20
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6 May 2013 Supplement 6 Regional and Subject Breakdowns of Views about Article Metrics June 2013
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 1
Supplement 6
Regional and Subject Breakdowns of Views about Article Metrics June 2013
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 2
Acknowledgements
The results presented in this report are based on research carried out on behalf of Taylor & Francis by Will Frass, Research Executive; Jo Cross, Head of Research & Business Intelligence and Victoria Gardner, Open Access Publisher.
© 2013 Taylor & Francis / Routledge.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
The authors would like to acknowledge the use of icons from the Nuvola icon set from Wikimedia commons which are available under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 3
Contents
Review of Open Access Services: Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics ...................................................7
Review of The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics ........................................................................................7
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Science, Technical and Medical Authors .....................................8
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Social Science and Humanities Authors ......................................9
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Global Regions ......................................................................... 10
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Countries with more than 90 Respondents ............................. 11
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Science, Technical and Medical Authors ................................. 12
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years: ....................................... 12
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years: ................................. 13
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Social Science and Humanities Authors .................................. 14
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years: ....................................... 14
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years: ................................. 15
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Global Regions ......................................................................... 16
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years: ....................................... 16
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years: ................................. 17
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Countries with more than 100 Respondents .......................... 18
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years: ....................................... 18
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years: ................................. 19
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 4
Introduction
This supplement to Taylor & Francis Open Access
Survey covers subject and regional breakdowns from
the final part of the survey which asked half the
sample what they thought would happen over the
next ten years, and the other half what they would
like to happen over the next ten years.
Regional breakdowns along with breakdowns for all
countries and subjects with more than 90 respondents
are provided. Breakdowns have not been provided for
authors from the fields of Tourism / Leisure / Sport
Studies, Arts, Law, Area Studies and Computer Science
as there were fewer than 90 respondents in these
areas.
Please note that the robustness of the findings
decreases as the number of respondents decreases.
Across all subjects, worldwide, the proportion of
authors who think Impact Factors will still be the
primary metrics was higher than the proportion who
would like this.
Science, Technical and Medical Subject Variations
Academics in the fields of Chemistry, Agriculture and
Food Science, Engineering and Materials Science,
attributed the most importance to the provision of
Article Metrics – being the only Science subjects
where more than half of authors rated it 4 out of 5 or
5 out of 5 on the scale of importance.
Chemistry: despite having the highest proportion
of authors who thought the provision of Article
Metrics was ‘very important’, Chemistry had the
second highest proportion of authors who said
they both think, and would like, Impact Factors to
remain the primary metric (38% in both cases),
with only Physics attracting a higher proportion
who think the same way (39%) and only Materials
Science having a higher proportion who would like
the same outcome (40%).
Agriculture and Food Science: a close second by
the number who thought the provision of Article
Metrics was ‘very important’, scholars of
Agriculture and Food Science were more
optimistic than Chemistry scholars that Article
Metrics will become much more important: whilst
only a quarter of Chemistry authors said they
think Article Metrics will become much more
important, in Agriculture and Food Science the
proportion was 30%.
Engineering: whilst the proportion of authors who
rated the provision of Article Metrics as 4 out of 5
or 5 out of 5 in Engineering was the same as
Chemistry and Agriculture, fewer in Engineering
rated this ‘very important’. However, the
distribution of responses for what authors in both
Engineering and Agriculture would like to happen
in the next ten years were indistinguishable; with
higher than average percentages in favour of the
Impact Factor remaining as the primary metric.
Materials Science: even though a majority of
Materials Science authors rated the provision of
Article Metrics as 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5 on the
importance scale – this subject had the highest
proportion of authors (40%) who would like
Impact Factors to remain the primary metric.
Most strikingly, more authors in Materials Science
think Article Metrics will become more important
(37%) than any other STM subject – yet –
Materials Science has the smallest proportion of
authors of any subject who would like this to
happen (25%). This contrasts with every other
subject where more authors would like to see a
growth Article Metrics than think it will happen.
At the other end of the scale, Health Science scholars
feel unable to commit either way, and Physics
authors, who attach much less importance to the
provision of Article Metrics, are extremely pessimistic.
Medicine / Dentistry / Nursing: academics in the
Health Sciences are amongst the least inclined to
say the provision of Article Metrics was ‘very
important’ and was the only STM subject where a
majority of authors think Article Metrics will be
used alongside Impact Factors.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 5
Physics: 37% of Physics academics said they would
like Article Metrics to become much more
important than Impact Factors – yet – Physics is
the only subject where the proportion of authors
who think that will happen is less than a fifth
(18%), half the proportion of researchers who
would like it to.
Humanities and Social Science Subject Variations
In the Humanities, barely a tenth of Geography
scholars consider the provision of Article Metrics ‘very
important’ (11%). Meanwhile, Library and
Information Science researchers attach more
importance to Article Metrics than any other subject,
with 56% of respondents rating Article Metrics 4 or
more out of 5.
Geography: only a quarter of Geography
academics think Impact Factors will still be the
primary metric in ten years’ time, and a similar
proportion (26%) think Article Metrics will become
much more important. However, when it comes
Geography authors’ preferences for the future,
the percentage who would like Impact Factors to
continue to dominate is less than half the
percentage (12%) who think that they will.
Library and Information Science: in keeping with
the high level of importance they attach to Article
Metrics, Library and Information scholars are the
most inclined of any subject to think Article
Metrics will become more important in the next
ten years (41%) and the least included to think
Impact Factors will prevail (12%). When asked
what they would like to happen, the responses of
Library and Information scholars was even more
stark: support for the continuing prevalence of
Impact Factors was squeezed to a vanishingly
small minority, by affinities for either Article
Metrics or a mixture of both.
Regional Variations
More than 60% of academics based in both Africa and
Asia rate the provision of Article Metrics as 4 or more
out of 5 on the importance scale, and Asian academics
are the most likely to have decided definitively
between Article Metrics and Impact Factors.
Asia: researchers based in Asia are the most
inclined of all to think that Article Metrics will
become more important (36%) – yet also show
the third highest support for the continuing
dominance of Impact Factors. Both of these are
achieved at the cost of squeezing down the
proportion who think a mixture of both will
prevail. What Asians think will happen is also
mirrored to within a percentage point by what
they would like to happen.
Africa: as discussed in previous Supplements,
there is a disconnect between the pattern of
results for the Republic of South Africa and Africa
as a whole: whilst Africa as a whole has the
highest proportion of authors rating the provision
of Article Metrics as ‘very important’, the
corresponding percentage for South Africa in
particular only just reached a majority (53%).
Africa is the only region where slightly more
authors would like Impact Factors to retain
primacy than think they will.
Fewer than half the authors in Australasia, Europe, the
United States and Canada thought the provision of
Article Metrics merit 4 or more out of 5 on the
importance scale.
Australasia: nearly six in ten both think (58%) and
would like (57%) the future of metrics to consist of
a mixture of both Article Metrics and Impact
Factors. However, whilst the remaining
respondents were split fairly evenly between the
number who think Article Metrics will become the
dominant metric (22%) and the number who think
Impact Factors will retain primacy (20%), far
fewer would like the latter option. Indeed,
Australasia has the smallest percentage of
respondents by region who would like Impact
Factors to remain the main metric.
Europe, the United States and Canada: these
regions follow a similar pattern in which around
half of authors both think and would like the
future of metrics to comprise a mixture of Impact
Factors and Article Metrics. The remaining
respondents are split approximately equally
between those who think Impact Factors will
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 6
prevail and those who think Article Metrics will
become most prevalent. However, both Europe
and the US and Canada are less inclined to
support the continuation of an Impact Factor
dominated environment and prefer the
emergence of an Article Metric lead world.
National Variations in Asia
The overall trend across Asia conceals a significant
difference in results from the two biggest countries in
that region, China and India: the only two countries
where the proportion of authors who would like
Impact Factors to remain the primary metric is higher
than the proportion who think they will.
China: half of all authors in China think that Article
Metrics will be much more important in the next
ten years, whereas the number who would like
this to be the case is only 41%, whereas more
would like Impact Factors to remain the primary
metric (38%) than think they actually will (32%).
India: the proportion of authors who think Impact
Factors will remain the primary metric in India
(32%) is exactly the same as China. However, by
contrast, in India less than a third (30%) think
Article Metrics will become more important and
less than a quarter (24%) would actually like this.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 7
Review of Open Access Services: Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics
Please the importance of the services you expect to receive when you pay to publish your paper as Open Access.
11,538 respondents
Review of The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics
Please tick the option that best describes what you think will / would like to happen over the next ten years:
Respondents
Think: 5,588 Like: 5,720
17% 28% 32% 13% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provision of article metrics in addition to usageand citation, such as Altmetric or ImpactStory
5 - very important 4 3 2 1 - not important
48% 48%
25% 32%
27% 21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Think Like
Impact Factors will still be theprimary metrics used to assessthe value of journals and thework published within them.
Article-level metrics will becomemuch more important thanImpact Factors in assessing thevalue of research.
Impact Factors will be usedalongside article level metrics inassessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 8
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Science, Technical and Medical Authors
17%
18%
19%
24%
15%
13%
16%
16%
23%
16%
19%
13%
28%
29%
35%
30%
24%
31%
24%
24%
31%
28%
32%
29%
32%
32%
31%
29%
34%
31%
32%
36%
32%
31%
33%
32%
13%
12%
10%
9%
15%
13%
13%
13%
8%
15%
8%
17%
10%
9%
5%
7%
11%
11%
16%
10%
7%
11%
8%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Subjects (n = 11538)
All Science, Technical & Medical (n = 4575)
Engineering/Technology (n = 949)
Chemistry (n = 617)
Biological Science (n = 554)
Medicine/Dentistry/Nursing/Allied Health (n = 489)
Mathematics (n = 483)
Environmental Science (n = 451)
Agriculture and Food Science (n = 450)
Physics (n = 275)
Materials Science (n = 190)
Computer Science (n = 117)
5 - very important 4 3 2 1 - not important
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 9
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Social Science and Humanities Authors
17%
17%
16%
16%
20%
19%
15%
14%
16%
11%
21%
14%
17%
28%
26%
24%
22%
28%
29%
27%
25%
26%
29%
35%
20%
39%
32%
32%
34%
29%
31%
30%
34%
29%
33%
34%
28%
37%
25%
13%
15%
15%
17%
12%
14%
13%
18%
15%
16%
9%
14%
13%
10%
11%
11%
15%
9%
8%
10%
14%
9%
10%
6%
15%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Subjects (n = 11538)
All Social Science & Humanities (n = 6208)
Behavioral Sciences (n = 956)
Humanities (n = 936)
Education (n = 896)
Business/Economics (n = 851)
Social/Cultural Studies (n = 805)
Politics/International Relations (n = 501)
Public Health/Social Care (n = 382)
Geography (n = 232)
Library/Information Science (n = 190)
Arts (n = 170)
Tourism/Leisure/Sport Studies (n = 153)
5 - very important 4 3 2 1 - not important
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 10
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Global Regions
17%
13%
16%
26%
22%
26%
26%
31%
28%
24%
28%
35%
26%
29%
32%
31%
32%
33%
32%
29%
29%
30%
30%
27%
13%
16%
14%
7%
12%
9%
8%
7%
10%
14%
10%
3%
11%
6%
4%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worldwide (n = 11538)
USA & Canada (n = 3898)
Europe (n = 3880)
Asia (n = 1341)
Australasia (n = 588)
Middle East (n = 452)
Latin America (n = 345)
Africa (n = 258)
5 - very important 4 3 2 1 - not important
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 11
Importance of the Provision of Article Metrics – Countries with more than 90 Respondents
17%
14%
12%
24%
18%
20%
43%
13%
26%
11%
12%
23%
13%
23%
27%
7%
8%
13%
21%
27%
23%
7%
14%
28%
24%
27%
26%
34%
27%
32%
28%
35%
17%
30%
32%
26%
34%
31%
23%
31%
27%
46%
37%
30%
28%
25%
32%
32%
32%
29%
36%
34%
18%
34%
25%
38%
30%
34%
34%
33%
29%
41%
45%
29%
26%
24%
31%
32%
32%
13%
16%
17%
10%
9%
12%
5%
14%
10%
19%
19%
7%
13%
5%
10%
20%
9%
19%
5%
9%
10%
18%
16%
10%
14%
12%
10%
4%
7%
12%
4%
14%
9%
13%
5%
8%
6%
13%
6%
15%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Worldwide (n = 11538)
United States of America (n = 3598)
United Kingdom (n = 1048)
Australia (n = 467)
China (n = 454)
Italy (n = 415)
India (n = 304)
Canada (n = 300)
Spain (n = 289)
Germany (n = 263)
Netherlands (n = 245)
Iran (n = 242)
France (n = 195)
Portugal (n = 165)
Brazil (n = 147)
Sweden (n = 124)
Japan (n = 121)
New Zealand (n = 120)
Taiwan (n = 117)
Greece (n = 116)
South Africa (n = 100)
Norway (n = 100)
Belgium (n = 93)
5 - very important 4 3 2 1 - not important
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 12
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Science, Technical and Medical Authors
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years:
48% 43% 40% 37%
49% 52%
41% 47%
42% 43%
30%
25% 27% 31%
25%
26% 21%
28% 25%
30%
18% 37%
27% 30% 29% 38%
25% 26% 31% 28% 28%
39% 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All
Sub
ject
s (n
= 5
58
8)
All
Scie
nce
, Tec
hn
ical
& M
edic
al (
n =
22
16)
Engi
nee
rin
g/Te
chn
olo
gy (
n =
46
2)
Ch
em
istr
y (n
= 2
98
)
Bio
logi
cal S
cien
ce (
n =
28
4)
Med
icin
e/D
enti
stry
/Nu
rsin
g/A
llied
Hea
lth
(n
= 2
44
)
Mat
hem
atic
s (n
= 2
41)
Envi
ron
men
tal S
cien
ce (
n =
19
7)
Agr
icu
ltu
re a
nd
Fo
od
Sci
en
ce (
n =
19
5)
Ph
ysic
s (n
= 1
40
)
Mat
eria
ls S
cien
ce (
n =
90
)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 13
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years:
48% 42% 42%
34%
51% 42%
47% 46%
34% 34% 35%
32%
32% 29%
28%
32%
29%
33% 34%
42% 37%
25%
21% 27% 29%
38%
17%
29% 20% 19%
23% 29%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All
Sub
ject
s (n
= 5
72
0)
All
Scie
nce
, Tec
hn
ical
& M
edic
al (
n =
23
12)
Engi
nee
rin
g/Te
chn
olo
gy (
n =
48
7)
Ch
em
istr
y (n
= 3
14
)
Bio
logi
cal S
cien
ce (
n =
26
3)
Agr
icu
ltu
re a
nd
Fo
od
Sci
ence
(n
= 2
48)
Envi
ron
men
tal S
cien
ce (
n =
24
6)
Med
icin
e/D
enti
stry
/Nu
rsin
g/A
llied
Hea
lth
(n
= 2
39
)
Mat
hem
atic
s (n
= 2
39)
Ph
ysic
s (n
= 1
31
)
Mat
eria
ls S
cien
ce (
n =
95
)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 14
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Social Science and Humanities Authors
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years:
48% 52% 55% 52%
47% 55% 56% 55% 52% 49% 46%
25% 23%
20% 25%
23%
22% 20% 21% 20% 26%
41%
27% 25% 24% 23% 30%
23% 24% 24% 28% 25%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All
Sub
ject
s (n
= 5
58
8)
All
Soci
al S
cien
ce &
Hu
man
itie
s (n
= 3
01
4)
Beh
avio
ral S
cien
ces
(n =
44
9)
Hu
man
itie
s (n
= 4
46
)
Bu
sin
ess/
Eco
no
mic
s (n
= 4
37
)
Edu
cati
on
(n
= 4
37)
Soci
al/C
ult
ura
l Stu
die
s (n
= 3
93
)
Po
litic
s/In
tern
atio
nal
Rel
atio
ns
(n =
23
4)
Pu
blic
Hea
lth
/So
cial
Car
e (n
= 1
74
)
Geo
grap
hy
(n =
11
2)
Lib
rary
/In
form
atio
n S
cien
ce (
n =
99
)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 15
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years:
48% 52%
57% 50% 50%
45%
54% 56% 53% 52% 51%
32%
32% 29%
34% 31%
31%
30% 29% 34% 36%
48%
21% 16% 14% 16% 19%
24% 16% 15% 13% 12%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All
Sub
ject
s (n
= 5
72
0)
All
Soci
al S
cien
ce &
Hu
man
itie
s (n
= 3
10
6)
Beh
avio
ral S
cien
ces
(n =
51
6)
Edu
cati
on
(n
= 4
46)
Hu
man
itie
s (n
= 4
31
)
Bu
sin
ess/
Eco
no
mic
s (n
= 4
19
)
Soci
al/C
ult
ura
l Stu
die
s (n
= 3
97
)
Po
litic
s/In
tern
atio
nal
Rel
atio
ns
(n =
26
5)
Pu
blic
Hea
lth
/So
cial
Car
e (n
= 2
01
)
Geo
grap
hy
(n =
11
8)
Lib
rary
/In
form
atio
n S
cie
nce
(n
= 9
5)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 16
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Global Regions
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years:
48% 52% 51%
28%
58%
32% 39%
48%
25% 23% 23%
36%
22%
28%
23%
26%
27% 25% 27%
35%
20%
40% 37%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wo
rld
wid
e (n
= 5
58
8)
USA
& C
anad
a (n
= 1
91
2)
Euro
pe
(n =
18
92
)
Asi
a (n
= 6
61
)
Au
stra
lasi
a (n
= 3
08
)
Mid
dle
Eas
t (n
= 2
14
)
Lati
n A
mer
ica
(n =
14
5)
Afr
ica
(n =
13
3)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 17
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years:
48% 49% 52%
28%
57%
27%
51% 46%
32% 30% 32%
37%
31%
40%
22% 24%
21% 21% 16%
35%
12%
32% 27% 30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wo
rld
wid
e (n
= 5
72
0)
Euro
pe
(n =
19
44
)
USA
& C
anad
a (n
= 1
87
9)
Asi
a (n
= 6
70
)
Au
stra
lasi
a (n
= 2
78
)
Mid
dle
Eas
t (n
= 2
22
)
Lati
n A
mer
ica
(n =
19
0)
Afr
ica
(n =
12
1)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 18
The Future of Open Access Publishing: Metrics – Countries with more than 90 Respondents
The option that best describes what you think will happen over the next ten years:
48% 52% 55%
58%
18%
49%
38%
55% 58% 58%
38%
26%
52%
25% 22%
26% 25%
50%
28%
30%
24% 17% 18%
21%
30%
22%
27% 25% 20%
17%
32%
23%
32%
21% 25% 23%
40% 44%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wo
rld
wid
e (n
= 5
588
)
Un
ited
Sta
tes
of
Am
eri
ca (
n =
17
72)
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m (
n =
52
1)
Au
stra
lia (
n =
23
6)
Ch
ina
(n =
21
6)
Ital
y (n
= 1
96)
Ind
ia (
n =
16
1)
Can
ada
(n =
14
0)
Ger
man
y (n
= 1
28
)
Net
her
lan
ds
(n =
12
5)
Spai
n (
n =
11
7)
Iran
(n
= 1
09
)
Fran
ce (
n =
95
)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 19
The option that best describes what you would like to happen over the next ten years:
48% 53% 52%
21%
58%
47% 44%
50%
35% 42%
19%
55%
41%
32%
31% 34%
41%
30%
37%
27%
35%
24%
36%
40%
28%
38%
21% 16% 14%
38%
12% 16%
29%
15%
42%
23%
41%
17% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wo
rld
wid
e (n
= 5
720
)
Un
ited
Sta
tes
of
Am
eri
ca (
n =
17
27)
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m (
n =
49
5)
Ch
ina
(n =
23
3)
Au
stra
lia (
n =
22
7)
Ital
y (n
= 2
19)
Spai
n (
n =
17
1)
Can
ada
(n =
15
2)
Ind
ia (
n =
14
4)
Ger
man
y (n
= 1
37
)
Iran
(n
= 1
18
)
Net
her
lan
ds
(n =
11
7)
Fran
ce (
n =
93
)
Impact Factors will still be the primary metrics used to assess the value of journals and the work published within them.
Article-level metrics will become much more important than Impact Factors in assessing the value of research.
Impact Factors will be used alongside article level metrics in assessing the value of research.
Open Access Author Survey Supplement 6
May 2013 20
Regional Assignment of Countries
Africa
Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo (Brazzaville) Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Ivory Coast Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Maldives Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Reunion Rwanda Saint Helena Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Western Sahara Zambia Zimbabwe
Australasia
Australia Cocos (Keeling) Islands Cook Islands Fiji
French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia New Caledonia New Zealand Niue Norfolk Island Palau Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Islands Samoa Sint Maarten Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Wallis and Futuna Islands
Eastern Europe
Albania Armenia Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Georgia Hungary Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Poland Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Ukraine
Latin America
American Virgin Islands Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Aruba Ascension Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Bolivia Brazil British Virgin Islands Caribbean Netherlands Cayman Islands Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba
Curaçao Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Falkland Islands French Guiana Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Martinique Mexico Montserrat Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines South Georgia / South Sandwich Islands
Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Tristan da Cunha Turks and Caicos Islands Uruguay Venezuela
Middle East
Afghanistan Azerbaijan Bahrain Iran Iraq Israel Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria Tajikistan Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen
North America
Canada United States of America
Northern & Central Europe
Åland Austria Belgium Denmark
Faroe Islands Finland Germany Greenland Guernsey Iceland Ireland Isle of Man Jersey Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom
South Asia
Bangladesh British Indian Ocean Territory India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka
South East Asia
Bhutan Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Christmas Island East Timor (Timor-Leste) Hong Kong Indonesia Japan Laos Macau Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar Nauru North Korea Philippines Singapore South Korea Taiwan Thailand Vietnam
Southern Europe
Andorra Cyprus France Gibraltar Greece Italy Malta Monaco Northern Cyprus Portugal San Marino Spain Turkey Vatican City
