Open access in translation and interpreting studies. A bibliometric overview of its impact (1996-2015)

Open access (OA) is now a complex multifaceted phenomenon and one of the hottest topics under debate extending to other actors beyond academia. OA has been growing lately not only for ethical or ideological reasons, but also due to the pressure of formal mandates from public research funders. Many s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Rovira-Esteva, Sara|||0000-0001-7647-6417, Olalla-Soler, Christian|||0000-0001-9251-476X, Aixelá, Javier Franco|||0000-0001-6846-7182
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2021
País:España
Institución:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:249703
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/249703
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.7202/1088349ar
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Translation and interpreting studies
Open access citation advantage (OAA)
Citation patterns
Impact
Bibliometrics
Estudios de traducción e interpretación
Ventaja de citabilidad del acceso abierto
Patrones de cita
Impacto
Bibliometría
Descripción
Sumario:Open access (OA) is now a complex multifaceted phenomenon and one of the hottest topics under debate extending to other actors beyond academia. OA has been growing lately not only for ethical or ideological reasons, but also due to the pressure of formal mandates from public research funders. Many studies have shown that OA research outputs have greater citation impact as compared to similar toll-access (TA) ones, thus introducing a more pragmatic dimension for scholars considering OA. However, other studies claim there are many confounding factors that often have not been taken into account. To date, no study has been carried out concerning open access citation advantage (OAA) in TIS (translation and interpreting studies). This paper contributes to this debate by carrying out a bibliometric analysis by comparing the performance of documents in terms of accrued citations depending on access type in order to find out whether OA TIS research is cited more than its TA counterpart. We based our analysis on a sample of more than 20,000 TIS-related documents extracted from BITRA, covering a time span of 20 years (1996-2015). The main conclusion is that, although OA publications tend to be cited slightly more often than TA documents in our period of study, this difference is too small to either support or reject the OAA hypothesis in TIS.