
Recommendation: Major Revision
Comments:
This is very interesting paper to read and review. Some sections of the paper are presented very well such as literature review, results, conclusion. However, some sections need further improvement such as introduction, discussion, implications and future research directions.
The results and discussion should be presented separately.
The implications of the study should be added.
Future research directions should also be added as it will help other researchers to replicate this study in another discipline as well as compare the results of this study with other studies.Additional Questions:
Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, the paper is significant in its nature investigating the citation pattern of OA and Toll-based research articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences. Besides, I suggest authors to write originality / value considering biological science and physical sciences subjects even three each subjects in both disciplines. There is the possibility the findings of this paper might be different in the social science or in any other subjects. Hence, the originality / value of the paper need to be revised.Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: This paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature and significant literature has been added.
Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodology is fine and elaborated well. However, the subject selection process need further details because if someone not access and understand DDC 23rd edition then how can they understand? (page 5, line 55). The pure science researchers might be unaware with the DDC. A brief overview will ease and help the readers to understand this process.
Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Albeit, the results are presented clearly and appropriately. However, I suggest authors to present results and discussion separately for better clarity and understanding of the reader.
Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: This is very interesting study and i was expecting excellent discussion but unfortunately the result and discussion presented together. The discussion is poorly managed in results section. I strongly suggest the authors to present results and discussion separately and elaborate the findings of the study in details in the discussion section.
Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: There are no implications of the study. I suggest authors to present implications especially the theoretical and practical implications.
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The quality of communications needs to be improved.
The authors used ampersand (&) in the title which should be ‘and’.
Besides, there are lots of complex and lengthy sentences throughout in the paper.
There are certain grammar and language issues in the paper. For example, ‘The results of the study indicate that open mode of access…..’ (page 1, line 31). The phrase ‘open mode of access’ should simply be written as ‘open access’. Another issue is too lengthy sentences, for example in page 2 (line 19-25) containing sentence of 82 words. Lots of phrase in these lines are not clear, for example, through some proper bibliometric technique, in current and coming testing times, with the perplexity of these much talked about resources, etc. Poor writing stuff!
Another example is ‘However, the author did not mention the number of Open access articles in the data set, he used’ (p. 2, line 49-50). The words ‘he used’ are extra and to be removed.Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons
Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2021/09/26This is very interesting paper to read and review. Some sections of the paper are presented very well such as literature review, results, conclusion. However, some sections need further improvement such as introduction, discussion, implications and future research directions.
The results and discussion should be presented separately.
The implications of the study should be added.
Future research directions should also be added as it will help other researchers to replicate this study in another discipline as well as compare the results of this study with other studies.Reviewed by
Cite this review
Reviewer report
2021/09/20Improve the manuscript as suggest.
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Reviewer report
2021/09/19- The literature review should not just be a list of related research papers, but a conclusion of describing the status quos of the field to support the value of the paper.
- The catalog of methodology is not necessary (Line 39-49 on page 5).
- Table 1.2.1-A and 1.2.1-B is not necessary, and the information is duplicated with table 1.2.2-A and 1.2.2-B.
- There are some obvious errors and problems in the paper. For example, where is the Table 4.2.2-A, Table 4.3, and the presentation of Web of Science of Line 26 and Line 27 on Page 7 is not consistent, etc.
- Why do you divide the journals into high impact journals, medium impact journals and low impact journals and what’s the value and significance?
- What do the citedness, citation count and year wise citation rates of research article refer to? Please provide the specific definitions.
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Reviewer report
2021/06/26The purpose of this paper, “Citation Pattern of Open Access & Toll-based Research Articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences: A Comparative Study” is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles (open access & toll based) and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium & Low). Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology & Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography & Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (toll based and open access) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting JCR's Master Journal List (for the compilation of both OA & TA journal list) and DOAJ (for the compilation of OA journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (open access or Toll based) etc., were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The dataset was run on the Web of Science to collect the citation data. The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, toll-based articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.
The paper draft has the following problems.
1. In the current conclusion section, authors have mentioned that the immediate citation boost as claimed by different researchers has also not been witnessed in this study. They should share some data in tabular or graphical form to substantiate their claims. Data analytics is needed.
2. In scientific writing, IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) is a common organizational structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMRAD). We should follow it. Please share an effective and concise “Conclusion” section. The current conclusion section is not up to the mark.
3. Referencing is also poor in the present draft. Page numbers are missing in many references.
4. Too many acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided in the technical articles. In this draft ‘&’ has been used a lot. Similarly, ‘SPSS’ and ‘DDC’ are common terms for us all but such terms should be written in complete form at least once in a lengthy article.Reviewed by
Cite this review
