Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to determine the differences between China and the United States in terms of the number and influence of open access (OA) papers from 2013 to 2022 and put forward the suggestions for the development of Chinese OA papers at this stage, so as to promote the development of open science. [Methods] Using the InCites database, the paper analyzed relevant indicators of OA papers in China and the United States from 2013 to 2022. It counted the number of OA papers published by researchers in both countries, their types, disciplinary distribution, and citation-related indicators of paper influence. Comparative analysis was conducted using bibliometric methods. [Findings] The number and proportion of Chinese OA papers are comparable to those in the United States, but the distribution of types is less balanced. In terms of disciplinary distribution, the number of OA papers in the fields of medicine and life sciences far exceeds other disciplines. In terms of influence, China lags behind the United States, both in the number of highly cited papers and CNCI index. [Conclusions] The development of OA papers in China is imbalanced in terms of types and disciplines. In the future, it is necessary to build an OA platform, strictly control the quality of OA papers, and improve the relevant system.

Key words: Open access, CNCI, Open science, Comparison between China and the United States, InCites database

摘要：

【目的】 甄别中美2013—2022年开放获取(OA)论文在数量及影响力等方面的差异,提出对中国OA论文现阶段发展的建议,以推动开放科学发展。【方法】 基于InCites数据库,对2013—2022年中美OA论文相关指标进行分析,统计中美研究人员发表OA论文的数量、类型与学科分布,以及论文影响力相关引证指标,使用文献计量学方法进行对比分析。【结果】 中国OA论文的数量和占比基本与美国持平,但类型分布不如美国均衡;学科分布上,医学与生命科学领域的OA论文数量远超其他学科;在影响力方面,无论是高被引论文数量还是学科规范化引文影响力指数,中国都与美国存在差距。【结论】 中国OA论文发展在类型和学科上都有所失衡,未来应搭建OA平台,严格把关OA论文质量,完善相关制度。

关键词: 开放获取, 学科规范化引文影响力, 开放科学, 中美比较, InCites数据库