Open access transition in obstetrics and gynecology journals—The international impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of converting from subscription-based publishing to open access ("flipping") in three obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) journals. METHODS: We compared original articles in three OBGYN journals during a matched subscription-based and open access publishing period. We analyzed citation metrics and country of authorship. RESULTS: Overall, 1522 studies were included; of those, 869 (57.1%) were before flipping and 653 (42.9%) were after flipping. There was a decrease in publications by lower-middle income countries from 7.7% in subscription-based publishing to 1.8% in open access (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the proportion of articles from South Asia (2.5% vs 0.5%), North America (14.4% vs 9.4%), and the Middle East (7.4% vs 2.5%), and an increase in publications from East Asia and Pacific (17.4% vs 30.9%; P < 0.001). The relative citation ratio was higher in the open access period (median 1.65 vs 0.95, P < 0.001). The number of citations per year was higher in the open access period (median 3.0 vs 2.0, P < 0.001). There was an increase in the proportion of funded studies (from 40.2% to 47.8%; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Flipping to open access in OBGYN journals is associated with a citation advantage with major authorship changes, leading to inequity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".