Factors Associated with Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals
Koong, A.; Gardner, U.; Burton, J.; Stewart, C.; Thompson, P.; Fuller, C.; Ludmir, E.; Rooney, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundOpen access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publication is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. MethodsWe identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (USD), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. We generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. ResultsOf 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met final inclusion criteria. The median APC was 2957 USD (IQR 1958-3450). On univariable testing, journals with greater number of citable documents (p<0.001), higher IF (p < 0.001), higher H-index (p < 0.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (p < 0.001) or originating in Europe/North America (p < 0.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, number of citable documents, IF, OA publishing model, and region persisted as significant predictors of processing charges. ConclusionsOA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, utilize the hybrid OA model, have higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal 93%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 92%
- Woman Authorship in Pre-print Versus Peer-Reviewed Oral Health-Related Publications: A Two-Year Observational Study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patterns of peritoneal dissemination and response to systemic chemotherapy in common and rare peritoneal tumors treated by cytoreductive surgery: Study protocol of a prospective, multi-center, observational study 93%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 93%
- Reproducibility and transparency characteristics of oncology research evidence 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Missing data in the medical record for oncology patients: prevalence and association with outcomes 93%
- Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors 93%
- COVID-19 outcomes, risk factors and associations by race: a comprehensive analysis using electronic health records data in Michigan Medicine 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of digital-enabled multidisciplinary therapy conferences on efficiency and quality of the decision making in prostate-cancer care 90%
- Network Graph Representation of COVID-19 Scientific Publications to Aid Knowledge Discovery 89%
- ChatGPT in glioma patient adjuvant therapy decision making: ready to assume the role of a doctor in the tumour board? 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in cancer patients on systemic antineoplastic treatment in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal 90%
- The Impact of Fasting the Holy Month of Ramadan on Colorectal Cancer Patients and Two Tumor Biomarkers: A Tertiary-Care Hospital Experience 90%
- Retrospective study on the clinicogenomic characteristics of EGFR mutant and wildtype NSCLC 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.