↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge sharing in global health research – the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 1,130)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
162 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowledge sharing in global health research – the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0235-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elise Smith, Stefanie Haustein, Philippe Mongeon, Fei Shu, Valéry Ridde, Vincent Larivière

Abstract

In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR. A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries. Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA. Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 162 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Librarian 14 13%
Other 12 11%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Social Sciences 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Computer Science 7 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 5%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 27 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 145. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2022.
All research outputs
#209,471
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#10
of 1,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,361
of 288,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them