Search

This case study analyses data on papers of Croatian authors published in 2017 from four Web of Science Core Collection citation indexes (SCI‐EXP, SSCI, AHCI, and ESCI). The primary dataset (5,176 articles and reviews) was divided into two subsets, the open access (OA) subset (2,964 papers) and non‐OA subset (2,212 papers). We also used the primary dataset to create a subset of papers published in Croatian journals (1,588) as opposed to foreign ones. All were screened for full‐text OA status, journal JCR quartile ranking, journal dominant discipline, and language of publication. OA papers prevailed with 74.4%. Most were available at publisher websites. The percentage of OA papers in Croatian journals was 99.8%. The share of OA papers was the highest in the humanities and social sciences, which also saw the highest share of papers in the Croatian language. Key points: Three quarters of papers published by Croatian authors are available in open access (OA).Most papers are in English, even in Croatian journals; Croatian prevailed only in the humanities.Croatian journals are mostly non‐commercial, and many receive government subsidies, provided they are OA; they generally do not charge for article processing.The prevalence of OA over non‐OA papers is the highest in the humanities, followed by the social sciences.Open access publishing might increase international visibility of journals from periphery or semi‐periphery countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thirty-six ophthalmology journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 2003 were selected to study the role of the 'papers cited rate' in scientific journal evaluation. The 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year cited rates of these papers were calculated to analyze statistically the correlations with impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, article influence score, and total cites. The results of questionnaires sent to 8,525 ophthalmologists were used to analyse the correlations between the papers cited rates for different years and traditional bibliometric indicators. The results showed that eigenfactor score and total cites were better than other indicators, and impact factor was better than the 5-year impact factor. The 2-year and 3-year cited rates of papers were reasonable for evaluating science journals, and the 2-year cited rate was better than the 3-year cited rate. The 5-year (and more than 5 years) cited rates were not significant in evaluating science journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]