You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Systematic review
Access to evidence-based care: a systematic review of trauma and surgical literature costs across resource settings
  1. Megan Wojick1,2,
  2. Hannah Conner3,
  3. Ashley Farley4,
  4. Eduardo Huaman5,
  5. Marianne Luyo6,
  6. Sam Thomas-Pate3,
  7. Lacey LaGrone3
  1. 1Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA
  2. 2Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
  3. 3Department of Surgery, UCHealth, Loveland, Colorado, USA
  4. 4Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA
  5. 5Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara, Lima, Peru
  6. 6Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lacey LaGrone; Lacey.LaGrone{at}uchealth.org

Abstract

Background Evidence-based medicine has become the foundation for surgeons around the world to provide the most effective surgical care. However, the article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees for surgical journals may be a barrier, particularly for those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives The objective of this study was to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature, inclusive of trauma, across resource settings.

Data sources The Web of Science Core Collection database.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods A complete list of journals publishing surgical content between 2019 and 2020 was compiled. The most frequently indexed journals were reviewed using the individual journal websites to extract the type of access (ie, open, closed, hybrid), impact factors, publication languages, APCs, subscription pricing, and any discounts listed.

Results The literature search revealed 4759 unique journals. The 500 most frequently indexed were reviewed. The mean APC for a fully open access surgical journal was US$1574 and for a hybrid surgical journal was US$3338. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal were US$434 and US$1878 for an individual and institution, respectively. When considering purchasing power parity, APCs and subscription costs ranged from 2 to 15 times more expensive in LMICs when compared with those in the USA.

Limitations Primary search term was in English only, and only peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed.

Conclusions or implications of key findings Although initiatives exist to support peer-reviewed journals in LMICs, there is an exorbitant cost for authors in these countries, as well as those in high-income countries that are not affiliated with a large institution, to either publish in, or access, a majority of surgical journals. Efforts to lower the overall cost of publishing must be made to provide greater access to medical literature.

PROSPERO registration number CRD4202140227.

Level of evidence Level IV.

  • global surgery
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2023-001238

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Barriers exist for those in low-income and middle-income countries with regard to publication and consumption of potentially life-saving information.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • This study found no correlation between journal ranking and article processing charges, but the relative cost tends to increase with decreasing country annual income level.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • If researchers and publishers prioritize a more equitable publishing ecosystem (one where everyone can participate without financial barriers), open access to medical literature can be an affordable and achievable reality for all.

    Introduction

    The practice of evidence-based medicine has become foundational for surgical education and for the provision of high-value, effective surgical care.1 2 Although only 16% of the world’s population lives in high-income countries (HICs), 86% of surgical content published on the Web of Science (WoS), a reportedly relatively comprehensive database, originates from these areas.3–5 The over-representation of HICs on the WoS is partially due to barriers to publication and consumption of literature in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to language, training, and access to paywalled journals.6–8

    During the last several decades, various efforts have been made to combat the disparities in access to healthcare information.7 Historically, authors published “closed access,” with individual readers or institutions paying a one-time or annual subscription fee to access the publications. An increasingly common practice is for closed access journals to make the article open after an embargo period, commonly 12 months.9 Large international collaborations led to breakthrough initiatives, such as the Research4Life’s Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) and the Pan American Health Organization’s Biblioteca Regional De Medicina, which work to provide free access to a large number of paywalled journals for LMICs.10 11 In the 2000s, these efforts were grouped under the conceptual title of “open access” (OA), established with a goal of improving access for the general public, specifically in LMICs.12

    A number of OA models exist today, with the most common being “Green” OA and “Gold” OA.13 14 In the Green OA model, authors publish their work in an established journal but are permitted to self-archive on an OA repository, such as the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), usually after an embargo period of 6 to 9 months. Copyright is generally retained by the publisher with restrictions on how the work can be reused. A listing of international OA repositories can be found on the Directory of Open Access Repositories, which also encompasses archives supported by funding agencies such as the National Health Institute or the Wellcome Trust. In Gold OA, an article is made freely and permanently available to anyone, and copyright is retained by the author with most permission barriers removed, which allows for sharing and reuse. A large percentage of journals charge authors an article processing charge (APC) to publish Gold OA. Most journals now fall under a hybrid model in which authors are offered the choice of publishing OA in an otherwise subscription-based journal. The hybrid model was initially created to be transitional with the goal of pushing all journals to become OA. However, almost 30 years after its inception, the hybrid journal persists.15

    APCs and subscription fees are often costly, particularly for those in LMICs.16–19 When compared with the USA, APCs were shown to be 2.24 times more expensive (as defined by the World Bank’s purchasing power parity (PPP)) in South Africa and 1.56 times more expensive in Brazil.20 Furthermore, a comprehensive cross-sectional study of exclusively OA surgical journals found no correlation between the cost of publishing and the impact factor of the journal.21

    Under-representation of LMIC-generated research leaves surgeons from LMICs reliant on the adaptation of clinical research performed elsewhere.20 Further compounding the problem, most original research articles tend to focus on the priorities of HICs and often discuss treatments or advancements that are not relevant to problems faced by providers in LMICs.22 Even when treatment appears nominally relevant, validation of the data in the local context is crucial. For instance, when a protocol shown to have a mortality benefit in sepsis in an HIC was applied to an LMIC high HIV-incidence population, it was associated with increased mortality.23

    Despite several global initiatives, accessibility to consumption and publication of surgical literature is still beyond reach for many outside of large, HIC, well-resourced institutions such as universities and medical centers.24 As of 2014, only 26% of published medical articles were publicly available through OA.25 In 2017, in Nigeria (an LMIC), only 15 of the 463 institutions registered through HINARI had paid the new annual fee of US$1500 when the country was reclassified from a low-income country to a lower-middle-income country by the World Bank, and thus moved from HINARI free access to low-cost access.26 In this systematic review, we aim to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature across resource settings, identifying gaps in equitable access and potential next steps.

    Methods

    In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a protocol for this systematic review was drafted and registered (PROSPERO: CRD42021240227).27 The Web of Science Core Collection database was chosen as the main database given its extensive results analysis including source titles and country of publication.5 Additionally, the WoS was chosen due to its reported better end user experience and comprehensiveness compared with other databases.5 28 To validate our results, we ran a similar search on Scopus with surgery as the subject area and confirmed that the first 100 titles sorted for relevance to result from Scopus were included in the WoS source results. Scopus was chosen for validation due to its comprehensive search abilities.5 To further confirm the results’ validity with regard to location of origin, an investigator reviewed a random sample of 50 of the 500 included journals from an internet protocol (IP) address outside the USA (Peru). Thus, we could ensure the search results were not specific to the location of the IP address conducting the search.

    Using the WoS, we searched for all publications with the topic “Surgery” that were published between January 2019 and December 2020.3 There were no language restrictions. Sources were restricted to scholarly/academic journals defined by the WoS as a periodical that includes original research articles written by researchers and experts in a particular academic discipline. A complete list of journal titles that resulted from this search was extracted and sorted based on the number of surgery-relevant articles published during the stated time period. The first 500 journals from this list were reviewed. Publications that were unrelated to humans (eg, veterinary surgery) were excluded.

    Published content was defined as any article, review, meeting abstract, editorial material, early access paper, proceedings paper, letter, correction, news item, retraction, biographical item, reprint, data paper, or retracted publication that was peer-reviewed and citable. The WoS scope note on surgery includes resources on general surgical topics including the different surgical subspecialties (cardiovascular, neurosurgery, orthopedic, pediatric, trauma, or vascular), allied disciplines of surgery (surgical oncology, pathology, or radiology), and surgical techniques (arthroscopy, microscopy, or endoscopy). The WoS scope of the topic surgery is more comprehensive and inclusive when compared with a PubMed index search using “Surgery” as Medical Subject Heading (MeSH). The MeSH scope of surgery includes operative procedures on organs, regions, or tissues in the treatment of diseases, including tissue section by lasers, but specifically excludes transplantation or allied disciplines of surgery.

    For each source title, the original journal website was used to extract the following information: the type of access (ie, open, closed, or hybrid), bibliometrics (ie, impact factor, CiteScore, h-index, SCImago Journal Rank), languages the journal was published in, cost for the author (including options for decreasing the cost), cost for the reader including the cheapest option (online, print, or both), and primary content of the journal (eg, surgical, medical, non-surgical subspecialty).

    APCs for the least restrictive copyright license were listed when available. The highest priced APC was used for journals which base APCs on article type. When APCs were charged per PDF page, the price for a total of five pages was listed, as several journals set an article length limit of five pages. For both individual and institutional subscription prices, a subscription length of 1 year was selected. When applicable, the country of origin was chosen as a country other than the USA or one located in Europe. For several publishers, this meant selecting an “international” option or choosing a country from the World Bank’s list of low-income countries. A majority of journals only offered costs in US dollars. To standardize our results, all costs not listed in US dollars on the journal’s website were converted to US dollars using the Google-embedded currency conversion exchange calculator at the time of data collection.

    PPP was used in an effort to compare the relative cost to authors and readers in countries outside of a high-income setting. According to the International Monetary Fund, the PPP exchange rate is the “rate at which the currency of one country would have to be converted into that of another country to buy the same amount of goods and services in each country.” The World Bank website (data.worldbank.org) was accessed on May 4, 2021, and the PPP index for private consumption (PPP conversion factor, private consumption in local currency units per international dollar) was collected for two low-income (Afghanistan and Ethiopia), lower-middle-income (Kenya and Nicaragua), upper-middle-income (Brazil and Peru), and high-income (Canada and UK) countries.29 For each country, the mean APC for the creative commons attribution license (CC BY) for hybrid surgical journals was multiplied by the respective PPP, resulting in a monetary amount which approximates the “purchasing power” equivalent in US dollars.30 The gross national income (GNI) per capita (current US dollars) was similarly obtained as another point of reference.

    Options for decreasing the cost of APCs generally fell under a publisher’s explicit fee waiver policy rather than a journal-specific policy. Six commercial publishers who publish the greatest number of fully OA or hybrid journals were selected and included Springer, Reed Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Sage, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer. Each publisher’s website was searched for explicit fee waiver policies, whether the discount included publishing OA or in a hybrid journal, and the number of countries that met the policy criteria. In an effort to compare fee waivers from companies that rely solely on APCs for funding, three fully OA publishing companies were also reviewed and included the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Public Library of Science (PLOS), and Frontiers.

    Surgical journals were considered those journals that publish greater than 50% surgical content, inclusive of injury/trauma-focused journals. Medical journals were considered those that published original research across a broad spectrum of medical disciplines and subspecialties with less than 50% of the journal composed of surgical content. All other journals were classified as non-medical journals with less than 50% of the journal composed of surgical content (eg, engineering).

    One author performed the initial search and determined the eligibility of sources for inclusion in the final analysis (MW). Two authors extracted the data (MW, HC). Data extraction was equally split, with cross-referencing used for journals that had discrepancies or where it was difficult to find the information needed. Discordance in categorization of abstracted elements between the two authors was resolved through discussion. Data were organized using an Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, USA) workbook. The study was conducted with the assistance of an advisory group composed of an expert in OA (AF), knowledge and research services (AF), as well as experts in surgical access to medical information (EH, LL) and systematic review methodology (LL). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between journal factors and APCs.

    Results

    As outlined in figure 1, a total of 146 448 articles resulted from our WoS database search, which corresponded to 4759 journals that published surgical content from 2019 to 2020. The first journal on our list published 2345 articles during our time period, which equated to 1.6% of the total articles, whereas the 500th journal published 62 articles or 0.04% of the total articles. A total of three veterinary journals were excluded from our list, leaving 497 journals for review. Of these, 189 (38%) were surgical journals, 293 (59%) were medical journals, and 15 (3%) were non-medical, non-surgical journals. Only 6% of the total journals reviewed offered publications in a language other than English. Validation of results from an IP address outside of the USA revealed concordance of results for 48 of 50 sampled journals, with the two discrepant journals having multiple links indicating different, and higher, prices when searched from outside the USA. Most hybrid journals offered two OA options, Green OA versus Gold OA. The Green OA option allows authors to publish an OA article after an embargo period; however, we did not obtain granular data specific to journal participation, the length of embargo periods, or how often authors are choosing the Green OA option.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flow diagram of studies for inclusion. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    For surgical journals, the mean APC for fully OA was US$1574 (SD US$984) and for hybrid US$3338 (SD US$645). When compared with surgical journals, the mean APC for publishing in medical journals was slightly higher at US$2182 (SD US$801) for fully OA and US$3407 (SD US$778) for a hybrid journal. Using PPP, table 1 compares the average APC and subscription costs of hybrid surgical journals across different resource settings. The mean adjusted APC was grossly inversely related to country annual income level. People from HIC pay consistently less, relatively, than people from upper-middle, who pay less than people from lower-middle-income countries. For example, the relative cost of an APC for an author from Nicaragua is 16 times that for an author from the UK (table 2).30

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Unadjusted cost of publishing in or subscribing to journals that publish surgical research

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Adjusted cost (in US dollars), using purchasing power parity*, of publishing in or subscribing to hybrid surgical journals: example of countries from each World Bank income level classification

    Sixty-seven percent of OA surgical journals and 76% of OA medical journals offered APC discounts. Thirty-eight percent of hybrid surgical journals and 37% of hybrid medical journals offered APC discounts. The amount discounted was different based on journal and publisher. Five of the six commercial publishers reviewed had explicit fee waivers and offered APC discounts based on socioeconomic status. Among the fully OA publishing companies, PLOS has a Global Participation Initiative in which authors from Research4Life’s group 1 countries (low-income countries) are eligible for a 100% APC discount, whereas those from group 2 countries (lower-middle-income countries) are eligible for an APC reduction to US$500. The MDPI and Frontiers do not have explicit fee waiver policies but allow authors to apply for discounts which are made on a case-by-case basis and left up to the publisher’s discretion (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    The “big six” publishers’ APC waiver policies and percentage of countries meeting the criteria based on World Bank classification (ie, low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income)

    The average cost for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal for an individual was US$434 (SD US$276) and for an institution US$1878 (SD US$1317). The average cost for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid medical journal for an individual was US$460 (SD US$357) and for an institution US$2411 (SD US$1814). Most journals in both categories did not advertise discounts on APCs to consumers based on socioeconomic status. However, 84% of the hybrid surgical journals and 90% of the hybrid medical journals participated in the Research4Life’s HINARI program. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a closed surgical journal for an individual was US$303 (SD US$161) and for an institution US$656 (SD US$0). The average cost for a 1-year subscription in a closed medical journal for an individual was US$263 (SD US$114) and for an institution US$610 (SD US$0). Of the 18 closed journals, 7 (39%) participated in Research4Life’s HINARI program and 1 (6%) offered a discount for residents.

    The mean journal impact factor was 2.4 (range 0.1–30.2) for OA, 3.9 (range 0.1–60.4) for hybrid, and 5.6 (range 0.3–74.7) for closed journals. The correlation between journal impact factor and mean APC was poor (r=0.18) (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Journal rankings based on access and journal type

    Discussion

    This systematic review describes the current options globally for producers and consumers of surgical literature, including the average APCs and subscription costs of journals based on access type, as well as discounts based on the socioeconomic status of the country of origin. Our results are similar to those found in studies looking more broadly at all medical journals, as well as more specifically at subspecialty medical journals (eg, emergency medicine, critical care medicine).20 31 Furthermore, the results highlight other areas in need of improvement, such as discount options for both APCs and subscription costs, a lack of centrally indexed publications offered in languages other than English, and no correlation between journal ranking and APCs. The last element is particularly concerning. If we consider journal ranking to be a proxy for quality, then value (ie, quality divided by cost) is largely erratic in the market-place. Not only does quality not correlate with cost, but the relative cost (compared with GNI per capita) increases with decreasing country annual income level. When one considers the cost of publishing and subscribing in terms of purchasing power, authors in Nicaragua, an example of a low-middle-income country, may spend 15 times as much when they pay an average hybrid APC than those in the UK, an example of HIC (calculated by dividing the average APC adjusted for Nicaraguan purchasing power with that of an APC adjusted for purchasing power in the UK). Another way of conceptualizing the gravity of this inequality is that the unadjusted average APC costs 1.7 times the gross national income (GNI) per capita in Nicaragua compared with 7.9% of the GNI in the UK.

    With high-priced APCs, funding becomes a critical problem for authors in LMICs. A survey of authors publishing in an OA journal found that around 80% of health sciences researchers used grants or institutional discretionary funds to cover APCs. When comparing sources of funding based on an author’s country gross national product (GNP), authors from low GNP countries were more likely to cover APCs with personal funds compared with those from higher GNP countries.32 A study looking specifically at global health research found a similar trend, with results suggesting authors from higher-ranking institutions have more resources to pay for publishing.33 Likely in part due to these costs and lack of funding, authors from LMIC are more likely to publish in the traditional sense, in a closed journal.33

    Many journals and publishers offer an APC fee waiver or discount policy to offset the high costs. However, the criteria to obtain the waiver differ by journal and are often vague or difficult to discern. Similar to our review, one study found that around 70% of publishers had an explicit fee waiver policy for fully OA journals for authors from LMICs, but this waiver did not apply to authors wishing to publish OA in a hybrid journal, limiting publication options for LMIC authors.34 A study from India highlighted the barriers authors face as the country does not fall under the category of low-income or lower-middle-income country and most Indian institutes do not pay for publication.35 This may be due to the “middle-income trap,” a described phenomenon where economically fast-growing countries transition out of a low-income country or LMIC status but other socio or political restraints or limited resources stagnate the progress to HIC status.36 Limited research exists regarding the extent to which waivers are actually used, and our efforts to contact publishers to gain data for this review did not yield responses.

    When focusing on the consumer aspect of surgical literature, approximately 25% of the total journals reviewed were fully OA. The percentage was lower when looking strictly at surgical journals, where fully OA accounted for 17%. In an effort to increase the amount of research published OA, Plan S was launched in 2018 by a consortium of research funding organizations, cOAlition S.37 38 The APCs are covered by funders or institutions, not the individual author, as long as the article is published in a fully OA journal, a transformative hybrid journal, or is covered by a transformative arrangement. Furthermore, articles must be published under an open license, preferably CC BY, which allows the authors to retain the right to their publication.39 Although several major European organizations have adopted Plan S, there has been notable opposition from researchers and publishers, and lack of adoption in many countries including the USA.38 One opposition letter voices the concern that Plan S does not eliminate the “paywall” publication problem but rather shifts the burden from the consumer to the producer.40 Few journals mentioned subscription discounts, but a vast majority (88%) participated in Research4Life’s HINARI program. Although HINARI provides institutional access to healthcare information in 125 eligible countries, many healthcare professionals are completely unaware that HINARI exists, have difficulty acquiring or managing usernames and passwords, or work for institutions that remain ineligible.41

    Publishing literature requires publisher resources to manage submissions, revisions, and ultimately production, yet it is difficult to know what a reasonable price is to cover the costs. Many major publishers acquire impressive profit margins, with articles produced by the academic and medical communities.42 There is interest in creating a more accessible publishing ecosystem—one where everyone can participate without financial barriers. Within the APC system, where producers of literature pay for the cost of publishing, there are a few options to mitigate cost. For-profit journals tend to have higher APCs, so focusing on publishing in not-for-profit journals helps lower the cost of publishing to the producers. Alternatively, needs-based funding initiatives, such as HINARI, could be made more readily available to those outside of large HIC academic institutions.

    In addition, other OA business models which do not rely on APCs are being created and tested. One option is for costs to be completely covered by revenue generated from advertisements on published article web pages. Alternatively, the “Subscribe to Open” model is gaining promising traction by leveraging subscription revenue to flip articles to OA, and libraries are eager to support. The PLOS has been an innovator in the quest to eliminate the reliance on APCs through the creation of their Community Action Plan. Eliminating the reliance on faulty metrics, such as impact factor or publication counts, for evaluation of science and promotion of researchers can remove the need to publish in certain journals, especially those that come at the highest cost. Finally, authors and librarians can demand price and/or cost transparency from publishers to help better understand the true cost of publishing. OA to medical literature can be an affordable and achievable reality for all if researchers and publishers prioritize it.

    This review has several limitations. First, and most importantly, the language used for the search term was English. A survey of surgeons from countries with a diverse set of income classes found that language was a barrier to the use of evidence-based medicine in non-English-speaking countries.8 Although English continues to be the dominant language in healthcare literature, only 66 countries currently list English as an official language.43 There are efforts underway to increase the number of articles from non-English speakers such as SciELO and professional societies that offer article preparation.44 Delineating the volume and quality of primarily non-English resources was beyond the scope of this systematic review. Also, this review focuses specifically on obtaining medical information through peer-reviewed journal articles; however, there are other ways of obtaining healthcare information, such as point-of-care peer-reviewed options (eg, UpToDate, ClinicalKey), non-peer-reviewed options, and medical textbooks.

    Conclusion

    Of the 500 surgical literature journals reviewed, most (72%) were hybrid journals, whereas 25% were OA and 3% were closed access. The publishers’ response to the global public access movement appears to be to shift from primarily closed to primarily hybrid journals. However, for authors outside of HICs, the associated costs often put them in the position of choosing to publish in a journal they can afford to publish in, but not read, or one they can afford to read, but not to publish in. Further, the cost of publishing appeared to be divorced from the relative quality of a journal as measured by bibliometrics such as impact factor. As it stands, the basic economic principle of value (quality divided by cost) is chaotically represented in this market-place. Despite the OA movement and initiatives such as Plan S and HINARI, around 84% of the world’s population is being treated by surgeons in LMICs who are lacking adequate access to surgical journals. Further, not only do those providers not have adequate access to information, the information they can access is largely generated by, and for, a high-income context. Although the paywall publication problem may never be eliminated, a better balance needs to be found between costs for producers and consumers and publisher profit margin. The problem does not exist solely in LMICs where initiatives are focused, but extends to include all of those that are outside of large academic institutions. The cost and access barriers in the current publishing paradigm exacerbate inequity and critically slow the dissemination of potentially life-saving information.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Luckmann R
      . Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. In: Journal of intensive care medicineVol. 16. 2000: 155–6. doi:10.1177/088506660101600307
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      1. Noble HE,
      2. Vega Rivera F,
      3. LaGrone L
      . Barriers and Facilitators to answering clinical questions in the Americas: a cross-sectional study of surgical trauma care providers. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2021;6:e000774. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2021-000774
    3. ↵
    4. ↵
      1. The World Bank
      . High income, Available: https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/high-income?view=chart [Accessed 10 Jan 2022].
    5. ↵
      1. Falagas ME,
      2. Pitsouni EI,
      3. Malietzis GA,
      4. Pappas G
      . Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008;22:338–42. doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Kale R
      . Health information for the developing world. BMJ 1994;309:939–42. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6959.939
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Godlee F,
      2. Pakenham-Walsh N,
      3. Ncayiyana D,
      4. Cohen B,
      5. Packer A
      . Can we achieve health information for all by 2015 Lancet 2004;364:295–300. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16681-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. LaGrone LN,
      2. Fuhs AK,
      3. Egoavil EH,
      4. Langdale LA,
      5. Fuangworawong P,
      6. Hamasaki JL,
      7. Gyedu A,
      8. Mock CN
      . A global assessment of access to and use of medical information: the state of evidence-based surgery. World J Surg 2018;42:521–31. doi:10.1007/s00268-017-4175-4
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Jubb M,
      2. Plume A,
      3. Oeben S, et al
      . Monitoring the transition to open access, . 2017Available: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/125509/1/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017%20final%20published%20version%20VoR.pdf
    10. ↵
      1. Robertson F
      . HINARI: opening access in Biomedicine and health. Appl Transl Genom 2014;3:84–5. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2014.07.003
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. BIREME
      . Available: https://www.paho.org/en/bireme [Accessed 10 Jan 2022].
    12. ↵
      1. Tennant JP,
      2. Waldner F,
      3. Jacques DC,
      4. Masuzzo P,
      5. Collister LB,
      6. Hartgerink CHJ
      . The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: an evidence-based review. F1000Res 2016;5:632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
    13. ↵
      1. Wang JZ,
      2. Pourang A,
      3. Burrall B
      . Open access medical journals: benefits and challenges. Clin Dermatol 2019;37:52–5.:S0738-081X(18)30202-5. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2018.09.010
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Cuschieri S
      . Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published. Early Human Development 2018;121:54–7. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.02.017
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate open access, Available: https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/ [Accessed 10 Jan 2022].
    16. ↵
      1. Matheka D,
      2. Nderitu J,
      3. Mutonga D,
      4. Otiti M,
      5. Siegel K,
      6. Demaio A
      . Open access: academic publishing and its implications for knowledge equity in Kenya. Global Health 2014;10:26. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-10-26
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Iyandemye J,
      2. Thomas MP
      . Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the BIOMEDICAL literature. PLoS One 2019;14:e0220229. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220229
    18. ↵
      1. Tzarnas S,
      2. Tzarnas CD
      . Publish or perish, and pay--the new paradigm of open-access journals. J Surg Educ 2015;72:283–5.:S1931-7204(14)00257-8. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.09.006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Waltho D,
      2. Kaur MN,
      3. Haynes RB,
      4. Farrokhyar F,
      5. Thoma A
      . Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a high-quality literature search. Can J Surg 2015;58:349–58. doi:10.1503/cjs.017314
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Dove C,
      2. Chan TM,
      3. Thoma B,
      4. Roland D,
      5. Bruijns SR
      . A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals. Afr J Emerg Med 2019;9:150–5. doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2019.01.015
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. Yuen J,
      2. Muquit S,
      3. Whitfield PC
      . Correlation between cost of publication and Journal impact. comprehensive cross-sectional study of exclusively open-access surgical journals. J Surg Educ 2019;76:107–19.:S1931-7204(18)30261-7. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.029
      OpenUrl
    22. ↵
      1. Land MK,
      2. Pakenham-Walsh N
      . Access to health information under international human rights law. SSRN Journal 2012. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3670747
    23. ↵
      1. Andrews B,
      2. Semler MW,
      3. Muchemwa L,
      4. Kelly P,
      5. Lakhi S,
      6. Heimburger DC,
      7. Mabula C,
      8. Bwalya M,
      9. Bernard GR
      . Effect of an early resuscitation protocol on in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis and hypotension: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318:1233–40. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.10913
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Himmelstein DS,
      2. Romero AR,
      3. Levernier JG,
      4. Munro TA,
      5. McLaughlin SR,
      6. Greshake Tzovaras B,
      7. Greene CS
      . Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. Elife 2018;7:e32822. doi:10.7554/eLife.32822
    25. ↵
      1. Khabsa M,
      2. Giles CL
      . The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One 2014;9:e93949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093949
    26. ↵
      1. Olayemi OM,
      2. Abolarinwa ST
      . From free access to (fee) low cost, access based: a survey of HINARI in Nigeria. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 2019;16:47–58. doi:10.1080/15424065.2019.1651683
      OpenUrl
    27. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J,
      4. Altman DG, PRISMA Group
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    28. ↵
      1. Bakkalbasi N,
      2. Bauer K,
      3. Glover J,
      4. Wang L
      . Three options for citation tracking: Google scholar, Scopus and web of science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006;3:7. doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
    29. ↵
      1. The World Bank
      . Low income, Available: https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-income [Accessed 26 Apr 2021].
    30. ↵
      The World Bank. PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $) - United States, Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?end=2019&locations=US-BR-GB-ET&start=1990 [Accessed 4 May 2021].
    31. ↵
      1. Ellingson MK,
      2. Shi X,
      3. Skydel JJ,
      4. Nyhan K,
      5. Lehman R,
      6. Ross JS,
      7. Wallach JD
      . Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047107. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107
    32. ↵
      1. Solomon DJ,
      2. Björk B-C
      . Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of Journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2012;63:98–107. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15322890/63/1. doi:10.1002/asi.21660
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      1. Siler K,
      2. Haustein S,
      3. Smith E,
      4. Larivière V,
      5. Alperin JP
      . Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research. PeerJ 2018;6:e4269. doi:10.7717/peerj.4269
    34. ↵
      1. Lawson S
      . Fee waivers for open access journals. Publications 2015;3:155–67. doi:10.3390/publications3030155
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Jain VK,
      2. Iyengar KP,
      3. Vaishya R
      . Article processing charge may be a barrier to publishing. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2021;14:14–6. doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2020.10.039
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      1. Bulman D,
      2. Eden M,
      3. Nguyen H
      . Transitioning from low-income growth to high-income growth: is there a middle-income trap Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 2017;22:5–28. doi:10.1080/13547860.2016.1261448
      OpenUrl
    37. ↵
      1. Schiltz M
      . Science without publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate open access. PLoS Biol 2018;16:e3000031. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000031
    38. ↵
      1. Watson R,
      2. Hayter M
      . Time to plan for plan S. Nurs Open 2019;6:206–7. doi:10.1002/nop2.263
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. Principles
      . Available: https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles [Accessed 26 Apr 2021].
    40. ↵
      1. Letter
      . Reaction of researchers to plan s: too far, too risky, Available: https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter [Accessed 29 Apr 2021].
    41. ↵
      1. Van Essen C,
      2. Mizero P,
      3. Kyamanywa P,
      4. Cartledge P
      . HINARI grows: one step closer to health information for all. Trop Med Int Health 2014;19:825–7. Available: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/languages/. doi:10.1111/tmi.12310
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Dorsey ER, George BP, Dayoub EJ,et al
      . Finances of the publishers of the most highly cited US medical journals. J Med Libr Assoc 2011;99:255–8. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      The World Factbook, . 2023Available: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/languages/
    44. ↵
      1. Meneghini R,
      2. Packer AL
      . Is there science beyond English? initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Rep 2007;8:112–6. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400906
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Presented at A scientific forum poster presentation of this work was made at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress (virtual; October 2021).

    • Contributors MW: conceptualization (equal), data curation (lead), formal analysis (lead), validation (lead), visualization (lead), writing—original draft (lead), writing—review and editing (lead). HC: conceptualization (supporting), data curation (supporting), resources (supporting), validation (supporting), visualization (supporting), writing—review and editing (supporting). AF: conceptualization (lead), data curation (supporting), resources (supporting), supervision (equal), validation (supporting), writing—review and editing (lead). EH: conceptualization (supporting), resources (supporting), supervision (supporting), validation (supporting), writing—review and editing (supporting). ML: data curation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), validation (lead), writing—review and editing (supporting). ST-P: conceptualization (equal), data curation (equal), writing—original draft (supporting), writing—review and editing (supporting). LL: guarantor (lead) conceptualization (lead), data curation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), resources (lead), supervision (lead), validation (supporting), visualization (supporting), writing—original draft (supporting), writing—review and editing (lead).

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles