Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context

Miguel, Sandra and Tannuri de Oliveira, Ely Francina and Cabrini Grácio, Maria Cláudia Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context. Publications, 2016, vol. 4, n. 1. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[img] Text
Miguel-Tannuri-Gracio_Scientific Production on Open Access 2016.pdf

Download (785kB)
[img] Text
Miguel-Tannuri-Gracio_Scientific Production on Open Access 2016.pdf

Download (785kB)
Alternative locations:

English abstract

This research aims to diachronically analyze the worldwide scientific production on open access, in the academic and scientific context, in order to contribute to knowledge and visualization of its main actors. As a method, bibliographical, descriptive and analytical research was used, with the contribution of bibliometric studies, especially the production indicators, scientific collaboration and indicators of thematic co-occurrence. The Scopus database was used as a source to retrieve the articles on the subject, with a resulting corpus of 1179 articles. Using Bibexcel software, frequency tables were constructed for the variables, and Pajek software was used to visualize the collaboration network and VoSViewer for the construction of the keywords’ network. As for the results, the most productive researchers come from countries such as the United States, Canada, France and Spain. Journals with higher impact in the academic community have disseminated the new constructed knowledge. A collaborative network with a few subnets where co-authors are from different countries has been observed. As conclusions, this study allows identifying the themes of debates that mark the development of open access at the international level, and it is possible to state that open access is one of the new emerging and frontier fields of library and information science.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: open access; scientific production on open access; bibliometric analysis
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Sandra Miguel
Date deposited: 01 Mar 2016 23:19
Last modified: 01 Mar 2016 23:19


1. Drott, M.C. Open access. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 79–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

2. White, S.; Creaser, C. Trends in Scholarly Journal Prices 2000–2006; LISU: Loughborough, UK, 2007; Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2010). [Google Scholar]

3. BOAI. Budapest Open Access Initiative; Open Society Institute: Budapest, Hungary; Available online: (accessed on 21 september 2015).

4. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Available online: (accessed on 15 September 2015).

5. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. Available online: (accessed on 20 September 2015).

6. Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P. Anatomy of green open access. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 65, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

7. Graziotin, D.; Wang, X.; Abrahamsson, P. A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems. Scientometrics 2014, 101, 1627–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

8. Harnad, S.; Brody, T.; Vallieres, F.; Carr, L.; Hitchcock, S.; Gingras, Y.; Oppenheim, C.; Hajjem, C.; Hilf, E. The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update. Ser. Rev. 2008, 34, 36–40. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2015). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

9. Laakso, M. Green open access policies of scholarly publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics 2014, 99, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

10. Rizor, S.L.; Holley, R.P. Open Access Goals Revisited: How Green and Gold Open Access Are Meeting (or Not) Their Original Goals. J. Sch. Publ. 2014, 45, 321. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2015). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

11. Suber, P. Ensuring Open Access for Publicly Funded Research. Br. Med. J. 2012, 345. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2012). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12. Björk, B.-C.; Welling, P.; Laakso, M.; Majlender, P.; Hedlund, T.; Guðnason, G. Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e11273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Miguel, S.; Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z.; Moya Anegón, F. Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1130–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

14. Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Carr, L.; Harnad, S. Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline. Available online: (accessed on 15 September 2012).

15. Düzyol, G.; Taşkın, Z.; Tonta, Y. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of the Open Access Field through Co-citation Analysis. In Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Pre-Conference: Open Access to Science Information Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries, Crete, Greece, 6–8 August 2010.

16. Craig, I.D.; Plume, A.M.; McVeigh, M.E.; Pringle, J.; Amin, M. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. J. Informetr. 2007, 1, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

17. Codina, L. Scopus: The greatest scientist of the web browser. Prof. Inf. 2005, 14, 44–49. [Google Scholar]

18. Fingerman, S. Scopus: Profusion and confusion. Online 2005, 29, 36–38. [Google Scholar]

19. Jacsó, P. As We May Search—Comparison of Major Features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar Citation-Based and Citation Enhanced Databases. Curr. Sci. 2005, 89, 1537–1547. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2015). [Google Scholar]

20. Fingerman, S. Web of Science and Scopus: Current Features and Capabilities. Issues Sci. Technol. Librariansh. 2006, 48. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2015). [Google Scholar]

21. Jacsó, P. Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases. Online Inf. Rev. 2010, 34, 642–657. [Google Scholar]

22. Bakkalbasi, N.; Bauer, K.; Glover, J.; Wang, L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24. Braun, T.; Glänzel, W.; Schubert, A. How balanced is the Science Citation Index’s journal coverage? A preliminary overview of macro level statistical data. In The Web of Knowledge—A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield; Cronin, B., Atkins, H.B., Eds.; Information Today: Medford, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 251–277. [Google Scholar]

25. Moya-Anegón, F.; Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z.; Vargas-Quesada, B.; Corera-Álvarez, E.; Muñoz-Fernández, F.J.; González-Molina, A.; Herrero-Solana, V. Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics 2007, 73, 53–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

26. Karino, M.E.; Felli, V.E. A Enfermagem baseada em evidências: Avanços e inovações em revisões sistemáticas. Cienc. Cuid. Saúde 2012, 11, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

27. Hagemann, M. Ten Years on, Researchers Embrace Open Access. Voices. Available online: (accessed on 18 August 2015).

28. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Global Open Access Portal. The Netherlands. Available online: (accessed on 20 September 2015).

29. Dekker, S. Open Access to Publication. Available online: (accessed on 11 May 2014).

30. Weitzel, S.R. As novas configurações do Acesso Aberto: Desafios e propostas. Rev. Eletron. Comun. Inf. Inov. Saúde 2014, 6, 65–75. [Google Scholar]

31. Glänzel, W. National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 2001, 51, 69–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

32. Person, O.; Glänzel, W.; Dannell, R. Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometics 2004, 60, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

33. Ennas, G.; di Guardo, M.C. Features of top-rated gold open access journals: An analysis of the scopus database. J. Informetr. 2015, 9, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item