The evolving landscape of publishing in human reproduction: an analysis of scientometric data, open-access publishing, and article processing charges

Abstract

Background: This bibliometric study aims to examine the associations of journals in the field of human reproduction with their access types and article processing charges to evaluate the evolving landscape of publishing in human reproduction. Methods: The primary databases, including Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List, Scopus®, PubMed, and Directory of Open Access Journals, were scrutinized to identify pertinent journals within the realm of human reproduction, utilizing keywords such as reproductive, reproduction, fertility, and infertility. Journals were excluded if they were not actively publishing in English or primarily focused on reproductive health, men’s health, sexual medicine, embryogenesis, developmental biology, or veterinary medicine concerning animal reproduction. A thorough characterization of the journals was conducted, followed by a comparative analysis of citation metrics and article processing charges across various access models. Results: Forty-one journals were included into the study. A significant increase in the proportion of gold and diamond open-access journals was observed, rising from 42% (13 out of 31) to 53.6% (22 out of 41) by 2023. Hybrid journals demonstrated superior citation metrics compared to diamond open-access journals. For hybrid journals, a statistically significant, moderately positive correlation was found between article processing charges and CiteScore (rs (27) = 0.515, p <.024). Conversely, no correlation was observed between article processing charges and CiteScore for gold open-access journals (rs (27) = 0.445, p = 0.147). The mean article processing charges for all hybrid and gold open-access journals were calculated as US $3032.88 ± 1108.514 (312 to 4430). Specifically, the mean article processing charges for hybrid journals (US $3617.4 ± 610.19) were significantly higher than those for gold open-access journals (US $1916.82 ± 988.32), with a difference of 1700.658 (95% CI: 1124.861–2276.455), t (30) = 6.032, and p <.0005. Conclusion: Hybrid journals in the field of human reproduction carry fees nearly twice as high as those of gold open-access journals. The charging policies of gold open-access journals, which are not contigent upon citation metrics, emphasize the importance of caution for both authors and funders.