Presence of Ecuador in the Web of Science from open access in post-pandemic period 2019- 2021: A multivariate analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm20261170Keywords:
Scientific Journals, WoS, Scientific quality, Knowledge, Democratization, CitationsAbstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly transformed scholarly communication, accelerating the global adoption of open access (OA). In this context, it is relevant to analyze how Ecuador positioned itself in these dynamics in the post-pandemic period.
Objective: To evaluate Ecuador’s presence in the Web of Science (WoS) database from 2019 to 2021 and identify the impact of the pandemic on scientific production and the adoption of open-access models.
Method: A total of 9085 articles indexed in WoS under the affiliation “Ecuador” were retrieved. Data analysis was performed in R using multivariate statistical techniques and visualization tools (HJ-Biplot), complemented by Bonferroni tests at the 95 % confidence level to compare citation differences between OA and subscription publications.
Results: Of the total publications, 52 % corresponded to open access. These articles received more citations on average than subscription-based articles, with statistically significant differences. Private universities accounted for 43 % of publications, public universities for 42 %, and collaborative works for 15 %. A progressive shift toward OA was evident, especially after 2020, with the green route predominating over the gold, bronze, and hybrid pathways.
Conclusions: Ecuador has notably transitioned toward open access, enhancing the visibility and impact of its scientific production. However, challenges remain, related to the lack of national policies and limited inter-institutional collaboration. Strengthening OA strategies is recommended to democratize knowledge and improve the international positioning of Ecuador’s scientific output.
References
1. Torres-Salinas D. Daily growth rate of scientific production on covid-19. Analysis in databases and open access repositories. Information Professional, 29(2) [Internet]. April 14, 2020;29(2): e290215. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.mar.15. Available on: https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/epi.2020.mar.15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.mar.15
2. Beitl CM. Navigating Over Space and Time: Fishing Effort Allocation and the Development of Customary Norms in an Open-Access Mangrove Estuary in Ecuador. Hum Ecol. June 1, 2014;42(3):395-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9655-7
3. González Parias C, Alban J, Ambrosio W, Mejía G. EVOLUTION OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION IN LATIN AMERICA INDEXED IN SCOPUS 2010-2021. January 1, 2022;18:1-14.
4. Probst B, Lohmann PM, Kontoleon A, Anadón LD. The impact of open access mandates on scientific research and technological development in the U.S. iScience. October 20, 2023;26(10):107740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107740
5. Belli S, Cardenas R, Vélez Falconí M, Rivera A, Santoro Lamelas V. Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge. November 12, 2019;156-67.
6. Mazov NA, Gureyev VN. Open Access Bibliographic Resources for Maintaining a Bibliographic Database of Research Organization. Sci Tech Inf Proc. September 1, 2023;50(3):211-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223030115
7. Claudio-González MG, Villarroya A. Challenges of publishing open access scientific journals. Information professional. September 24, 2015;24(5):517-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.sep.02
8. Yuanyuan HJ. Open Access Journals' Development in the Open Science Process(2017-2020). Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture. January 6, 2021;32(12):29-40.
9. Torrijo EMQ, León FR, Martínez EIC, Intriago JCM. Scientific output on social responsibility in the social economy according to Scopus, 2016-2020 period. Journal of Social Sciences. March 30, 2022;28(2):258-75.
10. Castillo JA, Powell MA. Analysis of Ecuador's scientific output and the impact of international collaboration in the period 2006-2015. Spanish Journal of Scientific Documentation. March 30, 2019;42(1):e225-e225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2019.1.1567
11. Minniti S, Santoro V, Belli S. Mapping the development of Open Access in Latin America and Caribbean countries. An analysis of Web of Science Core Collection and SciELO Citation Index (2005–2017). Scientometrics. December 1, 2018;117(3):1905-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2950-0
12. Julkowska MM, Saade S, Agarwal G, Gao G, Pailles Y, Morton M, et al. MVApp—Multivariate Analysis Application for Streamlined Data Analysis and Curation. Plant Physiol. July 1, 2019;180(3):1261-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.00235
13. D’Isanto T, Altavilla G, Esposito G, Raiola G, D’Elia F. Physical activity and sports sciences field in Italian scientific research products and its distinct composition in biomedicine, exercise and sports sciences and pedagogy domains. Sport Sci Health. September 1, 2023;19(3):987-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-023-01045-z
14. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies. February 1, 2020;1(1):363-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018
15. Bosch X. A reflection on open-access, citation counts, and the future of scientific publishing. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. April 1, 2009;57(2):91-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0016-y
16. Yamashita N, Mayekawa S ichi. A new biplot procedure with joint classification of objects and variables by fuzzy c-means clustering. Adv Data Anal Classif. September 1, 2015;9(3):243-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-014-0184-4
17. Guerra AOR. Scientific output on nature-based tourism: bibliometric analysis of Clarivate Analytics databases. General Journal of Information and Documentation. June 27, 2021;31(1):461-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/rgid.76973
18. Moradi S, Abdi S. Open science–related policies in Europe. Sci Public Policy. June 1, 2023;50(3):521-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac082
19. Akterian SG. Towards Open Access Scientific Publishing. Biomedical Reviews. March 23, 2018;28(0):125-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14748/bmr.v28.4459
20. De Filippo D, Mañana-Rodriguez J. The practical implementation of open access policies and mandates in Spanish public universities. Scientometrics. December 1, 2022;127(12):7147-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04261-x
21. Piazzini T. Open access as a new paradigm. An inevitable evolution? JLIS.it. January 1, 2020;11:99-109.
22. Nane GF, Robinson-Garcia N, van Schalkwyk F, Torres-Salinas D. COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics. January 1, 2023;128(1):345-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x
23. Chakravorty N, Sharma CS, Molla KA, Pattanaik JK. Open Science: Challenges, Possible Solutions and the Way Forward. ProcIndian Natl Sci Acad. September 1, 2022;88(3):456-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00104-2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Patricio Álvarez Muñoz, Fernando Erasmo Pacheco Olea, Dennis Alfredo Peralta-Gamboa (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
