In Press

Articles by the CSDisseminate Team

The Effect of Open Access on Scholarly and Societal Metrics of Impact in the ASHA Journals

Long, Drown, & El Amin (in press)

Purpose: The present study examined the effect of open access (OA) status on scholarly and societal metrics of impact (citation counts and altmetric scores, respectively) across manuscripts published in the ASHA Journals.


Method: 3,419 manuscripts published in four active ASHA journals were grouped across three access statuses based on their availability to the public: Gold OA, Green OA, and Closed Access. Two linear mixed-effects models tested the effects of OA status on citation counts and altmetric scores of manuscripts.


Results: Both Green OA and Gold OA significantly predicted a 2.70 and 5.21 respective increase in citation counts compared to Closed Access manuscripts (p < .001). Gold OA was estimated to predict a 25.7-point significant increase in altmetric scores (p < .001), but Green OA was only marginally significant (p = 0.68) in predicting a 1.44 increase in altmetric scores relative to Closed Access manuscripts.


Discussion: CSD research that is fully open receives more online attention and overall, more scientific attention than research that is paywalled or available through Green OA methods. Additional research is needed to understand secondary variables affecting these and other scholarly and societal metrics of impact across studies in CSD. Ongoing support and incentives to reduce the inequities of OA publishing are critical for continued scientific advancement.

Reading Icon

Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey

El Amin, Borders, Long, Keller, & Kearney (in press)

Purpose: Open science is a collection of practices that seek to improve the accessibility, transparency, and replicability of science. Though these practices have garnered interest in related fields, it remains unclear whether open science practices have been adopted in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD). This study aimed to survey the knowledge, implementation, and perceived benefits and barriers of open science practices in CSD.


Method: An online survey was disseminated to researchers in the United States actively engaged in CSD research. Four core open science practices were examined: Pre-Registration, Self-Archiving, Gold Open Access, and Open Data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models.


Results: Two hundred and twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were doctoral students (38%) or assistant professors (24%) at R1 institutions (58%). Participants reported low knowledge of pre-registration and gold open access. There was, however, a high level of desire to learn more for all practices. Implementation of open science practices was also low, most notably for pre-registration, gold open access, and open data (<25%). Predictors of knowledge and participation, as well as perceived barriers to implementation, are discussed.


Conclusion: Though participation in open science appears low in the field of CSD, participants expressed a strong desire to learn more in order to engage in these practices in the future.

1538116724775.jpg

Pfeiffer, Long, & El Amin (2022)

Restricted access to journals can make it challenging for clinicians to keep up with new research. Check out this ASHA Leader article to learn about five free, legal ways to read what you need.

Working from Home

Gaeta, Pfeiffer, & Kearney (2022)

In this Audiology Today article, we describe ways in which researchers and clinicians in communication sciences and disorders can promote transparency and improve accessibility through two open-science practices: open access and self-archiving.

Image by Clay Banks