Close
Help
Need Help?



New Open Access Visibility Information for Tobacco Use Insights

Posted Wed, May, 02,2012

Articles published in open access journals like Tobacco Use Insights have been shown to receive more citations that articles published in restricted access journals.

Libertas’ goal is to maximize visibility for all articles published in Tobacco Use Insights. A recent review of previous research on open access citation levels showed that 87% of previous studies found open access articles were more often cited than restricted access articles.

The citation difference in favor of open access was notably pronounced in certain disciplines, with medicine having a 300-450% difference and agricultural sciences having a 200-600% difference.

This study demonstrates that publishing in open access journals means papers are more visible and more likely to be read and cited.

Visit the Tobacco Use Insights homepage and view the entire report here

share on

Our Service Promise

  • Prompt Processing (3 Weeks to Editorial Decision)
  • Fair, Independent Peer Review
  • High Visibility & Extensive Indexing
What Your Colleagues Say About Libertas Academica
testimonial_image
We found Bioinformatics and Biology insights very supportive and quick in guiding us in submitting our manuscript.  The review of the manuscript was also very prompt.  We also found that the review was fair and prompt and that was the most important thing for us. It was a very interesting experience for us. We also liked the video abstract service, which is very novel and encouraging for authors.
Dr S. Krishakumar (Vision Research Foundation, India)
More Testimonials

Quick Links




Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers.




SUBJECT HUBS
Author Survey Results
author_survey_results
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.
See Our Results