Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field: Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010

Keiko Kurata, Tomoko Morioka, Keiko Yokoi, Mamiko Matsubayashi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: This study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys. Methods: The study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: "LinkOut" and "Limits." Results: The main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. "LinkOut" could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey. Discussion: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere60925
JournalPLoS One
Volume8
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 May 1

Fingerprint

PubMed
Growth
Surveys and Questionnaires
Publications
Websites
methodology
Availability
Sampling
sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field : Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010. / Kurata, Keiko; Morioka, Tomoko; Yokoi, Keiko; Matsubayashi, Mamiko.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 8, No. 5, e60925, 01.05.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kurata, Keiko ; Morioka, Tomoko ; Yokoi, Keiko ; Matsubayashi, Mamiko. / Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field : Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010. In: PLoS One. 2013 ; Vol. 8, No. 5.
@article{4d01d021c39443699ff486fddff5666e,
title = "Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field: Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010",
abstract = "Introduction: This study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys. Methods: The study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: {"}LinkOut{"} and {"}Limits.{"} Results: The main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2{\%}) was twice that in 2006 (26.3{\%}). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. {"}LinkOut{"} could find only 40{\%} of OA articles in the main survey. Discussion: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50{\%} share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.",
author = "Keiko Kurata and Tomoko Morioka and Keiko Yokoi and Mamiko Matsubayashi",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0060925",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field

T2 - Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010

AU - Kurata, Keiko

AU - Morioka, Tomoko

AU - Yokoi, Keiko

AU - Matsubayashi, Mamiko

PY - 2013/5/1

Y1 - 2013/5/1

N2 - Introduction: This study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys. Methods: The study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: "LinkOut" and "Limits." Results: The main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. "LinkOut" could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey. Discussion: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.

AB - Introduction: This study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys. Methods: The study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: "LinkOut" and "Limits." Results: The main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. "LinkOut" could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey. Discussion: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877017728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877017728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0060925

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0060925

M3 - Article

C2 - 23658683

AN - SCOPUS:84877017728

VL - 8

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e60925

ER -