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

Bardiau, Marjorie; Dony, Christophe

doi:10.1629/uksg.633

Article (Scientific journals)

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

Bardiau, Marjorie; Dony, Christophe

2024 • In Insights: the UKSG Journal, 37

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi Dataset

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/311015

DOI
10.1629/uksg.633

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

UKSG_Measuring Back_postprint.pdf

Publisher postprint (4.63 MB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

bibliodiversity; impact factor; responsible metrics; open access; research evaluation; bibliodiversité; évaluation de la recherche; bibliometrics; bibliométrie

Abstract :

[en] 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.

Disciplines :

Library & information sciences

Author, co-author :

Bardiau, Marjorie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > CARE "ULiège Library" > ULiège Library : Sciences de la Santé

Dony, Christophe ; Université de Liège - ULiège > CARE "ULiège Library" > ULiège Library : 20-Août - Sites thématiques (A2) ; Université de Liège - ULiège > CARE "ULiège Library" > ULiège Library : Services communs ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Centre d'Enseignement et de Recherche en Etudes post-coloniales (CEREP) ; Université de Liège - ULiège > CARE "ULiège Library" > ULiège Library : Langues, littératures, traduction

Language :

English

Title :

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

Publication date :

2024

Journal title :

Insights: the UKSG Journal

eISSN :

2048-7754

Publisher :

Ubiquity Press, United Kingdom

Volume :

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.633

Data Set :

https://zenodo.org/records/7683744

Available on ORBi :

since 09 January 2024

Statistics

Number of views

114 (27 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

101 (7 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

“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).