Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Acces and Subscription Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, our interest focused on the evaluation of the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of studies published in OA and non OA journals. To this end we included primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews (SR), and meta-analyses (MA) published in the field of oncology in 2013 Methods Methodological quality of studies was evaluated by assessing the compliance of case control (CC) and cohort (CO) studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the compliance of SR and MA to Assessment of Multiple Systemic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of CC and CO studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of SR and MA to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with CC or CO study design from OA journals (n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals, matched by impact factor value (n = 12); the first SR and MA published in 2013 from OA journals (n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals, matched by impact factor value (n = 15) Results Among CC and CO studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (p = 0.8) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (p = 1). The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between SR and MA published in OA and non-OA journals (p = 0.6), (p = 0.8), respectively. Conclusion The studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals. Key message The studies published in OA journals and in non-OA journals in the field of oncology in 2013 approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.390 | 0.738 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".