Measuring back: bibliodiversity and the Journal Impact Factor&trade; brand, a case study of IF-journals included in the 2021 Journal Citations Report&trade;

Marjorie Bardiau; Christophe Dony

Research Articles

Measuring back: bibliodiversity and the Journal Impact Factor™ brand, a case study of IF-journals included in the 2021 Journal Citations Report™

Authors

Marjorie Bardiau
Christophe Dony

Abstract

Little attention has been devoted to whether the impact factor (IF) can be considered a responsible metric in light of bibliodiversity. This article critically engages with this question in measuring the following variables of IF journals included in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports™ and examining their distribution: publishing models (hybrid, open access (OA) with or without fees, subscription), world regions, language(s) of publication, subject categories, publishers and the prices of article processing charges (APCs) if any. Our results show that the quest for prestige or perceived quality through the IF brand poses serious threats to bibliodiversity. The IF brand can indeed hardly be considered a responsible metric insofar as it perpetuates publishing concentration, maintains a domination of the Global North and its attendant artificial image of mega producer of scholarly content, does not promote linguistic diversity, and does not incentivize fair and equitable open access by entrenching fee-based OA delivery options with rather high APCs.

Keywords:

Year: 2024

Volume 37

Page/Article: 1

DOI: 10.1629/uksg.633

Submitted on May 31, 2023

Accepted on Sep 12, 2023

Published on Jan 9, 2024

Peer Reviewed

CC Attribution 4.0

Introduction

The impact factor (IF) is a bibliometric indicator that has been the subject of much criticism, especially in the current state of advocacy for more responsible metrics. Various key reform-oriented texts concerned with the advancement of research assessment such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide or the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, for example, have called to stop using the IF in research evaluation, notably because of its calculation-related deficiencies such as skewed citation distribution. These and other texts have also alerted about the normative uses of the IF and its adverse effects on the research ecosystem. These concerns and criticisms include unfair comparisons between fields with different citations practices, perverse incentives, including citation gaming, the amplification of journal status endowment through article processing charges (APCs) inflation and the use of the IF as a proxy for perceived quality or excellence, despite evidence to the contrary.

Despite the prevalence of the IF in the research ecosystem, including its influence in research assessment and rewards systems, research has so far failed to propose a comprehensive analysis of bibliodiversity as it can relate to the IF brand. Bibliodiversity is key in maintaining a diverse, inclusive and equitable research landscape that can ‘accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different research communities’. A lack of bibliodiversity can result in homogenized and hegemonic trends in the ways research is carried out, made visible and produced or disseminated. This impacts who can access, read and benefit from research.

Taking its cue from this characterization of bibliodiversity as a multifaceted and structuring concept of scholarly communications, this article examines the bibliodiversity of the IF brand in measuring particular variables of IF journals included in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports™ (JCR™; n = 12,391), namely: publishing models (hybrid, open access with or without fees, subscription), world regions, language(s) of publication, subject categories, publishers and the prices of APCs if any.

Measuring these variables and examining their distribution can provide valuable insights into the IF brand, in particular how it might be said to reject bibliodiversity in reinforcing ‘monopoly, monoculture, and high prices’ in scholarly communications. In turn, these insights may help various stakeholders in scholarly communications, research assessment, information literacy and open science to further critically engage with the IF and how its brand may actually jeopardize the development of a healthy, diverse and sustainable scholarly communications ecosystem.

Literature review

Bibliodiversity is a term that can refer to a variety of realities and practices. The International Alliance of Independent Publishers defines bibliodiversity as ‘cultural diversity applied to the world of books’. In practice, this is envisioned as ‘a complex, self-sustaining system of storytelling, writing, publishing, and other kinds of production of oral and written literature’ which contributes to more socio-cultural diversity and equity. For libraries, providing access to a diversity of outputs and formats is a core principle embedded in both advocacy actions and collection development strategies. In the world of scholarly communications, the concept is even more wide-ranging.

In this context, bibliodiversity indeed pertains to editorial methods, discoverability practices, publishing trends and infrastructures and issues of affordability and sustainability, in particular how the latter can relate to the politics of open access. The 2017 Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity, for instance, argues that developing a scholarly publishing ecosystem by privileging a fee-based open access model may ‘slow if not check the advent of bibliodiversity’. Similarly, Monica Berger describes fee-based open access as a colonizing force and enterprise in the landscape of scholarly publishing. A similar view is shared by Shearer and Becerril-García who contend that bibliodiversity can contribute to the decolonization of scholarly communications. In their respective articles, Berger as well as Shearer and Becerril-García point to various Latin American initiatives of community-owned and non-commercial infrastructures or publishing platforms such as Latindex, Redalyc and SciELO, all of which have enhanced the creation, discoverability, prevalence and significance of locally-produced research. In so doing, these initiatives have shown a commitment to the ‘sustainable, anti-colonial ethos of bibliodiversity’, that is, they constitute a viable alternative to the domination of international English-language journals published by a handful of large commercial publishers, which have increasingly shifted to pay-to-publish open access options methods in recent years.

Bibliodiversity thus runs throughout all the production and dissemination mechanisms and practices of the scholarly communications ecosystem. But this wide scope makes it particularly difficult to propose a comprehensive analysis of how bibliodiversity is articulated in a given corpus. This is why studies usually only examine the state of one main bibliodiversity-related variable in particular bibliographic databases, journals’ lists, or subsets of thereof in focusing on, for example, coverage or scope limitations as they can relate to subjects, geographic representation, linguistic diversity, publisher concentration, or questions of affordability and models and how they tie in with the politics of open access.

This article complements the above-mentioned research in adopting a more holistic approach to bibliodiversity as it can be applied to the IF brand by measuring the previously mentioned bibliodiversity data points of journals included in the 2021 JCR™. In so doing, it provides a blueprint for a reproducible method of ‘measuring back’ which echoes the decolonial ethos of bibliodiversity and can be reused for other journals’ lists or publishing brands.

Materials and methods

The initial dataset used in this study was created by collating data from the 2021 Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) JCR™ lists that are freely available on Clarivate’s website (data downloaded on July 29, 2021). The following information for individual journal entries was obtained from these lists: journal title, ISSN(s), publisher, publisher’s address, publisher country, language(s) of publication, the Web of Science Categories (WoS) and the index(es) that the journal is part of (SCIE, SSCI, or both).

This dataset was then enriched with information regarding publishing models and APC prices, if any, using freely available datasets or lists from publishers and other sources, namely: Walt Crawford’s dataset ‘Gold Open Access 6: 2015–2020’ (GOA6), a journal metadata file produced by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ; downloaded on August 13, 2021) and APC price lists from various publishers. Information regarding journal models and possible APC was also manually checked and directly retrieved from publishers and journals’ websites when they could not be found in previously mentioned lists.

Detail regarding data standardization and structuration methods is provided in Appendix A for the following variables: publishing models, APC prices, subject categories, publishers’ names and ensembles, world regions and language(s) of publication.

Results

Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 show the diversity of the IF brand per publishers’ ensembles and one of the following variables: world regions, subjects, language(s) of publications or publishing model.

Figure 1

Distribution of journals per world region and publishers’ ensemble

Figure 2

Shares of journals per subject and publishers’ ensemble

Figure 3

Distribution of journals per language category and publishers’ ensemble

Figure 4

Distribution of journals per publishing model and publishers’ ensemble

Figure 1 shows little geographic diversity and indicates high levels of publisher concentration, especially in Western Europe and North America. These two regions produce 85% (n = 10,485) of all IF journals included in the 2021 JCR™. All other world regions are under-represented, especially Eastern and Southern Africa and West and Central Africa, which respectively account for 0.45% (n = 56) and 0.03% (n = 4) of all journals. Figure 1 also shows the global reach of the Oligopoly (i.e. Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley) as it is present in all world regions, albeit in varying degrees. The top 25 publishers, which consist of the Oligopoly and the next 20 publishers with the biggest portfolio, account for 75% (n = 9,290) of all journals. Western Europe and North America publish 90% (n = 8,318) of journals produced by these 25 publishers. In contrast, other world regions show lower levels of publisher concentration as they present bigger, albeit variable shares of journals tagged in the Other publishers category, ranging from 34 (n = 41) in the Middle East and North Africa to 89% (n = 212) in Latin America and the Caribbean. (Please note, due to rounding, some totals may not correspond with the sum of separate figures.)

Figure 2 indicates high levels of publisher concentration for the top 25 publishers in all subject categories. Across all subjects, the Oligopoly represents 59% (n = 7,286) while the next 20 publishers with the biggest portfolio account for 16% (n = 2,004) of all journals. In six subject categories, the Oligopoly’s shares of journals reach levels higher than the overall average representation: Chemistry (61%; n = 366), Geosciences (61%; n = 417), Medical Sciences (59%; n = 1,847), Professional fields (63%; n = 656), Psychology (71%; n = 330) and Social Sciences (63.5%; n = 606). When adding the next 20 publishers with the biggest portfolio to the Oligopoly category, levels of publishers concentration reach levels higher than their combined overall average in six subject categories: Astronomy (82%; n = 54), Chemistry (84%; n = 500), Computer sciences (78%; n = 383), Medical sciences (77%; n = 2,435), Professional fields (78%; n = 809), Psychology (86%; n = 402) and Social sciences (80%; n = 760).

Figure 3 shows that English prevails as the only language of publication for the majority of journals (89% of all journals; n = 11,077) and that the top 25 publishers publish the majority of English-only journals (79%, n = 8,699). In contrast, the category of Other publishers somewhat levels the playing field for more linguistic diversity as publishers that do not belong to the top 25 publishers produce more than 50% of journals in all language categories except English- and German-only titles: Other language(s) (87%; n = 109), Spanish (82%; n = 73), French (59%; n = 37) and Multilingual including English (50%; n = 469).

The proportions of journals per language category fluctuate very little according to subjects or world regions. It is nevertheless worth noting that the least linguistically diverse category is that of Computer sciences, of which 97% (n = 477) of titles are English-only journals. Worth noting as well is the fact that the most linguistically diverse world region is Latin America and the Caribbean, with only 32% (n = 76) of English-only journals.

Figure 4 indicates that the hybrid publishing model is dominant (68% of all journals; n = 8,422) and that the top 25 publishers privilege hybrid and fully OA-APC journals. Together, these 25 publishers produce 90% (n = 7,592) of all hybrid journals and 60% (n = 1,115) of all full OA fee-based journals. In contrast, the category of Other publishers is more diverse in terms of publishing models; it accounts for 80% (n = 608) of all OA journals that do not require fees and represents 60% (n = 610) of all journals using a subscription model. This category of Other publishers is also the one with the most journals for which the possible presence of fees could not be identified (97%; n = 295).

The distribution of publishing models does not vary much according to subjects but fluctuates more per world region (Figure 5). Figure 5 shows that Western Europe and North America privilege hybrid and OA-APC publishing models. Taken together, these models account for 90% of all journals in Western Europe and 84% of all journals in North America, with the hybrid model representing respectively 73% and 76% of journals in these regions. In contrast, other regions show more diverse publishing models, albeit in varying degrees. The subscription model is prevalent in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (48%; n = 173), while in Latin America and the Caribbean, the most common model is that of OA without fees (42%; n = 100). Proportionally speaking, Western Europe and North America also have the smallest shares of OA journals that do not require fees, respectively 5% (n = 310) and 2% (n = 96).

Figure 5

Distribution of journals per world region and publishing model

Figures 6, 7, 8 below focus on APC-related information for hybrid and APC-based OA journals. Figure 6 shows a statistical summary of APC prices for hybrid and OA-APC journals per publishers’ ensembles, with box plots showing the first quartile, median and the third quartile of the values. For hybrid journals, the median APC price is US$3,000 for the Oligopoly, US$3,255 for the next 20 publishers, and US$2,380 for the category of Other publishers. The difference in median APC prices for OA-APC journals between the Other publishers and the two other categories of publishers’ ensembles is even more marked: US$2,290 for the Oligopoly, US$1,916 for the next 20 publishers, and US$684 for the Other publishers.

Figure 6

Distribution of APC prices with box plots for hybrid and OA-APC journals per publishers’ ensembles

Figure 7

Number of hybrid journals per APC price band and publishers’ ensemble

Figure 8

Number of OA-APC journals per APC price band and publishers’ ensemble

Data shows that the median prices of APCs do not vary much across languages but fluctuate much more per world region, especially for OA-APC journals. Median APC prices of hybrid journals approximate US$3,000 in all world regions, except in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In contrast, median APC prices of OA-APC journals are below US$1,000 in all world regions but three: East Asia and Pacific (US$1,100), North America (US$2,000) and Western Europe (US$2,000).

Figure 7 shows the number of hybrid journals per APC-price band and publishers’ ensemble. This figure indicates that the top 25 publishers produce more hybrid journals in higher APC price ranges than the category of Other publishers. This is especially true of journals in APC-price bands higher than the overall median price of hybrid journals (i.e. US$3,000), where the top 25 publishers produce more than 90% of journals in all price bands.

Figure 8 shows the number of OA-APC journals per APC-price band and publishers’ ensemble. This figure indicates that the category of Other publishers produces more OA-APC journals in lower price bands, with more than 50% of all of the journals in each price band below US$1,201–1,400. In contrast, the top 25 publishers produce more than 75% of all journals in price bands higher than the overall median price of OA-APC journals (i.e. US$2,000), exceptions being the US$3,801–4,000 and US$4,601–4800 price bands.

Discussion

The IF brand indicates a continued domination of the Oligopoly (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley) in the scholarly publications system, with even higher shares than the ones reported in a 2015 study of publisher concentration in the WoS content, which averaged slightly above 50% in 2013. These variations can in part result from differences in methodology and scope. While Larivière et al.’s study examined documents throughout the entire WoS content, our study looks at publisher concentration at the journal level and only within a subset of the WoS content (i.e. the SCIE and/or SSCI indexes). Next to the Oligopoly, our results also show that the IF brand favours well-established and historical publishers and scholarly societies (ACS, APA, BMJ, CUP, De Gruyter, Emerald, OUP, Wolters Kluwer), or more recent publishers with scaling-up capacities and infrastructures that specifically target international audiences (Bentham, Frontiers, MDPI, IOP Publishing, World Scientific Publishing). This is most likely to be due to several factors, including historical reasons, discoverability, indexing and visibility issues, as well as the curation process and inclusion criteria used by the WoS, which notably require that all titles and abstracts must be translated into English to be included in one of its indexes. In any case, encouraging publishing in IF journals contributes to the market consolidation of particular commercial publishers that are mainly located in the Global North.

Similarly, promoting IF journals as publishing venues is bound to hamper the development of multilingual or non-English content in research given the very high shares of IF-journals accepting articles in English (>90%). This result is in line with a previous study showing the proportions of documents in English at 95% in the WoS database. To compare in terms of numbers of journals, a study analysing the 25,671 active journals employing the open-source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) reports a proportion of journals using English as a main language at 50%. This comparison shows the imbalance of English-only journals across the whole journals publishing sector as represented by the WoS, while pointing to a rescaling possibility of the use of languages other than English in scholarly communications. Of course, the use of a lingua franca such as English can be beneficial for reasons of global dissemination. But it should not prevail to the detriment of research in other languages, which can, as the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication reminds us, benefit society ‘beyond academia’, particularly when it is related to issues of ‘heritage, culture, and society’. In fact, a ‘balanced multilingualism’ in research can keep ‘locally relevant research alive’ as well as potentially ‘create localized impacts’.

Several reasons can be advanced as to why the IF brand does not currently achieve this balanced multilingualism by privileging English. Firstly, the IF was historically created and ‘specifically to cater to the needs of US librarians’. It later developed through ‘reshap[ing] international science in favour of both the US and the English language’. Secondly, much of the globalization and internationalization of research since the second half of the 20th century onwards has made English increasingly hypervisible. Thirdly, the increasing use of English-centered databases such as Scopus and WoS in research assessment may influence the publishing agenda of researchers, who ‘may choose to move away from locally relevant research toward decontextualized approaches of interest to English-language audiences’.

The very low share of no-fees OA journals observed here (6.1%) is particularly questionable and worrying when compared to the proportion of APC-based OA journals (15%; n = 1,849). This ratio of OA journals with or without fees indeed sharply contrasts with that of the DOAJ, which features more than 12,959 no-fees OA journals and only 5,886 OA journals requiring APCs (as of January 13th, 2023). Even if all OA-journals for which the presence of fees could not be confirmed (n = 303) were considered to be diamond OA journals, the share of OA-APC journals would still by far surpass the share of diamond OA journals in the present study.

The IF brand can thus be said to privilege a minority model (OA-APC) over a fairer, more equitable and more frequent OA publishing model without fees, i.e. diamond journals, even if said model undoubtedly has its own challenges. This can be in part explained by the prevalence of big commercial publishers of the Global North (cf. Figure 5). Even so, however, the share of OA-APC journals reported here entrenches a publishing model supporting exclusionary politics of publishing, which discriminate against researchers from low-income countries, independent scientists, or other scholars unable to finance APCs. This is particularly true when said APC prices, especially as they are practised by the top 25 publishers and journals of the Global North (cf. Figure 7 and Figure 8), surpass by far the actual costs to publish scholarly articles. This APC barrier, in turn, adds another bias in the international research landscape which yet again privileges particular voices such as senior and male academics in contributing to the hypervisible scholarly record. Finally, the prevalence of the OA-APC model manifest in the IF brand also raises questions of sustainability since it has been demonstrated that there exists a positive relationship between APC prices and journals with a high IF.

The IF-brand also de-incentivizes fair, equitable and sustainable open access publishing by indirectly amplifying the hybrid publishing model, which most journals rely on according to our data (cf. Figure 4). Again, this may be due to the significant numbers of big commercial publishers within the IF list, as the top 25 publishers indeed publish more than 90% of all hybrid journals. Whatever the reasons behind the number of hybrid journals, their sheer number contributes to the same exclusionary politics as journals using an OA-APC model, even more so given that the APC levels of hybrid journals reported here (cf. Figure 6 and Figure 7) confirm previous analyses showing that they are more expensive than those practised by OA-APC journals.

The significant shares of OA-APC and hybrid journals observed in the IF brand (cf. Figure 4) should also raise further sustainability and equity concerns as the number of articles delivered through these methods has increased over the last few years. In his yearly studies of gold open access output based on DOAJ data, Crawford has shown that the minority of OA-APC journals included in the DOAJ produce a majority of the total output of OA articles, i.e. OA articles published in either diamond or fee-based OA journals included in the DOAJ. In 2020, the minority of OA-APC journals produced 65% of the overall output of OA articles, a proportion which increased to 69% in 2021. As for hybrid journals, several studies have shown an uptake of hybrid articles published by the Oligopoly. Laakso and Björk reported a number of hybrid OA articles doubling every year between 2007 and 2013. More recently, Butler et al. demonstrated a ‘slight increase’ of hybrid OA articles ‘from 29% in 2015 to 32.4% in 2018’. This increase of OA articles through the hybrid model should nevertheless be put into perspective as it does not seem to be significant enough to allow journals to transition to full OA in a reasonable time frame, thus prolonging the unsustainability and inequity of the model, notably as it is implemented through so-called transformative agreements.

The fact that journals included in other WoS indexes are soon to receive an IF might possibly slightly reduce the significance of some of the hegemonic and oligopolistic trends discussed above. Journals included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) might, for example, improve the representation of the Humanities within the IF brand. This index might also improve the linguistic diversity of the IF brand since multilingual publishing ‘is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage’. The addition of journals from ‘more than 3,000 publishers, many of which are smaller publishers from the developing world’, might also reduce the share of English-only journals with an IF, especially if these publishers show more linguistic diversity, as does the category of Other publishers in this study (cf. Figure 3). These publishers may also contribute to reducing the domination of the Global North (cf. Figure 1) and trends of publisher concentration (cf. Figure 1 and Figure 2). Finally, the assignment of an IF to almost 9,000 journals may increase the share of OA journals by 8% in the JCR™ as per Clarivate’s press release. But it is unknown what proportion of the OA journals will be APC-based.

Conclusion

The quest for prestige or perceived quality through the IF brand poses serious threats to bibliodiversity in scholarly communications. On the whole, our results indeed show that the IF brand perpetuates publishing concentration, maintains a domination of the Global North and its attendant artificial image of mega producer of scholarly content, does not promote linguistic diversity, and does not incentivize fair and equitable open access by entrenching fee-based OA delivery options with rather high APCs.

Given the prevalence of the IF in research assessment and its ties to issues of professional advancement or career development, this problematic state of bibliodiversity should be properly reckoned with by the scholarly community to minimize the adverse effects of journals’ lists on the diversity of the publishing landscape and its future developments. In terms of research, this implies a further and regular examination of how the IF and other journals’ lists used for evaluation tackle bibliodiversity over time. In terms of advocacy and policy-making, this implies that bibliodiversity issues be addressed in research training and research evaluation programmes and reforms. A first step in this decolonial endeavour may be to recognize the increasing ‘intertwining of research assessment and open science’, which notably transpires from the UNESCO recommendation on open science.

Appendix A

This appendix details the strategies used for the structuration and standardization of the following data points used in this study: publishing models, APC prices, unique subject categories, publishers’ names and ensembles, world regions and language(s) of publication.

Publishing models

Different criteria were used and articulated with a Boolean logic to identify the publishing models of journals, especially for OA journals. Four main models were identified: fully fee-based OA journals (OA-APC), full OA journals not requiring fees (OA-no fees), hybrid and subscription. The criteria used to categorize journals into these models are defined below.

OA-APC:

journals are included in the DOAJ or GOA6 and mention the presence of fees, OR
journals are included in APC prices lists of publishers and are explicitly labelled as OA, gold OA, or full-OA journals, OR
all of the journal’s content can be accessed for free and publishing in said journal can only be achieved in exchange of an APC, regardless of the type of licence that may be used or whether said journal refers to or uses the phrase ‘open access’, OR
journals have transitioned to full APC-based OA and all of their content since their flipping date is published OA.

OA-no fees:

journals are included in the DOAJ or GOA6 and explicitly mention the absence of fees, i.e. fees = US$0, OR
all of the journal’s content can be accessed for free and it is explicitly mentioned that publishing in said journal does not require the payment of an APC, regardless of the licence that may be used or whether said journal refers to or uses the phrase ‘open access’, OR
journals have transitioned to no-fee OA or have adopted the ‘Subscribe to Open’ model but the content predating this flipping moment may still only be available behind a paywall.

Hybrid:

subscription journals which offer OA publishing only as an option through which articles ‘are immediately free to read under an open license’ that is granted ‘in exchange for an article processing charge (APC)’, including journals labelling themselves as ‘transformative’, OR
journals are included in APC price lists of publishers and are explicitly labelled as hybrid or optional OA journals, regardless of the licence that may be used.

Subscription:

the source’s content is only available through subscription or purchase options; it may contain some bronze OA, i.e. ‘free to read content on the publisher’s page, but without an [sic] clearly identifiable license’; OR
journals use a delayed or embargoed OA model, i.e. there may be an OA-moving barrier but the latest content can only be accessed through subscription or purchase options.

It was sometimes not possible to ascertain the publishing models of some journals, or their possible use of APC or lack thereof. As a result, two other categories were used: ‘unidentified’ (n = 19) and ‘OA-possible presence of fees unknown’ (n = 304).

APC prices

In order to ensure valid comparison, APC prices were all collected in US$ for US authors without any taxes or any membership or society discounts for what comes closest to ‘traditional’ research articles in terms of output type, without taking into account potential submission fees or extra fees for coloured pages and/or images, tables and Figures. When different types of licences were offered, prices for a CC BY licence were collected. When APC varied according to length or word limit, the same limit was used as that of Crawford in GOA6, i.e. ten pages or 5,000 words. When APC prices were not mentioned in US$, prices were converted using the exchange rate of the date the said price was collected. When journals only charged authors within the country of publication, those charges were used (converted in US$ if necessary).

The label ‘unidentified’ was used for APC prices of full-OA or hybrid journals whose APCs could not be identified (n = 172).

Unique subject categories

The WoS uses over 250 subject categories to classify its indexed journals. To facilitate data analysis for the present study, Milojević’s reclassification scheme of WoS content into broad subject areas was used.

Using this reclassification scheme brought about some challenges. Firstly, journals can be assigned different WoS categories, which are not ‘explicitly hierarchical, even though some subject categories can be considered as part of other, broader ones’. Most journals assigned with more than one WoS category point to the same broad area after reclassification, but this was not true in some cases. Nevertheless, the arbitrary decision was made to assign a broad area based on the reclassification of the first WoS category appearing in Clarivate’s data. Secondly, the WoS category scheme contains the ‘Multidisciplinary Sciences’ label that has no equivalent in Milojević’s reclassification scheme because it focuses on article-level reclassification, for which the label ‘Multidisciplinary Sciences’ makes little sense. Since this study focuses on journals, this WoS category was kept as a broad area, thereby updating Milojević’s scheme to 15 unique broad areas. Finally, we found three WoS categories that did not have any match in Milojević’s reclassification scheme, namely ‘Development Studies’, ‘Regional & Urban Planning’ and ‘Quantum Science & Technology’. The ‘Social Sciences’ broad area was used to reclassify the journals tagged with ‘Development Studies’ or ‘Regional & Urban Planning’ as a first WoS category because of their semantic similarity with the WoS category ‘Planning and Development’, which falls into Milojević’s broad area ‘Social Sciences’. Journals assigned with ‘Quantum Science & Technology’ as a first WoS category all contained at least one other WoS category which was used to reclassify those journals with a broad area label from Milojević’s scheme.

Standardized publishers’ names and publishers’ ensembles

Many scholarly and scientific societies, institutions or unions are client organizations of commercial publishers, whose platforms they use to distribute content and sometimes manage publishing processes. In the WoS data used to build our initial dataset, journals are associated with these client organizations or with publishers’ imprints and brands, some of which include many name variants or are abbreviated.

Several strategies were used to clean up and standardize the names of most publishers. Firstly, the list of publisher imprints used in a short course on analysing institutional publishing output was used to reclassify data regarding imprints and brands into larger standardized publisher names. Secondly, common abbreviations or name variants were searched and assigned a standardized name. Finally, the label ‘Other’ was assigned to all remaining journals without a standardized name (n = 2,711).

To facilitate the analysis of results, these standardized publishers’ names were then mapped onto a scheme of three categories: the Oligopoly (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley), the next 20 most common publishers in terms of journal counts (American Chemical Society, Annual Reviews, American Psychological Association, Bentham Publishing, BMJ, Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, Emerald Publishing, Frontiers, IEEE, IOP Publishing, Karger Publishing, Mary Ann Liebert, MDPI, Oxford University Press, Royal Society of Chemistry, Thieme Publishing, University of Chicago Press, Wolters Kluwer and World Scientific Publishing) in the dataset (after the Oligopoly and omitting publishers tagged with the label ‘Other’) and the category of Other publishers (all the rest).

World regions

On the basis of the WoS country data included in the initial dataset, a ‘World Region’ value was assigned to journals using UNICEF’s regional classifications scheme.

Languages

Six categories of languages of publication were used to facilitate analysis: English, Multilingual including English (i.e. journals accepting articles in English in addition to at least one other language), German, Spanish, French and Other language(s) (i.e journals accepting articles in at least one other language that is not included in the previous categories).

Two challenges had to be faced when dealing with the standardization of data regarding language(s) of publication. Firstly, this data was missing for 88 journals in the WoS data. As a result, data was added manually for these journals after checking their websites. Secondly, the Wos information regarding language(s) of publication is not always consistently structured. While for some journals, multiple languages are enumerated, for some others the label ‘Multi-Language’ is used (n = 715). As a result of this discrepancy, every journal tagged with this ‘Multi-Language’ label was considered to be a journal using English in addition to another language of publication. Though this might induce a slight bias in the data, the rationale behind this decision is based on the fact that when they are enumerated, languages of publication of journals almost always explicitly include English.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hollie White for her assistance in the conceptualization of this study and Elisa Grégoire, Sabrina Lekhder and David Tredinnick for their contribution in data collection.

Editor’s Note

The editors of Insights would like to apologise for the unavoidable poor quality of Figure 6. For those who would like more clarity, please see the underlying data the graphic is based on. It is available in the article’s dataset: https://zenodo.org/records/7683744.

Data Accessibility Statement

The dataset used in this study is openly available on Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/7683744 (Bardiau, Marjorie and Dony, Christophe 2023).

Abbreviations and Acronyms

A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the URL below and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

References

“San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment,” DORA, 2013, https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed 16 November 2023).
Diana Hicks et al., “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics,” Nature News 520, no. 7548 (April 23, 2015): 429, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a (accessed 16 November 2023).
James Wilsdon et al., The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (HEFCE, 2015), http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782 (accessed 16 November 2023).
“Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment,” Science Europe, 2022, https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/y41ks1wh/20220720-rra-agreement.pdf (accessed 16 November 2023).
Joel A. C. Baum, “Free-Riding on Power Laws: Questioning the Validity of the Impact Factor as a Measure of Research Quality in Organization Studies,” Organization 18, no. 4 (July 1, 2011): 449–66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403531 (accessed 16 November 2023); Vincent Larivière et al., “A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions,” bioRxiv, July 5, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/062109 (accessed 16 November 2023); Jerome Vanclay, “Bias in the Journal Impact Factor,” Scientometrics 78, no. 1 (December 21, 2008): 3–12, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1778-4 (accessed 16 November 2023).
The PLoS Medicine Editors, “The Impact Factor Game,” PLOS Medicine 3, no. 6 (June 6, 2006): e291, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 (accessed 16 November 2023); Eugene Garfield, “The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor,” JAMA 295, no. 1 (2006): 90–93, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90 (accessed 16 November 2023); Éric Archambault and Vincent Larivière, “History of the Journal Impact Factor: Contingencies and Consequences,” Scientometrics 79, no. 3 (June 1, 2009): 635–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x (accessed 16 November 2023).
Hicks et al., “Bibliometrics”; Wilsdon et al., “The Metric Tide.”
Stuart Ritchie, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth (Henry Holt and Company, 2020); Kyle Siler and Vincent Larivière, “Who Games Metrics and Rankings? Institutional Niches and Journal Impact Factor Inflation,” Research Policy 51, no. 10 (December 1, 2022): 104608, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608 (accessed 16 November 2023).
Márton Demeter and Ronina Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,” Publishing Research Quarterly 36, no. 4 (December 2020): 505–22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9 (accessed 20 November 2023); Kyle Siler and Koen Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals: Diverse Niches and Sources of Value in Academic Publishing,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 1 (February 1, 2020): 28–59, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00016 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Bruno Leclercq, “Évolutions récentes de l’évaluation de la recherche?: Quelques concepts pertinents,” in L’évaluation de la recherche en question(s), ed. Edwin Zaccai et al. (Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, 2016); Esteban Morales et al., “How Faculty Define Quality, Prestige, and Impact of Academic Journals,” PLoS ONE 16, no. 10 (October 28, 2021): e0257340, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257340 (accessed 20 November 2023); Nancy Pontika et al., “Indicators of Research Quality, Quantity, Openness, and Responsibility in Institutional Review, Promotion, and Tenure Policies across Seven Countries,” Quantitative Science Studies 3, no. 4 (2022): 912–930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00224 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Björn Brembs, “Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12 (2018): 37, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 (accessed 20 November 2023); Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, “Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 291, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 (accessed 20 November 2023); Diego Chavarro, Ismael Ràfols, and Puay Tang, “To What Extent Is Inclusion in the Web of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?,” Research Evaluation 27, no. 2 (2018): 106–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Michael R. Dougherty and Zachary Horne, “Citation Counts and Journal Impact Factors Do Not Capture Some Indicators of Research Quality in the Behavioural and Brain Sciences,” Royal Society Open Science 9, no. 8 (August 2022): 220334, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334 (accessed 20 November 2023).
David Moher et al., “Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure,” PLoS Biology 16, no. 3 (March 29, 2018): e2004089, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 (accessed 20 November 2023); Danielle B. Rice et al., “Academic Criteria for Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Sciences Faculties: Cross Sectional Analysis of International Sample of Universities,” BMJ 369 (June 25, 2020): m2081, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2081 (accessed 20 November 2023); Pontika et al., “Indicators of Research Quality, Quantity, Openness, and Responsibility in Institutional Review, Promotion, and Tenure Policies across Seven Countries.”
Kathleen Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action,” April 15, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Kathleen Shearer and Arianna Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity,” 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4423997 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Janne Pölönen et al., “National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance,” Journal of Data and Information Science 6, no. 1 (February 1, 2021): 50–86, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004 (accessed 20 November 2023); Janne Pölönen et al., “Who Are the Users of National Open Access Journals? The Case of the Finnish Journal.Fi Platform,” Learned Publishing 34, no. 4 (2021): 585–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1405; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications.”
“International Declaration of Independent Publishers (2014). To Promote and Strengthen Bibliodiversity Together.,” International Alliance of Independent Publishers, 2014, https://www.alliance-editeurs.org/IMG/pdf/international_declaration_of_independent_publishers_2014-2.pdf (accessed 20 November 2023).
International Alliance of Independent Publishers.
“Diverse Collections: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” Text, Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, American Library Association (ALA), July 26, 2006, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/diversecollections (accessed 20 November 2023); International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) and UNESCO, “IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto: The Multicultural Library – a Gateway to a Cultural Diverse Society in Dialogue,” International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), March 2012, https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/731 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Monica Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access,” Development and Change 52, no. 2 (2021): 383–404, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12634 (accessed 20 November 2023); Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications”; Shearer and Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity.”
Denise Albornoz, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan, “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 65–79, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Leslie Chan and Sely Costa, “Participation in the Global Knowledge Commons: Challenges and Opportunities for Research Dissemination in Developing Countries,” New Library World 106, no. 3/4 (January 1, 2005): 141–63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800510587354 (accessed 20 November 2023); Jonathan Gray, “Infrastructural Experiments and the Politics of Open Access,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 251–63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Serge Bauin et al., “Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity,” Jussieu Call, 2017, https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/jussieu-call-for-open-science-and-bibliodiversity/ (accessed 20 November 2023).
Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre.”
Shearer and Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity.”
Eduardo Aguado-López et al., “The Need and Viability of a Mediation Index in Latin American Scientific Production and Publication: The Case of the Redalyc System of Scientific Information,” Aslib Proceedings 64, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 8–31, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531211196684 (accessed 20 November 2023); Abel L. Packer, “The Pasts, Presents, and Futures of SciELO,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 297–313, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre.”
Vincent Larivière, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era,” PLoS ONE 10, no. 6 (June 10, 2015): e0127502, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Leigh-Ann Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges,” September 7, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057144; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS_A_00272/v2/response1 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Dag W. Aksnes and Gunnar Sivertsen, “A Criteria-Based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science,” Journal of Data and Information Science 4, no. 1 (February 1, 2019): 1–21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Jonathan P. Tennant, “Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge,” European Science Editing 46 (October 27, 2020): e51987, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 (accessed 20 November 2023); Martijn Visser, Nees Jan van Eck, and Ludo Waltman, “Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no. 1 (April 8, 2021): 20–41, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112 (accessed 20 November 2023); Raf Guns and Marek Hołowiecki, “Journal Lists in Social Sciences and the Spectrum of Quality Standards,” in Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences, ed. Emanuel Kulczycki and Tim C.E. Engels (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022), 262–77, https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781800372542/9781800372542.00025.xml (accessed 20 November 2023).
Tennant, “Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge”; Saurabh Khanna et al., “Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process,” Quantitative Science Studies 3, no. 4 (2022): 912–930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Ana Balula and Delfim Leão, “Is Multilingualism Seen as Added-Value in Bibliodiversity?: A Literature Review Focussed on Business and Research Contexts,” in ELPUB 2019 23d International Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB 2019 23d International Conference on Electronic Publishing, OpenEdition Press, 2019), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2019.17 (accessed 20 November 2023); Emanuel Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven-Country European Study,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71, no. 11 (2020): 1371–85, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336 (accessed 20 November 2023); Vincent Larivière and Amanda Riddles, “Langues de diffusion des connaissances?: quelle place reste-t-il pour le français?,” Acfas, 2021, DOI: https://www.acfas.ca/publications/magazine/2021/11/langues-diffusion-connaissances-quelle-place-reste-t-il-francais (accessed 20 November 2023); Miguel-Angel Vera-Baceta, Michael Thelwall, and Kayvan Kousha, “Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage,” Scientometrics 121, no. 3 (December 1, 2019): 1803–13, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z (accessed 20 November 2023).
Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era”; Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”
Jeroen Bosman et al., “OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings” (Zenodo, March 9, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704 (accessed 20 November 2023); Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo, “Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis,” LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 29, no. 1 (May 9, 2019): 1–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280 (accessed 20 November 2023); Thomas Klebel and Tony Ross-Hellauer, “The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing,” MetaArXiv, October 17, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/w5szk (accessed 20 November 2023); Heather Morrison et al., “Change and Growth in Open Access Journal Publishing and Charging Trends 2011–2021,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73, no. 12 (December 2022): 1793–1805, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24717 (accessed 20 November 2023); Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”
Walt Crawford, “Gold Open Access 6: 2015–2020 [Dataset]” (figshare, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14787888.v1 (accessed 20 November 2023).
Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon.
Vera-Baceta, Thelwall, and Kousha, “Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage.”
Khanna et al., “Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing.”
Federation Of Finnish Learned Societies et al., “Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication,” 2019, 621757 Bytes, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.7887059.V1 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Gunnar Sivertsen, “Balanced Multilingualism in Science,” BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació 40 (2018), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.24 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”
Archambault and Larivière, “History of the Journal Impact Factor.”
Archambault and Larivière.
Syed Farid Alatas, “Political Economies of Knowledge Production: On and Around Academic Dependency,” Journal of Historical Sociology 35, no. 1 (March 2022): 14–23, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12362 (accessed 22 November 2023); Nicola Galloway and Jim McKinley, “Englishization of Higher Education,” in Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics: A Reference Guide, ed. Hassan Mohebbi and Christine Coombe, Springer Texts in Education (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021), 705–9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_123 (accessed 22 November 2023); Robert Wilkinson and René Gabriëls, eds., The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe (Amsterdam University Press, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463727358 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”
Sumiko Asai, “Market Power of Publishers in Setting Article Processing Charges for Open Access Journals,” Scientometrics 123, no. 2 (May 2020): 1037–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y; Dominique Babini et al., “The Budapest Open Access Initiative: 20th Anniversary Recommendations,” (BOAI, March 15, 2022), https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/ (accessed 22 November 2023); Demeter and Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,”; Klebel and Ross-Hellauer, “The APC-Effect.”
Alexander Grossmann and Björn Brembs, “Current Market Rates for Scholarly Publishing Services,” F1000Research 10 (July 1, 2021): 20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Albornoz, Okune, and Chan, “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?”; Duncan Matheka et al., “Open Access: Academic Publishing and Its Implications for Knowledge Equity in Kenya,” Globalization and Health 10, no. 1 (2014): 26, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-26 (accessed 22 November 2023); Anthony J. Olejniczak and Molly J. Wilson, “Who’s Writing Open Access (OA) Articles? Characteristics of OA Authors at Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in the United States,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 4 (December 2020): 1429–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00091 (accessed 22 November 2023); Francisco Segado-Boj, Juan Martín-Quevedo, and Juan José Prieto-Gutiérrez, “Attitudes toward Open Access, Open Peer Review, and Altmetrics among Contributors to Spanish Scholarly Journals,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50, no. 1 (October 2018): 48–70, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08 (accessed 22 November 2023); Siler and Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals”; Audrey C. Smith et al., “Assessing the Effect of Article Processing Charges on the Geographic Diversity of Authors Using Elsevier’s ‘Mirror Journal’ System,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no. 4 (December 1, 2021): 1123–43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Demeter and Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,”; Siler and Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals.”
Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk, “Hybrid Open Access—A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Informetrics 10, no. 4 (November 2016): 919–32, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.08.002 (accessed 22 November 2023); Stephen Pinfield, Jennifer Salter, and Peter A. Bath, “The ‘Total Cost of Publication’ in a Hybrid Open-Access Environment: Institutional Approaches to Funding Journal Article-Processing Charges in Combination with Subscriptions,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, no. 7 (July 2016): 1751–66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446 (accessed 22 November 2023); David Solomon and Bo-Christer Björk, “Article Processing Charges for Open Access Publication—the Situation for Research Intensive Universities in the USA and Canada,” PeerJ 4 (July 21, 2016): e2264, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264 (accessed 22 November 2023); Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”
Walt Crawford, Gold Open Access 2015–2020: Articles in Journals (GOA6) (Livermore (CA): Cites & Insights Books, 2021), https://waltcrawford.name/goa6.pdf (accessed 22 November 2023); Walt Crawford, Gold Open Access 2016–2021: Articles in Journals (GOA7) (Livermore (CA): Cites & Insights Books, 2022), https://waltcrawford.name/goa7.pdf (accessed 22 November 2023).
Crawford, Gold Open Access 2015–2020: Articles in Journals (GOA6).
Crawford, Gold Open Access 2016–2021: Articles in Journals (GOA7).
Laakso and Björk, “Hybrid Open Access—A Longitudinal Study.”
Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”
Heather Piwowar, Jason Priem, and Richard Orr, “The Future of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis Projecting Open Access Publication and Readership” bioRxiv, October 9, 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/795310 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Ashley Farley et al., “Transformative Agreements: Six Myths, Busted,” College & Research Libraries News 82, no. 7 (July 6, 2021): 298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.7.298 (accessed 22 November 2023); Camille Nous, “Message from the Grassroots: Scholarly Communication, Crisis, and Contradictions,” Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 7 (December 15, 2021): 1–27, DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cjalrcbu.v7.36448 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Clarivate, “Clarivate Announces Changes to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports,” Clarivate (blog), June 22, 2022, https://clarivate.com/news/clarivate-announces-changes-to-the-2023-journal-citation-reports/ (accessed 22 November 2023).
Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”
Clarivate, “Clarivate Announces Changes to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports.”
Clarivate.
May R. Berenbaum, “Impact Factor Impacts on Early-Career Scientist Careers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 34 (August 20, 2019): 16659–62, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911911116 (accessed 22 November 2023); Arturo Casadevall and Ferric C. Fang, “Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania,” MBio 5, no. 2 (March 18, 2014): e00064–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00064-14 (accessed 22 November 2023); Aileen Fyfe et al., “Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research,” Zenodo, May 25, 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100 (accessed 22 November 2023); Yves Gingras, Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10719.001.0001 (accessed 22 November 2023); Vincent Larivière and Cassidy R. Sugimoto, “The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects,” in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, ed. Wolfgang Glänzel et al., Springer Handbooks (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019), 3–24, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 (accessed 22 November 2023); Moher et al., “Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure”; Morales et al., “How Faculty Define Quality, Prestige, and Impact of Academic Journals”; Rice et al., “Academic Criteria for Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Sciences Faculties”; Inder M. Verma, “Impact, Not Impact Factor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 26 (June 30, 2015): 7875–76, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509912112 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Stephen Curry, “The Intersections between DORA, Open Scholarship and Equity,” in Proceedings of the Paris Open Science European Conference?: OSEC 2022, by Open Science European Conference, Laboratoire d’idées (Marseille: OpenEdition Press, 2022), 99–106, http://books.openedition.org/oep/16151; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.16151 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Stephen Curry, Elizabeth Gadd, and James Wilsdon, Harnessing the Metric Tide: Indicators, Infrastructures & Priorities for UK Responsible Research Assessment (Research on Research Institute, December 12, 2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21701624.v2 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Heather Piwowar et al., “The State of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Open Access Articles,” PeerJ 6 (February 13, 2018): e4375, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Piwowar et al., “The State of OA.”
Walt Crawford, “Gold Open Access 6: 2015–2020 [Dataset],” figshare, 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14787888.v1 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Staša Milojević, “Practical Method to Reclassify Web of Science Articles into Unique Subject Categories and Broad Disciplines,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 1 (February 1, 2020): 183–206, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00014 (accessed 22 November 2023).
Milojević, “Practical Method to Reclassify Web of Science Articles.”
Allison Langham-Putrow and Ana Enriquez, “Analyzing Institutional Publishing Output: A Short Course,” 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.26207/bnx3-8c62 (accessed 22 November 2023).
UNICEF, ‘Regional Classifications’, UNICEF DATA, 7 June 2023, https://data.unicef.org/regionalclassifications/. (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B1] “San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment,” DORA, 2013, https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B2] Diana Hicks et al., “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics,” Nature News 520, no. 7548 (April 23, 2015): 429, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B3] James Wilsdon et al., The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (HEFCE, 2015), http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782 (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B4] “Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment,” Science Europe, 2022, https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/y41ks1wh/20220720-rra-agreement.pdf (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B5] Joel A. C. Baum, “Free-Riding on Power Laws: Questioning the Validity of the Impact Factor as a Measure of Research Quality in Organization Studies,” Organization 18, no. 4 (July 1, 2011): 449–66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403531 (accessed 16 November 2023); Vincent Larivière et al., “A Simple Proposal for the Publication of Journal Citation Distributions,” bioRxiv, July 5, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/062109 (accessed 16 November 2023); Jerome Vanclay, “Bias in the Journal Impact Factor,” Scientometrics 78, no. 1 (December 21, 2008): 3–12, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1778-4 (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B6] The PLoS Medicine Editors, “The Impact Factor Game,” PLOS Medicine 3, no. 6 (June 6, 2006): e291, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 (accessed 16 November 2023); Eugene Garfield, “The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor,” JAMA 295, no. 1 (2006): 90–93, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90 (accessed 16 November 2023); Éric Archambault and Vincent Larivière, “History of the Journal Impact Factor: Contingencies and Consequences,” Scientometrics 79, no. 3 (June 1, 2009): 635–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2036-x (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B7] Hicks et al., “Bibliometrics”; Wilsdon et al., “The Metric Tide.”

[B8] Stuart Ritchie, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth (Henry Holt and Company, 2020); Kyle Siler and Vincent Larivière, “Who Games Metrics and Rankings? Institutional Niches and Journal Impact Factor Inflation,” Research Policy 51, no. 10 (December 1, 2022): 104608, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608 (accessed 16 November 2023).

[B9] Márton Demeter and Ronina Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,” Publishing Research Quarterly 36, no. 4 (December 2020): 505–22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9 (accessed 20 November 2023); Kyle Siler and Koen Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals: Diverse Niches and Sources of Value in Academic Publishing,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 1 (February 1, 2020): 28–59, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00016 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B10] Bruno Leclercq, “Évolutions récentes de l’évaluation de la recherche?: Quelques concepts pertinents,” in L’évaluation de la recherche en question(s), ed. Edwin Zaccai et al. (Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, 2016); Esteban Morales et al., “How Faculty Define Quality, Prestige, and Impact of Academic Journals,” PLoS ONE 16, no. 10 (October 28, 2021): e0257340, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257340 (accessed 20 November 2023); Nancy Pontika et al., “Indicators of Research Quality, Quantity, Openness, and Responsibility in Institutional Review, Promotion, and Tenure Policies across Seven Countries,” Quantitative Science Studies 3, no. 4 (2022): 912–930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00224 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B11] Björn Brembs, “Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12 (2018): 37, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 (accessed 20 November 2023); Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò, “Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013): 291, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 (accessed 20 November 2023); Diego Chavarro, Ismael Ràfols, and Puay Tang, “To What Extent Is Inclusion in the Web of Science an Indicator of Journal ‘Quality’?,” Research Evaluation 27, no. 2 (2018): 106–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Michael R. Dougherty and Zachary Horne, “Citation Counts and Journal Impact Factors Do Not Capture Some Indicators of Research Quality in the Behavioural and Brain Sciences,” Royal Society Open Science 9, no. 8 (August 2022): 220334, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B12] David Moher et al., “Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure,” PLoS Biology 16, no. 3 (March 29, 2018): e2004089, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 (accessed 20 November 2023); Danielle B. Rice et al., “Academic Criteria for Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Sciences Faculties: Cross Sectional Analysis of International Sample of Universities,” BMJ 369 (June 25, 2020): m2081, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2081 (accessed 20 November 2023); Pontika et al., “Indicators of Research Quality, Quantity, Openness, and Responsibility in Institutional Review, Promotion, and Tenure Policies across Seven Countries.”

[B13] Kathleen Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action,” April 15, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B14] Kathleen Shearer and Arianna Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity,” 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4423997 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B15] Janne Pölönen et al., “National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance,” Journal of Data and Information Science 6, no. 1 (February 1, 2021): 50–86, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004 (accessed 20 November 2023); Janne Pölönen et al., “Who Are the Users of National Open Access Journals? The Case of the Finnish Journal.Fi Platform,” Learned Publishing 34, no. 4 (2021): 585–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1405; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B16] Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications.”

[B17] “International Declaration of Independent Publishers (2014). To Promote and Strengthen Bibliodiversity Together.,” International Alliance of Independent Publishers, 2014, https://www.alliance-editeurs.org/IMG/pdf/international_declaration_of_independent_publishers_2014-2.pdf (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B18] International Alliance of Independent Publishers.

[B19] “Diverse Collections: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” Text, Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, American Library Association (ALA), July 26, 2006, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/diversecollections (accessed 20 November 2023); International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) and UNESCO, “IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto: The Multicultural Library – a Gateway to a Cultural Diverse Society in Dialogue,” International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), March 2012, https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/731 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B20] Monica Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access,” Development and Change 52, no. 2 (2021): 383–404, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12634 (accessed 20 November 2023); Shearer et al., “Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications”; Shearer and Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity.”

[B21] Denise Albornoz, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan, “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 65–79, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Leslie Chan and Sely Costa, “Participation in the Global Knowledge Commons: Challenges and Opportunities for Research Dissemination in Developing Countries,” New Library World 106, no. 3/4 (January 1, 2005): 141–63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800510587354 (accessed 20 November 2023); Jonathan Gray, “Infrastructural Experiments and the Politics of Open Access,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 251–63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B22] Serge Bauin et al., “Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity,” Jussieu Call, 2017, https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/jussieu-call-for-open-science-and-bibliodiversity/ (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B23] Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre.”

[B24] Shearer and Becerril-García, “Decolonizing Scholarly Communications through Bibliodiversity.”

[B25] Eduardo Aguado-López et al., “The Need and Viability of a Mediation Index in Latin American Scientific Production and Publication: The Case of the Redalyc System of Scientific Information,” Aslib Proceedings 64, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 8–31, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531211196684 (accessed 20 November 2023); Abel L. Packer, “The Pasts, Presents, and Futures of SciELO,” in Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, ed. Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (The MIT Press, 2020), 297–313, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.001.0001 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B26] Berger, “Bibliodiversity at the Centre.”

[B27] Vincent Larivière, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era,” PLoS ONE 10, no. 6 (June 10, 2015): e0127502, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B28] Leigh-Ann Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges,” September 7, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7057144; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS_A_00272/v2/response1 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B29] Dag W. Aksnes and Gunnar Sivertsen, “A Criteria-Based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science,” Journal of Data and Information Science 4, no. 1 (February 1, 2019): 1–21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001 (accessed 20 November 2023); Jonathan P. Tennant, “Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge,” European Science Editing 46 (October 27, 2020): e51987, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 (accessed 20 November 2023); Martijn Visser, Nees Jan van Eck, and Ludo Waltman, “Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no. 1 (April 8, 2021): 20–41, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112 (accessed 20 November 2023); Raf Guns and Marek Hołowiecki, “Journal Lists in Social Sciences and the Spectrum of Quality Standards,” in Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences, ed. Emanuel Kulczycki and Tim C.E. Engels (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022), 262–77, https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781800372542/9781800372542.00025.xml (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B30] Tennant, “Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge”; Saurabh Khanna et al., “Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process,” Quantitative Science Studies 3, no. 4 (2022): 912–930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B31] Ana Balula and Delfim Leão, “Is Multilingualism Seen as Added-Value in Bibliodiversity?: A Literature Review Focussed on Business and Research Contexts,” in ELPUB 2019 23d International Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB 2019 23d International Conference on Electronic Publishing, OpenEdition Press, 2019), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2019.17 (accessed 20 November 2023); Emanuel Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven-Country European Study,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71, no. 11 (2020): 1371–85, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336 (accessed 20 November 2023); Vincent Larivière and Amanda Riddles, “Langues de diffusion des connaissances?: quelle place reste-t-il pour le français?,” Acfas, 2021, DOI: https://www.acfas.ca/publications/magazine/2021/11/langues-diffusion-connaissances-quelle-place-reste-t-il-francais (accessed 20 November 2023); Miguel-Angel Vera-Baceta, Michael Thelwall, and Kayvan Kousha, “Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage,” Scientometrics 121, no. 3 (December 1, 2019): 1803–13, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B32] Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era”; Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”

[B33] Jeroen Bosman et al., “OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings” (Zenodo, March 9, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704 (accessed 20 November 2023); Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo, “Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis,” LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 29, no. 1 (May 9, 2019): 1–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280 (accessed 20 November 2023); Thomas Klebel and Tony Ross-Hellauer, “The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing,” MetaArXiv, October 17, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/w5szk (accessed 20 November 2023); Heather Morrison et al., “Change and Growth in Open Access Journal Publishing and Charging Trends 2011–2021,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73, no. 12 (December 2022): 1793–1805, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24717 (accessed 20 November 2023); Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”

[B34] Walt Crawford, “Gold Open Access 6: 2015–2020 [Dataset]” (figshare, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14787888.v1 (accessed 20 November 2023).

[B35] Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon.

[B36] Vera-Baceta, Thelwall, and Kousha, “Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage.”

[B37] Khanna et al., “Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing.”

[B38] Federation Of Finnish Learned Societies et al., “Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication,” 2019, 621757 Bytes, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.7887059.V1 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B39] Gunnar Sivertsen, “Balanced Multilingualism in Science,” BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació 40 (2018), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.24 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B40] Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”

[B41] Archambault and Larivière, “History of the Journal Impact Factor.”

[B42] Archambault and Larivière.

[B43] Syed Farid Alatas, “Political Economies of Knowledge Production: On and Around Academic Dependency,” Journal of Historical Sociology 35, no. 1 (March 2022): 14–23, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12362 (accessed 22 November 2023); Nicola Galloway and Jim McKinley, “Englishization of Higher Education,” in Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics: A Reference Guide, ed. Hassan Mohebbi and Christine Coombe, Springer Texts in Education (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021), 705–9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_123 (accessed 22 November 2023); Robert Wilkinson and René Gabriëls, eds., The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe (Amsterdam University Press, 2021), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463727358 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B44] Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”

[B45] Sumiko Asai, “Market Power of Publishers in Setting Article Processing Charges for Open Access Journals,” Scientometrics 123, no. 2 (May 2020): 1037–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y; Dominique Babini et al., “The Budapest Open Access Initiative: 20th Anniversary Recommendations,” (BOAI, March 15, 2022), https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/ (accessed 22 November 2023); Demeter and Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,”; Klebel and Ross-Hellauer, “The APC-Effect.”

[B46] Alexander Grossmann and Björn Brembs, “Current Market Rates for Scholarly Publishing Services,” F1000Research 10 (July 1, 2021): 20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B47] Albornoz, Okune, and Chan, “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?”; Duncan Matheka et al., “Open Access: Academic Publishing and Its Implications for Knowledge Equity in Kenya,” Globalization and Health 10, no. 1 (2014): 26, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-26 (accessed 22 November 2023); Anthony J. Olejniczak and Molly J. Wilson, “Who’s Writing Open Access (OA) Articles? Characteristics of OA Authors at Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in the United States,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 4 (December 2020): 1429–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00091 (accessed 22 November 2023); Francisco Segado-Boj, Juan Martín-Quevedo, and Juan José Prieto-Gutiérrez, “Attitudes toward Open Access, Open Peer Review, and Altmetrics among Contributors to Spanish Scholarly Journals,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50, no. 1 (October 2018): 48–70, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08 (accessed 22 November 2023); Siler and Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals”; Audrey C. Smith et al., “Assessing the Effect of Article Processing Charges on the Geographic Diversity of Authors Using Elsevier’s ‘Mirror Journal’ System,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no. 4 (December 1, 2021): 1123–43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B48] Demeter and Istratii, “Scrutinising What Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities,”; Siler and Frenken, “The Pricing of Open Access Journals.”

[B49] Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk, “Hybrid Open Access—A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Informetrics 10, no. 4 (November 2016): 919–32, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.08.002 (accessed 22 November 2023); Stephen Pinfield, Jennifer Salter, and Peter A. Bath, “The ‘Total Cost of Publication’ in a Hybrid Open-Access Environment: Institutional Approaches to Funding Journal Article-Processing Charges in Combination with Subscriptions,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, no. 7 (July 2016): 1751–66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446 (accessed 22 November 2023); David Solomon and Bo-Christer Björk, “Article Processing Charges for Open Access Publication—the Situation for Research Intensive Universities in the USA and Canada,” PeerJ 4 (July 21, 2016): e2264, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264 (accessed 22 November 2023); Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”

[B50] Walt Crawford, Gold Open Access 2015–2020: Articles in Journals (GOA6) (Livermore (CA): Cites & Insights Books, 2021), https://waltcrawford.name/goa6.pdf (accessed 22 November 2023); Walt Crawford, Gold Open Access 2016–2021: Articles in Journals (GOA7) (Livermore (CA): Cites & Insights Books, 2022), https://waltcrawford.name/goa7.pdf (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B51] Crawford, Gold Open Access 2015–2020: Articles in Journals (GOA6).

[B52] Crawford, Gold Open Access 2016–2021: Articles in Journals (GOA7).

[B53] Laakso and Björk, “Hybrid Open Access—A Longitudinal Study.”

[B54] Butler et al., “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How For-Profit Publishers Benefit from Article Processing Charges.”

[B55] Heather Piwowar, Jason Priem, and Richard Orr, “The Future of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis Projecting Open Access Publication and Readership” bioRxiv, October 9, 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/795310 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B56] Ashley Farley et al., “Transformative Agreements: Six Myths, Busted,” College & Research Libraries News 82, no. 7 (July 6, 2021): 298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.7.298 (accessed 22 November 2023); Camille Nous, “Message from the Grassroots: Scholarly Communication, Crisis, and Contradictions,” Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 7 (December 15, 2021): 1–27, DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cjalrcbu.v7.36448 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B57] Clarivate, “Clarivate Announces Changes to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports,” Clarivate (blog), June 22, 2022, https://clarivate.com/news/clarivate-announces-changes-to-the-2023-journal-citation-reports/ (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B58] Kulczycki et al., “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities.”

[B59] Clarivate, “Clarivate Announces Changes to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports.”

[B60] Clarivate.

[B61] May R. Berenbaum, “Impact Factor Impacts on Early-Career Scientist Careers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 34 (August 20, 2019): 16659–62, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911911116 (accessed 22 November 2023); Arturo Casadevall and Ferric C. Fang, “Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania,” MBio 5, no. 2 (March 18, 2014): e00064–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00064-14 (accessed 22 November 2023); Aileen Fyfe et al., “Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research,” Zenodo, May 25, 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100 (accessed 22 November 2023); Yves Gingras, Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10719.001.0001 (accessed 22 November 2023); Vincent Larivière and Cassidy R. Sugimoto, “The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects,” in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, ed. Wolfgang Glänzel et al., Springer Handbooks (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019), 3–24, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 (accessed 22 November 2023); Moher et al., “Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure”; Morales et al., “How Faculty Define Quality, Prestige, and Impact of Academic Journals”; Rice et al., “Academic Criteria for Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Sciences Faculties”; Inder M. Verma, “Impact, Not Impact Factor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 26 (June 30, 2015): 7875–76, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509912112 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B62] Stephen Curry, “The Intersections between DORA, Open Scholarship and Equity,” in Proceedings of the Paris Open Science European Conference?: OSEC 2022, by Open Science European Conference, Laboratoire d’idées (Marseille: OpenEdition Press, 2022), 99–106, http://books.openedition.org/oep/16151; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.16151 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B63] Stephen Curry, Elizabeth Gadd, and James Wilsdon, Harnessing the Metric Tide: Indicators, Infrastructures & Priorities for UK Responsible Research Assessment (Research on Research Institute, December 12, 2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21701624.v2 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B64] Heather Piwowar et al., “The State of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Open Access Articles,” PeerJ 6 (February 13, 2018): e4375, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B65] Piwowar et al., “The State of OA.”

[B66] Walt Crawford, “Gold Open Access 6: 2015–2020 [Dataset],” figshare, 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14787888.v1 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B67] Staša Milojević, “Practical Method to Reclassify Web of Science Articles into Unique Subject Categories and Broad Disciplines,” Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 1 (February 1, 2020): 183–206, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00014 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B68] Milojević, “Practical Method to Reclassify Web of Science Articles.”

[B69] Allison Langham-Putrow and Ana Enriquez, “Analyzing Institutional Publishing Output: A Short Course,” 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.26207/bnx3-8c62 (accessed 22 November 2023).

[B70] UNICEF, ‘Regional Classifications’, UNICEF DATA, 7 June 2023, https://data.unicef.org/regionalclassifications/. (accessed 22 November 2023).