First draft of the article text

templates/report_template.md

@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
-{% import "report_macros.md" as helper with context %}
-{% include "report_css.html" %}
+{% import "report_macros.md" as helper with context %} {% include "report_css.html" %}
 
 <!-- Title Page -->
 <pdf:nexttemplate name="titlepage">
@@ -16,25 +15,117 @@
 
 # Summary and Abstract
 
-The open access movement aims to remove access barriers to research outputs. 
-It is hypothesised that this helps maximise an article’s research impact as a 
-result of lowering access restrictions caused by social inequality that 
-favours wealthier populations. Citations are often interpreted as a measure 
-of impact. Openly accessible articles are said to have increased citation 
-counts as compared to their closed counterparts. Yet, quantitative studies 
-have shown varied results across research cohorts. The current literature 
-lacks simple yet strong evidence to support the positive impact of open 
-access on citations. Here we show that open access outputs garner more 
-diverse citationships across geographies and disciplines. We perform a 
-large-scale study of citing patterns across paired-samples of open access 
-outputs versus non-open access outputs using data integrated from multiple 
-sources. We found that the open access groups are cited more widely across 
-different countries, sub-regions, regions and fields of study. Importantly, 
-there are increased citations from populations that traditionally have 
-restricted access to closed publications. The results demonstrate a new 
-perspective to understanding the citation impact of open access practices. 
-It provides a remarkably simple argument in support of open access 
-publishing, i.e., it gets cited by more authors from more places.
-
-# Exciting things like data and table
-123 try again
+The open access movement aims to remove access barriers to research outputs. It is hypothesised that this helps maximise
+an article’s research impact as a result of lowering access restrictions caused by social inequality that favours
+wealthier populations. Citations are often interpreted as a measure of impact. Openly accessible articles are said to
+have increased citation counts as compared to their closed counterparts. Yet, quantitative studies have shown varied
+results across research cohorts. The current literature lacks simple yet strong evidence to support the positive impact
+of open access on citations. Here we show that open access outputs garner more diverse citationships across geographies
+and disciplines. We perform a large-scale study of citing patterns across paired-samples of open access outputs versus
+non-open access outputs using data integrated from multiple sources. We found that the open access groups are cited more
+widely across different countries, sub-regions, regions and fields of study. Importantly, there are increased citations
+from populations that traditionally have restricted access to closed publications. The results demonstrate a new
+perspective to understanding the citation impact of open access practices. It provides a remarkably simple argument in
+support of open access publishing, i.e., it gets cited by more authors from more places.
+
+--
+
+The goal of open access is to allow more people to read and use research outputs. An observed association of more highly
+cited articles with open access has been claimed as evidence of increased usage but this remains controversial. In
+addition, analysis of citation counts is evidence of increased usage, not a wider diversity of usage. We address this
+gap by examining the association of open access with the diversity of citations. We show a robust association of a
+higher diversity of citation sources by institution, country, region and field for publications from 2010-2020, and that
+the effect is seen for both high and medium-low citation counts. Open Access through repositories shows a stronger
+effect than open access publishing. Our study provides the first evidence at a global scale that open access is
+achieving its goals of research outputs being available to, and used by, wider audiences.
+
+# Article Text
+
+The purpose of research is for it be used, either applied to solve problems and address issues, or more narrowly to
+provide insight, capacity and inspiration for further research. The Open Access movement is founded on the goals of
+putting research in the hands of more people and making it more usable. A seismic shift in access models has occurred
+over the past decade with accessible outputs rising from around 10% of globally indexed outputs published in 2010 to
+over 50% of all outputs published in 2020 being accessible in some form.
+
+It has remained challenging to conclusively demonstrate the benefits of this shift. Collection of case studies and
+narratives has been important, and a range of studies have sought quantitative evidence of enhanced usage in various
+ways. An observed association of increased citation counts with open access to articles has provided the most global
+evidence of enhanced usage. However, there are several confounding factors that make claims of a causal link less than
+definitive. Specifically, a set of narrowly defined randomised control trials find no effect, and there is an argument
+that access to resources and prestige may well be associated both the choice to make an output open access and the
+likelihood of higher citations.
+
+In addition to these issues we felt that a focus on citation counts fails to address some of the core goals of open
+access, specifically that a wider range of researchers users have more access. Quantitative assessment of citation
+source diversity is feasible at scale, and because standard measures of diversity are less sensitive to counts, may
+allow us to address the issues of access to resources and prestige that are significant potential confounders in
+analysis based simply on citation counts or velocity.
+
+To analyse citation diversity we used the data system developed the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative for analysis of
+open knowledge performance. For the current analysis we used integrated data from Crossref, Microsoft Academic (MAG) and
+the Research Organizations Register (ROR) to provide data on affiliations and location, field of research and
+publication dates. We used Unpaywall data to define open access status.
+
+For each of the 60 million publications in the dataset that had received at least one recorded citation we defined the
+set of citing institutions, countries, regions and fields (using the MAG Level 0 fields). A single citing article may
+represent citations from multiple sites (eg institutions) and each of these citation-sites is counted as contributing to
+the diversity measures. For each of the 60 million articles we then calculate total citations, and the Shannon
+Information Entropy and Gini ## Index as measures of diversity. Higher numbers are indicators of more diversity for both
+measures.
+
+We first replicate the observed association of open access with higher citations at this global scale, consistent with
+previous literature but with the known caveats. Nonetheless we see that this association is robust across fields, years
+of publication, and countries of publication (with some interesting exceptions) which offers avenues for further
+analysis of the causal effects.
+
+We show an enhanced diversity of citing institutions, countries and regions for open access research outputs (as defined
+by the Unpaywall is_oa data element) with this effect being consistent for all publication years after 2010, across all
+the fields examined here. There are differences over time, between fields and between author’s countries in the scale of
+the effect, as well as the underlying diversity measures. These are interesting areas for future study. What is striking
+is how consistent the observed effect is across all of these potential groupings (see supplementary data).
+
+Significance measures are not easily applied, as we are not sampling. To evaluate confidence intervals we apply a
+subsampling procedure. We also analyse the dependence of the effect on citation counts and show that the effect is
+robust across the range of citation counts, with some limitations on the ability to analyse very low counts. ###CAN WE
+SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THE EFFECT SIZE CORRESPONDS TO IN THE REAL WORLD###.
+
+There are two interesting exceptions to the consistent behaviour of the effect. The first is that of the diversity of
+citing fields by publication year, where the increased diversity for open access outputs only occurs after ##2010##. The
+second is a similar pattern specifically for open access on publisher websites (sometimes referred to as “gold” and/or
+“hybrid”). Whereas open access through repositories (“green”, which includes preprints in this analysis) is associated
+with greater diversity of citations throughout the whole timeframe of analysis and with a larger overall effect of open
+access, the “open access advantage” appears from 201##?? Onwards for open access provided via publisher websites.
+Nonetheless for 2015 onwards the effect is consistent.
+
+As an observational cohort study, our analysis is not able to define a causal link between open access and enhanced
+diversity of citation sources. However, as a global analysis we can definitely say that within the full cohort in our
+dataset of over 100 million outputs that open access outputs have a greater diversity of citation. To address the issue
+of potentially confounding effects, particular that wealthier or more prestigious authors, institutions or countries
+have greater ability to choose open access we note that citation diversity overall ###is frequently lower for wealthier
+countries##SHOULD WE GRAPH THIS##? And institutions. The lack of overall correlation between citation counts and
+citation diversity provides evidence that these differing measures track different aspects of usage and that there is
+limited common confounding at the global scale.
+
+The Budapest Open Access Initiative, now 20 years old, notes that open access makes possible “ the world-wide electronic
+distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all
+scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds” providing a public good which will remove “accelerate
+research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this
+literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and
+quest for knowledge”.
+
+Efforts to demonstrate the success of this endeavour remain as controversial as the choice of paths towards achieving
+open access. The use of citations to capture use of research will always be limited. But data on other forms of usage
+remain challenging and partial. By shifting attention from counting citations to assessing the diversity of citing
+actors we have demonstrated that existing data can be repurposed to analyse different goals. In doing so we have
+demonstrated that even for the narrow form of usage that citation from research outputs represents, open access outputs
+are being used by a wider diversity of actors, whether we analyse those actors by institution, country, region or field.
+
+More broadly diversity measures in general offer a new view over existing data providing potential insights that are not
+offered by simple counts. As a potential insight into where the benefits of open access are being seen and a guide to
+improving our policy implementation for wider access this offers many opportunities in addressing “…the task of removing
+the barriers to open access and building a future in which research and education in every part of the world are that
+much more free to flourish”.
+
+# References
+
+