Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

Publications

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2019, Pages

  Tennant, Jonathan P ^a   Crane, Harry ^b   Crick, Tom ^c   Davila, Jacinto ^d   Enkhbayar, Asura ^e   Havemann, Johanna ^f   Kramer, Bianca ^g   Martin, Ryan ^h   Masuzzo, Paola ⁱ   Nobes, Andy ^j   Rice, Curt ^k   Rivera López, Bárbara ^l   Ross Hellauer, Tony ^m   Sattler, Susanne ⁿ   Thacker, Paul D ^o   Vanholsbeeck, Marc ^p  

^a Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education   (France)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Venezuela)

^e SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f IGDORE   (Germany)

^g UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^h NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ IGDORE   (Belgium)

^j INASP   (United Kingdom)

^k OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^l UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS AMÉRICAS   (Chile)

^m GRAZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

ⁿ NATIONAL HEART AND LUNG INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^o Freelance Science Journalist   (Spain)

^p UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

Copyright; Impact factor; Open access; Open science; Peer review; Research evaluation; Scholarly communication; Scopus; Web of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85069934925     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications7020034     Document Type: Review

References (160)

1. Alperin, J.P.; Fischman, G. Hecho en Latinoamérica. Acceso Abierto, Revistas Académicas e Innovaciones Regionales; 2015; ISBN 978-987-722-067-4.
2. Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S. Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The MELIBEA score. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2815-2828.
3. Ross-Hellauer, T.; Schmidt, B.; Kramer, B. Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? PeerJ Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018.
4. Publications Office of the European Union. Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. Available online: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 16 February 2019).
5. Matthias, L.; Jahn, N.; Laakso, M. The Two-Way Street of Open Access Journal Publishing: Flip It and Reverse It. Publications 2019, 7, 23.
6. Ginsparg, P. Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J. 2016, e201695531.
7. Neylon, C.; Pattinson, D.; Bilder, G.; Lin, J. On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints. F1000Research 2017, 6, 608.
8. Tennant, J.P.; Bauin, S.; James, S.; Kant, J. The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. BITSS 2018.
9. Balaji, B.P.; Dhanamjaya, M. Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures. Publications 2019, 7, 6.
10. Bourne, P.E.; Polka, J.K.; Vale, R.D.; Kiley, R. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2017, 13, e1005473.
11. Sarabipour, S.; Debat, H.J.; Emmott, E.; Burgess, S.J.; Schwessinger, B.; Hensel, Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLOS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000151.
12. Powell, K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nat. News 2016, 530, 148.
13. Vale, R.D.; Hyman, A.A. Priority of discovery in the life sciences. eLife 2016, 5, e16931.
14. Crick, T.; Hall, B.; Ishtiaq, S. Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture. J. Open Res. Softw. 2017, 5, 32.
15. Gentil-Beccot, A.; Mele, S.; Brooks, T. Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics. How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories. arXiv 2009, arXiv:0906.5418.
16. Curry, S. Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research. Nature 2018, 554, 147.
17. Lariviere, V.; Sugimoto, C.R. The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1801.08992.
18. McKiernan, E.C.; Schimanski, L.A.; Nieves, C.M.; Matthias, L.; Niles, M.T.; Alperin, J.P. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure Evaluations; PeerJ Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019.
19. Lariviere, V.; Kiermer, V.; MacCallum, C.J.; McNutt, M.; Patterson, M.; Pulverer, B.; Swaminathan, S.; Taylor, S.; Curry, S. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. bioRxiv 2016, 062109.
20. Priem, J.; Taraborelli, D.; Groth, P.; Neylon, C. Altmetrics: A Manifesto. 2010. Available online: http: //altmetrics.org/manifesto (accessed on 11 May 2019).
21. Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; de Rijcke, S.; Rafols, I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nat. News 2015, 520, 429.
22. Falagas, M.E.; Alexiou, V.G. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 2008, 56, 223.
23. Tort, A.B.L.; Targino, Z.H.; Amaral, O.B. Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e53374.
24. Fong, E.A.; Wilhite, A.W. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187394.
25. Adler, R.; Ewing, J.; Taylor, P. Citation statistics. A Report from the Joint. 2008. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20697661?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed on 11 May 2019).
26. Lariviere, V.; Gingras, Y. The impact factor's Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. arXiv 2009, arXiv:0908.3177.
27. Brembs, B. Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 37.
28. Brembs, B.; Button, K.; Munafò, M. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 291.
29. Vessuri, H.; Guédon, J.-C.; Cetto, A.M. Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Curr. Sociol. 2014, 62, 647-665.
30. Guédon, J.-C. Open Access and the divide between "mainstream" and "peripheral. Como Gerir E Qualif. Rev. Científicas 2008, 1-25.
31. Alperin, J.P.; Nieves, C.M.; Schimanski, L.; Fischman, G.E.; Niles, M.T.; McKiernan, E.C. How Significant Are the Public Dimensions of Faculty Work in Review, Promotion, and Tenure Documents? 2018. Available online: https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:21015/ (accessed on 11 May 2019).
32. Rossner, M.; Epps, H.V.; Hill, E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol 2007, 179, 1091-1092.
33. Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 751-760.
34. Moore, S.; Neylon, C.; Paul Eve, M.; Paul O'Donnell, D.; Pattinson, D. "Excellence R Us": University research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Commun. 2017, 3, 16105.
35. Csiszar, A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nat. News 2016, 532, 306.
36. Moxham, N.; Fyfe, A. THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE PREHISTORY OF PEER REVIEW, 1665-1965. Hist. J. 2017.
37. Moore, J. Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists? Nature 2006.
38. Kumar, M. A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biol. Med. 2009, 1, 16.
39. Budd, J.M.; Sievert, M.; Schultz, T.R. Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications. JAMA 1998, 280, 296-297.
40. Ferguson, C.; Marcus, A.; Oransky, I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nat. News 2014, 515, 480.
41. Smith, R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 2006, 99, 178-182.
42. Ross-Hellauer, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 2017, 6, 588.
43. Tennant, J.P.; Dugan, J.M.; Graziotin, D.; Jacques, D.C.; Waldner, F.; Mietchen, D.; Elkhatib, Y.; Collister, L.; Pikas, C.K.; Crick, T.; et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research 2017, 6, 1151.
44. Wong, V.S.S.; Avalos, L.N.; Callaham, M.L. Industry payments to physician journal editors. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211495.
45. Weiss, G.J.; Davis, R.B. Discordant financial conflicts of interest disclosures between clinical trial conference abstract and subsequent publication. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6423.
46. Flaherty, D.K. Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust. Ann Pharm. 2013, 47, 1081-1083.
47. DeTora, L.M.; Carey, M.A.; Toroser, D.; Baum, E.Z. Ghostwriting in biomedicine: A review of the published literature. Curr. Med Res. Opin. 2019.
48. Squazzoni, F.; Brezis, E.; Marušić, A. Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics 2017, 113, 501-502.
49. Squazzoni, F.; Grimaldo, F.; Marušić, A. Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/546352a (accessed on 22 April 2018).
50. Allen, H.; Boxer, E.; Cury, A.; Gaston, T.; Graf, C.; Hogan, B.; Loh, S.; Wakley, H.; Willis, M. What does better peer review look like? Definitions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice. Open Sci. Framew. 2018.
51. Tennant, J.P. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2018, 365.
52. Bravo, G.; Grimaldo, F.; López-Iñesta, E.; Mehmani, B.; Squazzoni, F. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 322.
53. Fang, F.C.; Casadevall, A. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infect. Immun. 2011, 79, 3855-3859.
54. Moylan, E.C.; Kowalczuk, M.K. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e012047.
55. Collaboration, O.S. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015, 349, 4716.
56. Munafò, M.R.; Nosek, B.A.; Bishop, D.V.M.; Button, K.S.; Chambers, C.D.; du Sert, N.P.; Simonsohn, U.; Wagenmakers, E.-J.; Ware, J.J.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2017, 1, 21.
57. Fanelli, D. Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 201708272.
58. Goodman, S.N. Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994, 121, 11.
59. Pierson, C.A. Peer review and journal quality. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2018, 30, 1.
60. Siler, K.; Lee, K.; Bero, L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 360-365.
61. Caputo, R.K. Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice. Fam. Soc. 2018, 1044389418808155.
62. Bornmann, L. Scientific peer review. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 197-245.
63. Resnik, D.B.; Elmore, S.A. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016, 22, 169-188.
64. Richard Feynman Cargo Cult Science. Available online: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult. htm (accessed on 13 February 2019).
65. Fyfe, A.; Coate, K.; Curry, S.; Lawson, S.; Moxham, N.; Røstvik, C.M. Untangling Academic Publishing. A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research. 2017. Available online: https://theidealis.org/untangling-academic-publishing-a-history-of-the-relationship-between-commercial-interests-academic-prestige-and-the-circulation-of-research/ (accessed on 11 May 2019).
66. Priem, J.; Hemminger, B.M. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2012, 6.
67. McKiernan, E.C.; Bourne, P.E.; Brown, C.T.; Buck, S.; Kenall, A.; Lin, J.; McDougall, D.; Nosek, B.A.; Ram, K.; Soderberg, C.K.; et al. Point of View: How open science helps researchers succeed. Elife Sci. 2016, 5, e16800.
68. Bowman, N.D.; Keene, J.R. A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices. Commun. Res. Rep. 2018, 35, 363-372.
69. Crane, H.; Martin, R. The RESEARCHERS.ONE Mission. 2018. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.XNaj4aSxUvg (accessed on 11 May 2019).
70. Brembs, B. Reliable novelty: New should not trump true. PLoS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000117.
71. Stern, B.M.; O'Shea, E.K. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000116.
72. Crane, H.; Martin, R. In peer review we (don't) trust: How peer review's filtering poses a systemic risk to science. Res. ONE 2018.
73. Silver, A. Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nat. News 2017.
74. Djuric, D. Penetrating the Omerta of Predatory Publishing: The Romanian Connection. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015, 21, 183-202.
75. Strinzel, M.; Severin, A.; Milzow, K.; Egger, M. "Blacklists" and "Whitelists" to Tackle Predatory Publishing: A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis; PeerJ Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019.
76. Shen, C.; Björk, B.-C. 'Predatory' open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 230.
77. Perlin, M.S.; Imasato, T.; Borenstein, D. Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 255-273.
78. Bohannon, J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013, 342, 60-65.
79. Olivarez, J.D.; Bales, S.; Sare, L.; vanDuinkerken, W. Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals. Coll. Res. Libr. 2018, 79, 52-67.
80. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Maduekwe, O.; Turner, L.; Barbour, V.; Burch, R.; Clark, J.; Galipeau, J.; Roberts, J.; Shea, B.J. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017, 15, 28.
81. Crawford, W. GOAJ3: Gold Open Access Journals 2012-2017; Cites & Insights Books: Livermore, CA, USA, 2018.
82. Eve, M. Co-operating for gold open access without APCs. Insights 2015, 28, 73-77.
83. Björk, B.-C.; Solomon, D. Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges. Available online: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/ documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2014).
84. Oermann, M.H.; Conklin, J.L.; Nicoll, L.H.; Chinn, P.L.; Ashton, K.S.; Edie, A.H.; Amarasekara, S.; Budinger, S.C. Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2016, 48, 624-632.
85. Oermann, M.H.; Nicoll, L.H.; Chinn, P.L.; Ashton, K.S.; Conklin, J.L.; Edie, A.H.; Amarasekara, S.; Williams, B.L. Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nurs. Outlook 2018, 66, 4-10.
86. Topper, L.; Boehr, D. Publishing trends of journals with manuscripts in PubMed Central: Changes from 2008-2009 to 2015-2016. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 445-454.
87. Kurt, S. Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learn. Publ. 2018, 31, 141-147.
88. Frandsen, T.F. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learn. Publ. 2019, 32, 57-62.
89. Omobowale, A.O.; Akanle, O.; Adeniran, A.I.; Adegboyega, K. Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Curr. Sociol. 2014, 62, 666-684.
90. Bell, K. 'Predatory' Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of 'Legitimate' Academic Publishing. TripleC 2017, 15, 651-662.
91. Nwagwu, W.E. Open Access in the Developing Regions: Situating the Altercations About Predatory Publishing/L'accès libre dans les régions en voie de développement: Situation de la controverse concernant les pratiques d'édition déloyales. Can. J. Inf. Libr. Sci. 2016, 40, 58-80.
92. Nobes, A. Critical thinking in a post-Beall vacuum. Res. Inf. 2017.
93. Polka, J.K.; Kiley, R.; Konforti, B.; Stern, B.; Vale, R.D. Publish peer reviews. Nature 2018, 560, 545.
94. Memon, A.R. Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2019, 34.
95. Bachrach, S.; Berry, R.S.; Blume, M.; Foerster, T.; von Fowler, A.; Ginsparg, P.; Heller, S.; Kestner, N.; Odlyzko, A.; Okerson, A.; et al. Who Should Own Scientific Papers? Science 1998, 281, 1459-1460.
96. Willinsky, J. Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing. First Monday 2002, 7.
97. Gadd, E.; Oppenheim, C.; Probets, S. RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers' copyright agreements. Learn. Publ. 2003, 16, 293-308.
98. Carroll, M.W. Why Full Open Access Matters. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001210.
99. Matushek, K.J. Take another look at the instructions for authors. J. Am. Vet. Med Assoc. 2017, 250, 258-259.
100. Fyfe, A.; McDougall-Waters, J.; Moxham, N. Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: The Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. Vic. Period. Rev. 2018.
101. Gadd, E.; Oppenheim, C.; Probets, S. RoMEO studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. J. Doc. 2003, 59, 243-277.
102. Davies, M. Academic freedom: A lawyer's perspective. High Educ 2015, 70, 987-1002.
103. Dodds, F. The changing copyright landscape in academic publishing. Learn. Publ. 2018, 31, 270-275.
104. Morrison, C.; Secker, J. Copyright literacy in the UK: A survey of librarians and other cultural heritage sector professionals. Libr. Inf. Res. 2015, 39, 75-97.
105. Dawson, P.H.; Yang, S.Q. Institutional Repositories, Open Access and Copyright: What Are the Practices and Implications? Sci. Technol. Libr. 2016, 35, 279-294.
106. Björk, B.-C. Gold, green, and black open access. Learn. Publ. 2017, 30, 173-175.
107. Chawla, D.S. Publishers take ResearchGate to court, alleging massive copyright infringement. Science 2017.
108. Jamali, H.R. Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics 2017, 112, 241-254.
109. Lawson, S. Access, ethics and piracy. Insights 2017, 30, 25-30.
110. Laakso, M.; Polonioli, A. Open access in ethics research: An analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 291-317.
111. Lovett, J.; Rathemacher, A.; Boukari, D.; Lang, C. Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation. Tech. Serv. Dep. Fac. Publ. 2017.
112. Biasi, B.; Moser, P. Effects of Copyrights on Science-Evidence from the US Book Republication Program; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.
113. Morrison, H. From the Field: Elsevier as an Open Access Publisher. Available online: https://www.ingentaconnect. com/content/charleston/chadv/2017/00000018/00000003/art00014 (accessed on 10 January 2019).
114. Frass, W.; Cross, J.; Gardner, V. Open Access Survey: Exploring the views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge Authors. 2013. Available online: https://www.tandf.co.uk//journals/pdf/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2019).
115. Tickell, P.A. Open Access to Research Publications 2018. 2018. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/774956/Open-access-to-research-publications-2018.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2019).
116. Piwowar, H.; Priem, J.; Larivière, V.; Alperin, J.P.; Matthias, L.; Norlander, B.; Farley, A.; West, J.; Haustein, S. The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4375.
117. Pinfield, S.; Salter, J.; Bath, P.A. The "total cost of publication" in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 67, 1751-1766.
118. Björk, B.-C. Growth of hybrid open access, 2009-2016. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3878.
119. Green, T. We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learn. Publ. 2017, 30, 325-329.
120. Björk, B.-C.; Solomon, D. Article processing charges in OA journals: Relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics 2015, 103, 373-385.
121. Lawson, S. APC Pricing 2014. Available online: https://figshare.com/articles/APC_pricing/1056280 (accessed on 11 May 2019).
122. Schönfelder, N. APCs-Mirroring the Impact Factor or Legacy of the Subscription-Based Model? Universität Bielefeld: Bielefeld, Germany, 2018.
123. Schimmer, R.; Geschuhn, K.K.; Vogler, A. Disrupting the Subscription Journals' Business Model for the Necessary Large-Scale Transformation to Open Access. 2015. Available online: https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_2148961 (accessed on 11 May 2019).
124. Blackmore, P.; Kandiko, C.B. Motivation in academic life: A prestige economy. Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 2011, 16, 399-411.
125. Gadd, E.; Troll Covey, D. What does 'green' open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2019, 51, 106-122.
126. Berners-Lee, T.; De Roure, D.; Harnad, S.; Shadbolt, N. Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration. Available online: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261160/ (accessed on 9 January 2019).
127. Swan, A.; Brown, S. Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study; UK FE and HE Funding Councils: London, UK, 2005.
128. Henneken, E.A.; Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Thompson, D.; Murray, S.S. Effect of E-printing on Citation Rates in Astronomy and Physics. arXiv 2006, arXiv:cs/0604061.
129. Houghton, J.W.; Oppenheim, C. The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus 2010, 28, 41-54.
130. Bernius, S.; Hanauske, M.; Dugall, B.; König, W. Exploring the effects of a transition to open access: Insights from a simulation study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 701-726.
131. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213-228.
132. Archambault, é.; Campbell, D.; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 1320-1326.
133. Alonso, S.; Cabrerizo, F.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Informetr. 2009, 3, 273-289.
134. Harzing, A.-W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787-804.
135. Rafols, I.; Ciarli, T.; Chavarro, D. Under-Reporting Research Relevant to Local Needs in the Global South. Database Biases in the Representation of Knowledge on Rice. 2015. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Under-Reporting-Research-Relevant-to-Local-Needs-in-Rafols-Ciarli/c784ac36533a87934e4be48d814c3ced3243f57a (accessed on 11 May 2019).
136. Chadegani, A.A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ebrahim, N.A. A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18.
137. Ribeiro, L.C.; Rapini, M.S.; Silva, L.A.; Albuquerque, E.M. Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics 2018, 114, 159-179.
138. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z.; Miao, L.; Murray, D.; Robinson-García, N.; Costas, R.; Sugimoto, C.R. A Global Comparison of Scientific Mobility and Collaboration According to National Scientific Capacities. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2018, 3.
139. Boshoff, N.; Akanmu, M.A. Scopus or Web of Science for a bibliometric profile of pharmacy research at a Nigerian university? S. Afr. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2017, 83.
140. Wang, Y.; Hu, R.; Liu, M. The geotemporal demographics of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 according to Ulrich's database. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 655-671.
141. Gutiérrez, J.; López-Nieva, P. Are international journals of human geography really international? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2001, 25, 53-69.
142. Wooliscroft, B.; Rosenstreich, D. How international are the top academic journals? The case of marketing. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2006, 18, 422-436.
143. Ciarli, T.; Rafols, I.; Llopis, O. The under-representation of developing countries in the main bibliometric databases: A comparison of rice studies in the Web of Science, Scopus and CAB Abstracts. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden: "Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big and Little Data", Leiden, The Netherlands, 3-5 September 2014; pp. 97-106.
144. Chavarro, D.; Tang, P.; Rafols, I. Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: Evidence from a developing country. Res. Eval. 2014, 23, 195-209.
145. Ssentongo, J.S.; Draru, M.C. Justice and the Dynamics of Research and Publication in Africa: Interrogating the Performance of "Publish or Perish", Uganda Martyrs University: Nkozi, Uganda, 2017; ISBN 978-9970-09-009-9.
146. Alperin, J.P.; Eglen, S.; Fiormonte, D.; Gatto, L.; Gil, A.; Hartley, R.; Lawson, S.; Logan, C.; McKiernan, E.; Miranda-Trigueros, E.; et al. Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case. 2017. Available online: https://figshare.com/articles/Scholarly_Publishing_Freedom_of_Information_and_Academic_Self-Determination_The_UNAM-Elsevier_Case/5632657 (accessed on 11 May 2019).
147. Paasi, A. Academic Capitalism and the Geopolitics of Knowledge. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 507-523. ISBN 978-1-118-72577-1.
148. Tietze, S.; Dick, P. The Victorious English Language: Hegemonic Practices in the Management Academy. J. Manag. Inq. 2013, 22, 122-134.
149. Aalbers, M.B. Creative Destruction through the Anglo-American Hegemony: A Non-Anglo-American View on Publications, Referees and Language. Area 2004, 36, 319-322.
150. Hwang, K. The Inferior Science and the Dominant Use of English in Knowledge Production: A Case Study of Korean Science and Technology. Sci. Commun. 2005, 26, 390-427.
151. Rivera-López, B.S. Uneven Writing Spaces in Academic Publishing: A Case Study on Internationalisation in the Disciplines of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2016. Available online: https://thesiscommons.org/ 8cypr/ (accessed on 11 May 2019).
152. Lillis, T.; Curry, M.J. Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
153. Minca, C. (Im)mobile geographies. Geogr. Helv. 2013, 68, 7-16.
154. Royal, Society (Ed.) Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century; Policy Document; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-0-85403-890-9.
155. Okune, A.; Hillyer, R.; Albornoz, D.; Posada, A.; Chan, L. Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science. In ELPUB 2018; Chan, L., Mounier, P., Eds.; Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018.
156. Beverungen, A.; Böhm, S.; Land, C. The poverty of journal publishing. Organization 2012, 19, 929-938.
157. Luzón, M.J. The Added Value Features of Online Scholarly Journals. J. Tech. Writ. Commun. 2007, 37, 59-73.
158. Van Noorden, R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nat. News 2013, 495, 426.
159. Inchcoombe, S. The changing role of research publishing: A case study from Springer Nature. Insights 2017, 30, 10-16.
160. de Camargo, K.R. Big Publishing and the Economics of Competition. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 8-10.