BIG preprint just dropped:
"Wikipedia and open access"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13945

"We find that open-access articles are extensively and increasingly more cited in Wikipedia. What is more, they show a 15% higher likelihood of being cited in Wikipedia when compared to closed-access articles, after controlling for confounding factors. This open-access citation effect is particularly strong for articles with low citation counts, including recently published ones."

HT @oatp
#OpenAccess #Wikipedia

Open Access Improves the Dissemination of Science: Insights from Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a well-known platform for disseminating knowledge, and scientific sources, such as journal articles, play a critical role in supporting its mission. The open access movement aims to make scientific knowledge openly available, and we might intuitively expect open access to help further Wikipedia's mission. However, the extent of this relationship remains largely unknown. To fill this gap, we analyze a large dataset of citations from the English Wikipedia and model the role of open access in Wikipedia's citation patterns. We find that both the accessibility (open access status) and academic impact (citation count) significantly increase the probability of an article being cited on Wikipedia. Specifically, open-access articles are extensively and increasingly more cited in Wikipedia, as they show an approximately 64.7% higher likelihood of being cited in Wikipedia when compared to closed-access articles, after controlling for confounding factors. This open-access citation effect is particularly strong for articles with high citation counts and published in recent years. Our findings highlight the pivotal role of open access in facilitating the dissemination of scientific knowledge, thereby increasing the likelihood of open-access articles reaching a more diverse audience through platforms such as Wikipedia. Simultaneously, open-access articles contribute to the reliability of Wikipedia as a source by affording editors timely access to novel results.

arXiv.org
@rmounce @oatp is that surprising? WP Editors are encouraged to cite from OS references, so it would be weird if they were not highly used on Wikipedia..

@rmounce How sad though, «Our findings show that 42.3% (716,278) of the citations and 39.1% (450,277) publications were OA (i.e., not closed)».

60 % of citations going to paywalled journals, likely to be unreliable chasers of harmful metrics. :|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826185/

So much work left to do. And it might be even worse elsewhere in #Wikipedia, as this is only about the English Wikipedia. (Where at least the #OAbot and other initiatives are quite active.)

Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability

In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals. ...

PubMed Central (PMC)