Trends in reader access and article processing charges among urology journals: A systematic review

Abstract

Introduction: This bibliometric study is designed to investigate the relations of urology journals with access types and article processing charges (APCs) to assess the changing paradigm in urology publishing.

Methods: The three major databases: The Master Journal List directory by Clavirate Analytics, Scopus((R)) and PubMed were queried for relevant journals in urology and subspecialties. Characterization of urology journals was undertaken, and citation metrics and APCs were compared across access types. A partial sampling was used to investigate the number of open access (OA) articles according to access types and correlations with both APCs and CiteScore.

Results: Seventy-seven journals were included into the study. Gold and diamond OA journals comprised 35.4% of urology journals in 2009 and were increased to 49.3% in 2022. No significant difference was found for change in the CiteScore of 2017 and 2021 between the access types, F (2,63) = 0.152, P = 0.859, eta(2) = 0.005. A moderate positive correlation was found between APCs and CiteScore for both hybrid (rs [27] =0.431, P < 0.0005) and gold OA (rs [27] =0.489, P = 0.007) journals. The authors need to pay $1175 more to publish their articles in OA model in hybrid journals. The number of articles published in OA model by hybrid journals were not correlated with APCs (rs = 0.332, P = 0.078) but correlated with CiteScore (rs = 0.393, P = 0.035).

Conclusions: A paradigm shift in urology publishing toward OA model has been occurring. Authors choose prestige, OA model, rapid publication, and less rigorous peer-review to publish their articles. APCs bear only moderate correlation with the citation metrics of the urology journals.