论文标题
文章处理指控，高度和引文影响：是否有经济原理？
Article Processing Charges, Altmetrics and Citation Impact: Is there an economic rationale?
论文作者
论文摘要
本研究的目的是分析1）基本出版物的归一化评分与黄金开放访问（OA）出版物的文章处理费用（APC）之间的关系之间的关系2）APC的决定因素。为此，我们使用了OpenAPC数据库提供的APC信息，WOS数据库中的出版物的引用评分以及AltMetrics.com数据库的AltMetrics数据，从2006年到2019年的83,752篇文章中，在4751篇《 267个不同的出版商》中发表了83,752篇文章。结果表明，与共同的信念相反，支付高度的APC并不一定会增加出版物的影响。首先，具有高影响力的大型出版商并不是最昂贵的。其次，在影响方面，APC最高的发行商不一定是最好的。 APC与影响之间的相关性是中等的。关于决定因素，结果表明，混合动力期刊中的APC平均比完整的OA期刊高50％。结果还表明，Altmetrics没有很大的影响：在互联网上获得最大关注的OA文章是APC相对较低的文章。另一个有趣的结果是，“读者的数量”指标更有效，因为它与经典的书目指标更相关，而不是Altmetrics分数。
The present study aims to analyze 1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications 2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from Altmetrics.com database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the ''number of readers'' indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.
