Information Research
Vol. 28 No. 4 2023
New academic journals: an international overview of indexing and access models
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47989/ir284466
Abstract
Introduction. An international analysis of academic journals newly created in the period from 2011 to 2020 according to type of publisher, place of publication, their relationship with open access, and their indexing in databases. Studies of the issues of concentration of journal publisher ownership, uses of metrics, and access to titles reveal a changing landscape that is nevertheless still dominated by large commercial oligopolies. One notable trend is the creation of new titles in various configurations.
Method. To assess the global scenario, we analyse titles created from 2011 to 2020, focusing on indexing and access models. The methodology is multidimensional, predominantly bibliometric and quantitative. The data were collected from Crossref and other databases and processed with the resources of the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals.
Results. The findings confirm the expansion of the periodical publishing market, of which the academic journal market represents a small fraction (7.29%). Of thdatabases may be considered academic based on indexing in some database, most are open access, indicated by their presence in the Directory of Open Access Journals (55.21%). The analysis of publisher type confirmed the predominance of commercial publishers (44.57%), followed by universities (30.08%). The largest proportion of the titles are in the health field, compatible with the existing distribution of fields, followed by journals in the multidisciplinary and education fields.
Conclusion. In the expansion of the publishing market, academic journals represent a small fraction of the total. The main sources of new titles in open access with no processing charges for authors are universities in countries that are not home to large commercial publishers (Indonesia, Brazil, and Spain), all with government subsidies.
Introduction
To advance new research in any field of knowledge, researchers depend on access to academic journals. Changes to available technological resources and researcher evaluation systems and pressures from funders on access to documents have been studied from various perspectives, all of which find that publication in journals remains key as the foundation of communication among researchers for the advancement of science (Bernal, 1939; Meadows, 2008; Merton, 1973; Whitley, 2007; Ziman, 1979, 1981).
Studies of academic journals are justified by the important role of articles published in peer-reviewed journals as documents of research activity in all areas of knowledge and as records of authorship. Articles are the units that may be cited, and they reflect the need to publish research results for the recognition of research activity and the attribution of prestige to researchers and institutions (Beasley, 2016; Björk et al., 2010; Boyle, 2007; Guédon, 2001; Salager-Meyer, 2015).
Studies that consider journals as objects of analysis provide comprehensive coverage of the universe of academic publication, given that the journals are created and maintained by the communities of researchers themselves (Shen, 2017; Villarroya et al., 2015; Walters and Linvill, 2011). Researchers need a safe and reliable channel of discussion to record advances and consolidate methodologies and theories accepted by the community (Guédon, 2001, 2011, 2014, 2019; Merton, 1973). Articles published in journals enable access to research results, serve as the base documents for the discussions of researchers in the various areas of knowledge, and make it possible to leverage new studies while negotiating, criticizing, and establishing the languages and methodologies accepted and validated by the academic community (Whitley, 2007).
The growth in the number of articles and journals in recent years poses various kinds of challenges: the criteria used for the classification of journals as academic; the problem of predatory journals; the various types of institutions acting as publishers; and the use of publication in titles indexed in large commercial databases as a criterion for evaluating the research activity of researchers and institutions (Appel and Albagli, 2019; Huang et al., 2020; Santos and Noronha, 2016; Somoza-Fernández, Rodríguez-Gairín, and Urbano, 2016; Urbano et al., 2020).
The use of publication in journals with high impact factors or in the first quartile as a key metric for evaluating researchers and research institutions worldwide is controversial because publications are a unit of symbolic capital. In the competition for funding, for professional opportunities among individual researchers and for prestige among higher education and research institutions, articles lie at the center of the evaluation process (Gingras, 2020).
Journals indexed in international databases and with high impact metrics are favoured by evaluation systems (Gingras, 2020; Huang et al., 2020) and tend to be in a better condition to select the best articles from among the many submissions they receive. New and yet non-indexed titles may find it hard to reject articles due to the need to publish regular issues, as researchers tend to send their best work to journals that will result in more positive evaluations for their careers and for their institutions (Haro, 2017; Huang et al. 2020; Lin & Zhan, 2016; MacRoberts and MacRoberts, 2017; Vessuri, Guédon and Cetto, 2013).
Plan S requires that all articles from publicly funded research be published in journals with immediate open access as of 2021. Some commercial publishers are resistant to this plan because it exposes the asymmetries inherent in the imposition of article processing charges and does not include journals classified as hybrids or with embargoes on open access (Abadal et al., 2019; Aspesi, 2020; Torres-Salinas, et al., 2019; Velterop, 2018). Research funders, especially in the scientific, technical and medical fields (STM), developed discussions on the costs of articles and the transition models to open access. Plan S prompted further debate about open-access alternatives, with questions raised about the capacity of the green route to bring about lasting changes in the academic publication system and attention given to the strategies of research funding entities.
There are various arguments for the creation of a new journal, which do not necessarily have to do with the demands of researchers or areas of knowledge. Thanks to the ease of their creation, there has been an exponential growth in the number of academic journals (or journals intended to be academic) around the world in different areas of knowledge (Bernal, 1939; Rodrigues, et al., 2020; Urbano et al., 2020).
Emerging countries publish fewer journals that are considered international and valued by evaluation systems so that they may be prioritised by researchers concerned with the visibility of their careers and institutions.
Studies of the creation of new titles and the closure of journals are scarce, and some journals remain unindexed and with low citation rates for years, creating a category of journals about which there is very little research (Pereira, et al., 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2018; Urbano et al., 2020; Ziman, 1980).
The existence of different types of publications that claim to be academic in a rapidly changing context suggests a need for categorization of journals and publishers. To develop a clearer understanding of how new journals perform, the general objective of this study is to analyse titles created in the period from 2011 to 2020 with a focus on indexing and access models. To this end, the following specific objectives were established: a) to identify the percentage of journals created in the period of study that are indexed in some form of abstracting and indexing database; b) to classify the journals according to country, type of publisher and area of knowledge; c) to identify the distribution of the journals in the various indexing bibliographic databases; d) to analyse the journals’ use of article processing charges.
Methodological procedures
This study uses what Cronin (2014, p,28) calls ‘multidimensional measures’, adapting the available tools to the purposes of the research since the data were collected through various channels and processed with different tools to compare the categories.
The list of journals included in the study is based on titles with a Digital Object Identifier active in Crossref (the official DOI records agency (https://www.crossref.org/). According to international standards, a DOI is necessary for a journal to be considered academic (not necessarily of good quality) (ISO, 2019). The complete list of journal titles that began registering DOIs in the period from 2011 to 2020 was selected; the total obtained was 51,383 titles, after cleaning the data by eliminating duplications and titles without an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number).
Data from the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals (https://miar.ub.edu/) (hereafter, “the Matrix”) was used to identify where the titles are indexed. The Matrix is an initiative of the University of Barcelona, a matrix with indexing data from more than 100 international databases containing records of over 48,000 journals. The ISSN matrix allows the identification of the presence of journals in the databases.
The 51,383 journals with a DOI in the period 2011-2020 identified in Crossref were compared to the data on each title's indexing status in the Matrix. Of the titles created in the period studied, only 3,742 (just 7.2%) were found to be indexed in at least one database.
The categorization of publishers as associations, higher education institutions (HEIs), or commercials was carried out based on the Matrix data. All publishers with terms such as Association or Society in their names were classified as associations, while those with University in their names were classified as higher education institutions. For the other publishers, the nature of each institution was verified by consulting its website.
The classification was imported from the Matrix (scope variable) to identify the knowledge area. The study was limited to the period from 2011 to 2020 to analyze journals that are relatively new but that have had enough time to make it possible to identify their acceptance by the academic community and their compliance with the criteria of the consolidated indexing databases. The type of access was classified by identifying the title's presence in the DOAJ using the Matrix indexing data.
Results and discussion
The existence of non-academic journals posing as academic journals is a challenge for researchers, authors, and readers. The wide use of DOIs in the journal editing software facilitates the development of both academic and non-academic initiatives, making it difficult to distinguish academic journals from among many similar, predatory publications.
Participation of indexed titles in the Crossref DOI records
According to Crossref data, the adoption of DOIs among journals grew from 2016 onwards: 62.58% of the titles used them from 2016 to 2020. This increase has been observed in other studies and associated with the advantages of identification and access to digital documents for publishers and authors (Baudry and Charton, 2017; Gorraiz et al., 2016; Tiliute, 2016).
Despite the increasing use of DOIs, which is considered a requirement for ensuring the technical quality of periodical publications (International Standards Organization, 2019), only 3,742 journals, or 7.29% of the 51,383 titles that registered DOIs in the last decade, are indexed in recognized databases, i.e., those that may be considered academic. These data show that although there is significant adherence to DOIs, demonstrated here by the Crossref data, most journals (92.71%) are not indexed in any database registered by the MIAR, and therefore cannot be classified as academic (Figure 1). The fact that it is so easy to create a journal results in a huge number of titles and makes it difficult to identify those that are really academic, due to the proliferation of publications that claim to be academic, without observing any scientific criteria for production and certification of content, including the evaluation process.
Figure 1. Journals created from 2011 to 2020 in Crossref according to the first year of DOI assignment and according to their start date in the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. Source: Study data.
Despite the recognition of DOIs as one of the technical requirements for the publication of an academic journal, having a DOI is not synonymous with the scholarly nature of the journal, as demonstrated by the indexing data of these titles. Incorporating the URL identifier in an electronic document is not costly, which is why even predatory publications have it, and it is often incorporated more quickly in publications created by the activity of commercial publishers (Baudry and Charton, 2017). Although it is small, cost may be one of the factors preventing the adoption of DOIs by open-access academic journals, especially those that promote the platinum or diamond route. (Pires et al., 2017; Tiliute, 2016).
Journals by publisher type, country, and area of expertise
Commercial publishers account for the largest proportion of new journals (44.57%, 1,661 titles), followed by universities (30.08%, 1,121 titles). Possibly due to their traditionally limited role in the publication of journals, associations are responsible for only 8.74%, while the remaining 13.52% are produced by other types of publishers. The potential profits offered by this market attract commercial publishers, while universities, especially in regions considered peripheral, are interested in opening up channels for scientific communication.
The data on the nationality of the journals reveal the predominance of countries with a traditional role in commercial academic publishing: the United States (15.62%), the United Kingdom (11.51%), the Netherlands (6.67%), Switzerland and Germany, although among titles published by higher education institutions Spain and Brazil also stand out (Table 1). The results show the continued predominance of the same countries: notable among the countries with more than 5% of the total is Indonesia, which is also the country with the highest number of titles in the DOAJ (a consultation carried out in August 2022 identified 2,035 titles from Indonesia, followed by the United Kingdom with 1,959 titles, and Brazil with 1,625). Notably absent here are several countries with significant percentages of articles published in Scopus (Schneegans, et al., 2021), such as China (24.5%), India (6.1%), Japan (4.5%), France (3.8%), Australia (3.3%), and South Korea (3.1%).
The lack of a relationship between the number of published articles and the number of new academic journals reflects the continuity of the oligopoly of large commercial publishers based in the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands, which account for more than half of all articles published in the world today. The traditionally predominant publisher type in each country is also found to be unchanged, with the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands dominated by commercial publishers and Brazil and Spain favoring universities. Among the new players, it is worth highlighting Indonesia, whose university editors are also increasing the number of titles published in the country.
| Country | Association | Commercial | Government | Higher Ed. | Other | Total | ||||||
| N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| United States | 96 | 2.57 | 361 | 9.65 | 43 | 1.15 | 50 | 1.34 | 32 | 0.86 | 582 | 15.55 |
| United Kingdom | 31 | 0.83 | 324 | 8.66 | 6 | 0.16 | 53 | 1.42 | 15 | 0.40 | 429 | 11.46 |
| Spain | 14 | 0.37 | 42 | 1.12 | 8 | 0.21 | 269 | 7.19 | 31 | 0.83 | 364 | 9.73 |
| Brazil | 55 | 1.47 | 10 | 0.27 | 4 | 0.11 | 129 | 3.45 | 83 | 2.22 | 281 | 7.51 |
| Netherlands | 3 | 0.08 | 233 | 6.23 | 1 | 0.03 | 3 | 0.08 | 8 | 0.21 | 248 | 6.63 |
| Indonesia | 13 | 0.35 | 3 | 0.08 | 13 | 0.35 | 115 | 3.07 | 37 | 0.99 | 181 | 4.84 |
| Switzerland | 1 | 0.03 | 172 | 4.60 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03 | 2 | 0.05 | 176 | 4.70 |
| Germany | 2 | 0.05 | 108 | 2.89 | 1 | 0.03 | 3 | 0.08 | 4 | 0.11 | 118 | 3.15 |
| Turkey | 5 | 0.13 | 13 | 0.35 | 1 | 0.03 | 15 | 0.40 | 78 | 2.08 | 112 | 2.99 |
| Ecuador | 0 | 0.00 | 12 | 0.32 | 5 | 0.13 | 38 | 1.02 | 22 | 0.59 | 77 | 2.06 |
| Ukraine | 1 | 0.03 | 15 | 0.40 | 2 | 0.05 | 48 | 1.28 | 11 | 0.29 | 77 | 2.06 |
| India | 6 | 0.16 | 48 | 1.28 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.08 | 18 | 0.48 | 75 | 2.00 |
| Poland | 2 | 0.05 | 14 | 0.37 | 1 | 0.03 | 42 | 1.12 | 12 | 0.32 | 71 | 1.90 |
| Russian Federation | 1 | 0.03 | 25 | 0.67 | 2 | 0.05 | 32 | 0.86 | 9 | 0.24 | 69 | 1.84 |
| Colombia | 1 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.03 | 56 | 1.50 | 9 | 0.24 | 68 | 1.82 |
| Mexico | 6 | 0.16 | 4 | 0.11 | 2 | 0.05 | 34 | 0.91 | 13 | 0.35 | 59 | 1.58 |
| Peru | 2 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05 | 46 | 1.23 | 3 | 0.08 | 53 | 1.42 |
| China | 1 | 0.03 | 42 | 1.12 | 1 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 44 | 1.18 |
| Canada | 15 | 0.40 | 18 | 0.48 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.08 | 6 | 0.16 | 42 | 1.12 |
| Other (< 1%) | 72 | 1.92 | 216 | 5.77 | 34 | 0.91 | 181 | 4.84 | 113 | 3.02 | 616 | 16.46 |
| Total | 327 | 8.74 | 1661 | 44.39 | 127 | 3.39 | 1121 | 29.96 | 506 | 13.52 | 3742 | 100 |
Table 1. Journal publisher types categorized by nationality. Source: Study data
The most prominent area of knowledge is health, representing 20.47% of the new titles, mostly by commercial publishers. Health is the area with the highest number of publications in all publisher categories and this trend has only increased since the beginning of the COVID pandemic in 2019 (UNESCO, 2021). In second place are titles classified as multidisciplinary (15%), a strategy that may help new titles achieve recognition in more than one area of knowledge, followed by education (10%).
| Area of knowledge | Association | Commercial | Government | Higher Ed. | Other | Total | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Medical and Health sciences | 65 | 1.74 | 508 | 13.58 | 17 | 0.45 | 91 | 2.43 | 82 | 2.19 | 763 | 20.39 |
| General / multidisciplinary | 25 | 0.67 | 137 | 3.66 | 18 | 0.48 | 275 | 7.35 | 97 | 2.59 | 552 | 14.75 |
| Education | 20 | 0.53 | 64 | 1.71 | 11 | 0.29 | 121 | 3.23 | 55 | 1.47 | 271 | 7.24 |
| Science in general | 20 | 0.53 | 104 | 2.78 | 4 | 0.11 | 49 | 1.31 | 36 | 0.96 | 213 | 5.69 |
| Biology | 10 | 0.27 | 159 | 4.25 | 5 | 0.13 | 21 | 0.56 | 16 | 0.43 | 211 | 5.64 |
| Economics | 10 | 0.27 | 76 | 2.03 | 4 | 0.11 | 63 | 1.68 | 35 | 0.94 | 188 | 5.02 |
| Law | 44 | 1.18 | 24 | 0.64 | 4 | 0.11 | 77 | 2.06 | 30 | 0.80 | 179 | 4.78 |
| Philology | 7 | 0.19 | 43 | 1.15 | 4 | 0.11 | 53 | 1.42 | 19 | 0.51 | 126 | 3.37 |
| Physics | 22 | 0.59 | 73 | 1.95 | 5 | 0.13 | 3 | 0.08 | 7 | 0.19 | 110 | 2.94 |
| Computer science | 19 | 0.51 | 41 | 1.10 | 21 | 0.56 | 15 | 0.40 | 9 | 0.24 | 105 | 2.81 |
| Industrial engineering, electronics and telecommunications | 4 | 0.11 | 60 | 1.60 | 11 | 0.29 | 11 | 0.29 | 9 | 0.24 | 95 | 2.54 |
| Art | 6 | 0.16 | 18 | 0.48 | 2 | 0.05 | 51 | 1.36 | 9 | 0.24 | 86 | 2.30 |
| Agronomy | 6 | 0.16 | 33 | 0.88 | 4 | 0.11 | 15 | 0.40 | 17 | 0.45 | 75 | 2.00 |
| Psychology | 11 | 0.29 | 31 | 0.83 | 2 | 0.05 | 17 | 0.45 | 10 | 0.27 | 71 | 1.90 |
| History | 2 | 0.05 | 16 | 0.43 | 1 | 0.03 | 36 | 0.96 | 13 | 0.35 | 68 | 1.82 |
| Chemistry | 18 | 0.48 | 40 | 1.07 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.16 | 2 | 0.05 | 66 | 1.76 |
| Geology | 7 | 0.19 | 43 | 1.15 | 0 | 0.00 | 7 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.05 | 59 | 1.58 |
| Politics | 0 | 0.00 | 17 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.05 | 34 | 0.91 | 5 | 0.13 | 58 | 1.55 |
| Mathematics | 9 | 0.24 | 28 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.05 | 9 | 0.24 | 8 | 0.21 | 56 | 1.50 |
| Architecture and urbanism | 1 | 0.03 | 14 | 0.37 | 0 | 0.00 | 31 | 0.83 | 6 | 0.16 | 52 | 1.39 |
| Social communication | 2 | 0.05 | 10 | 0.27 | 0 | 0.00 | 31 | 0.83 | 7 | 0.19 | 50 | 1.34 |
| Documentation | 3 | 0.08 | 15 | 0.40 | 0 | 0.00 | 22 | 0.59 | 8 | 0.21 | 48 | 1.28 |
| Sociology | 2 | 0.05 | 18 | 0.48 | 2 | 0.05 | 21 | 0.56 | 4 | 0.11 | 47 | 1.26 |
| Philosophy | 3 | 0.08 | 15 | 0.40 | 0 | 0.00 | 21 | 0.56 | 4 | 0.11 | 43 | 1.15 |
| Civil engineering | 3 | 0.08 | 25 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.03 | 7 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.05 | 38 | 1.02 |
| Other (< 1%) | 8 | 0.21 | 38 | 1.02 | 7 | 0.19 | 34 | 0.91 | 12 | 0.32 | 99 | 2.65 |
| Uncategorized | 0 | 0.00 | 11 | 0.29 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05 | 13 | 0.35 |
| Total | 327 | 8.74 | 1661 | 44.39 | 127 | 3.39 | 1121 | 29.96 | 506 | 13.52 | 3742 | 100 |
Table 2. Journal publisher types categorized by area of knowledge. Source: Study data
The ongoing oligopoly of commercial publishers among new titles reflects the expansion of the commercial publishing business, especially in traditional areas of knowledge such as health and among the growing number of “multidisciplinary” journals. The multidisciplinary trend may be the product of efforts to cut management costs and facilitate more submissions to maintain the journal’s importance in a diverse range of areas (based on the mega journal strategy). The absence of countries with high article publication rates in this list reflects the perpetuation of their dependence on the oligopoly of transnational commercial companies to publish their research, instead of investing in their own titles.
Indexing of the journals
A higher proportion of the new journals are indexed in the DOAJ, indicating that many new journals are open access.
The older a journal is, the more likely it is to be indexed in a database. A much bigger percentage of titles created in the period from 2011 to 2013 are registered in Scopus, Web of Science and/or DOAJ.
Figure 2. Journals in MIAR with a start date from 2011 to 2020 indexed in the Web of Science, Scopus and/or DOAJ databases. Source: Study data
Caption: in blue are the total numbers of journals with DOIs present in any of the databases or directories analysed by the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals, even if they are not indexed in DOAJ, Scopus, or Web of Science.
Scopus is the database that indexes the most significant number of new journals: 44.36% (1,660) of the titles. As the Matrix includes other databases beyond DOAJ, Web of Science and Scopus, the total number of unique titles in these three databases is less than the total. The total number of indexed journals includes titles indexed in databases other than those shown in Table 3.
Although most new journals are not indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, it is worth highlighting the proportion of new titles by commercial publishers (44.39%), almost half of which are open access. The presence of journals in DOAJ identifies them as open access, a category that excludes hybrid and embargo titles and the various classifications other than immediate open access to all journal content.
| Publisher Type | Total | DOAJ | Web of Science | Scopus | WoS and Scopus | |||||
| n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Association | 327 | 8.74 | 179 | 4.78 | 138 | 3.69 | 151 | 4.04 | 129 | 3.45 |
| Commercial | 1661 | 44.39 | 750 | 20.04 | 936 | 25.01 | 1132 | 30.25 | 847 | 22.63 |
| Government | 127 | 3.39 | 68 | 1.82 | 52 | 1.39 | 57 | 1.52 | 48 | 1.28 |
| HEI | 1121 | 29.96 | 774 | 20.68 | 227 | 6.07 | 200 | 5.34 | 138 | 3.69 |
| Other | 506 | 13.52 | 295 | 7.88 | 102 | 2.73 | 120 | 3.21 | 68 | 1.82 |
| Total | 3742 | 100 | 2066 | 55.21 | 1455 | 38.88 | 1660 | 44.36 | 1230 | 32.87 |
Table 3. Indexing of journals by publisher type (2011–2020). Source: study data
Of the new titles, almost 70% of those published by universities (which represent 29.96% of the total) are open access (774 of 1,121 titles).
The countries with the most significant number of indexed titles are the same ones with the largest proportion of new titles overall, with the United States and the United Kingdom in first and second place, respectively. Worth highlighting here are the statistics on journals indexed in the DOAJ, as the top seven countries all have significant numbers of titles, including four new countries: Spain, Brazil, Indonesia and Switzerland. In Spain, newly created open-access titles have to meet a set of conditions established in 2011 by the Spanish Foundation of Science and Technology (FECYT) to receive its seal of approval of the editorial and scientific quality of Spanish academic journals, aligned with the DOAJ. In Indonesia and Brazil, most of the new publishers are universities, which have expanded their publishing activity significantly in recent years. The position of Switzerland may be explained, at least partly, by the growth of MDPI, a commercial open-access publisher.
| Country | Total | DOAJ | Web of Science | Scopus | WoS and Scopus | |||||
| n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| United States | 582 | 15.55 | 173 | 4.62 | 340 | 9.09 | 413 | 11.04 | 318 | 8.50 |
| United Kingdom | 429 | 11.46 | 200 | 5.34 | 313 | 8.36 | 342 | 9.14 | 294 | 7.86 |
| Spain | 364 | 9.73 | 210 | 5.61 | 99 | 2.65 | 87 | 2.32 | 57 | 1.52 |
| Brazil | 281 | 7.51 | 217 | 5.80 | 30 | 0.80 | 20 | 0.53 | 10 | 0.27 |
| Netherlands | 248 | 6.63 | 86 | 2.30 | 151 | 4.04 | 196 | 5.24 | 149 | 3.98 |
| Indonesia | 181 | 4.84 | 166 | 4.44 | 5 | 0.13 | 10 | 0.27 | 4 | 0.11 |
| Switzerland | 176 | 4.70 | 138 | 3.69 | 147 | 3.93 | 135 | 3.61 | 126 | 3.37 |
| Germany | 118 | 3.15 | 51 | 1.36 | 86 | 2.30 | 90 | 2.41 | 79 | 2.11 |
| Turkey | 112 | 2.99 | 68 | 1.82 | 14 | 0.37 | 17 | 0.45 | 7 | 0.19 |
| Ecuador | 77 | 2.06 | 27 | 0.72 | 3 | 0.08 | 1 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Ukraine | 77 | 2.06 | 69 | 1.84 | 5 | 0.13 | 12 | 0.32 | 4 | 0.11 |
| India | 75 | 2.00 | 22 | 0.59 | 10 | 0.27 | 19 | 0.51 | 6 | 0.16 |
| Poland | 71 | 1.90 | 46 | 1.23 | 15 | 0.40 | 26 | 0.69 | 13 | 0.35 |
| Russian Federation | 69 | 1.84 | 42 | 1.12 | 17 | 0.45 | 23 | 0.61 | 10 | 0.27 |
| Colombia | 68 | 1.82 | 51 | 1.36 | 13 | 0.35 | 3 | 0.08 | 3 | 0.08 |
| Mexico | 59 | 1.58 | 26 | 0.69 | 4 | 0.11 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Peru | 53 | 1.42 | 28 | 0.75 | 4 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.00 |
| China | 44 | 1.18 | 26 | 0.69 | 25 | 0.67 | 31 | 0.83 | 20 | 0.53 |
| Canada | 42 | 1.12 | 17 | 0.45 | 8 | 0.21 | 15 | 0.40 | 7 | 0.19 |
| Other * (< 1%) | 616 | 16.46 | 403 | 10.77 | 166 | 4.44 | 219 | 5.85 | 123 | 3.29 |
| TOTAL | 3742 | 100 | 2066 | 55.21 | 1455 | 38.88 | 1660 | 44.36 | 1230 | 32.87 |
Table 4. Indexing of journals by nationality (2011–2020). Source: Study data
The distribution of knowledge areas follows the global pattern, with health having the most titles, followed by the multidisciplinary area. It is important to highlight the percentage of titles indexed in DOAJ, indicating that just over half (55%) of all new titles are open access. This figure is higher than the percentage of titles indexed in SCOPUS (44%), and significantly higher than those indexed in Web of Science (38%). In the case of the 32% indexed in both databases, it may be inferred that most are produced by commercial publishers, which are more experienced with indexing procedures than universities or associations.
| Area of knowledge | Total | DOAJ | Web of Science | Scopus | WoS and Scopus | |||||
| N | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Medical and Health sciences | 763 | 20.39 | 420 | 11.22 | 407 | 10.88 | 477 | 12.75 | 359 | 9.59 |
| General/multidisciplinary | 552 | 14.75 | 317 | 8.47 | 117 | 3.13 | 130 | 3.47 | 84 | 2.24 |
| Education | 271 | 7.24 | 164 | 4.38 | 52 | 1.39 | 54 | 1.44 | 31 | 0.83 |
| Science in general | 213 | 5.69 | 137 | 3.66 | 95 | 2.54 | 89 | 2.38 | 73 | 1.95 |
| Biology | 211 | 5.64 | 110 | 2.94 | 119 | 3.18 | 144 | 3.85 | 110 | 2.94 |
| Economics | 188 | 5.02 | 94 | 2.51 | 43 | 1.15 | 56 | 1.50 | 37 | 0.99 |
| Law | 179 | 4.78 | 113 | 3.02 | 32 | 0.86 | 37 | 0.99 | 25 | 0.67 |
| Philology | 126 | 3.37 | 66 | 1.76 | 38 | 1.02 | 49 | 1.31 | 30 | 0.80 |
| Physics | 110 | 2.94 | 44 | 1.18 | 78 | 2.08 | 87 | 2.32 | 75 | 2.00 |
| Computer science | 105 | 2.81 | 55 | 1.47 | 50 | 1.34 | 68 | 1.82 | 47 | 1.26 |
| Industrial engineering, electronics and telecommunications | 95 | 2.54 | 40 | 1.07 | 59 | 1.58 | 70 | 1.87 | 55 | 1.47 |
| Art | 86 | 2.30 | 51 | 1.36 | 20 | 0.53 | 21 | 0.56 | 12 | 0.32 |
| Agronomy | 75 | 2.00 | 43 | 1.15 | 27 | 0.72 | 28 | 0.75 | 21 | 0.56 |
| Psychology | 71 | 1.90 | 34 | 0.91 | 33 | 0.88 | 36 | 0.96 | 30 | 0.80 |
| History | 68 | 1.82 | 40 | 1.07 | 23 | 0.61 | 26 | 0.69 | 17 | 0.45 |
| Chemistry | 66 | 1.76 | 27 | 0.72 | 49 | 1.31 | 47 | 1.26 | 46 | 1.23 |
| Geology | 59 | 1.58 | 30 | 0.80 | 33 | 0.88 | 35 | 0.94 | 30 | 0.80 |
| Politics | 58 | 1.55 | 41 | 1.10 | 19 | 0.51 | 19 | 0.51 | 13 | 0.35 |
| Mathematics | 56 | 1.50 | 23 | 0.61 | 32 | 0.86 | 37 | 0.99 | 32 | 0.86 |
| Architecture and urbanism | 52 | 1.39 | 32 | 0.86 | 13 | 0.35 | 17 | 0.45 | 9 | 0.24 |
| Social communication | 50 | 1.34 | 32 | 0.86 | 12 | 0.32 | 13 | 0.35 | 7 | 0.19 |
| Documentation | 48 | 1.28 | 32 | 0.86 | 10 | 0.27 | 16 | 0.43 | 9 | 0.24 |
| Sociology | 47 | 1.26 | 21 | 0.56 | 13 | 0.35 | 18 | 0.48 | 11 | 0.29 |
| Philosophy | 43 | 1.15 | 22 | 0.59 | 16 | 0.43 | 17 | 0.45 | 12 | 0.32 |
| Civil engineering | 38 | 1.02 | 15 | 0.40 | 19 | 0.51 | 19 | 0.51 | 14 | 0.37 |
| Other** (< 1%) | 99 | 2.65 | 54 | 1.44 | 37 | 0.99 | 39 | 1.04 | 32 | 0.86 |
| Uncategorized | 13 | 0.35 | 9 | 0.24 | 9 | 0.24 | 11 | 0.29 | 9 | 0.24 |
| Total | 3742 | 100.00 | 2066 | 55.21 | 1455 | 38.88 | 1660 | 44.36 | 1230 | 32.87 |
Table 5. Indexing of journals by area of knowledge (2011–2020). Source: Study data
Indexing is crucial for ensuring a journal’s visibility and credibility.
Article Processing Charges
The article processing charges were identified for each of the 2,066 journals registered as open access. The information was collected by combining DOAJ data and data from the Matrix and manually converting the values to US dollars based on the September 2022 exchange rates.
Table 6 presents the APC amounts of open access titles broken down by publisher type, revealing that while commercial publishers and university publishers are responsible for a similar number of titles, the latter represent a much higher percentage of the titles without APCs (33% of all open access titles). It is also significant that 66% of all titles identified as open access have no APCs. The highest APCs are charged by commercial publishers, with nearly half of all titles in this category charging more than US$1,000 per article.
| Publisher Type | No charge |
Level of article processing charge in US dollars | Total DOAJ |
|||||||||||||||||||
| 1–499 | 500– 999 |
1000– 1499 |
1500– 1999 |
2000– 2499 |
2500– 2999 |
3000– 3499 |
3500– 3999 |
4000 and + |
||||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Association | 133 | 6.44 | 14 | 0.68 | 3 | 0.15 | 5 | 0.24 | 7 | 0.34 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.10 | 179 | 8.66 |
| Commercial | 261 | 12.63 | 64 | 3.10 | 69 | 3.34 | 84 | 4.07 | 111 | 5.37 | 83 | 4.02 | 40 | 1.94 | 17 | 0.82 | 9 | 0.44 | 12 | 0.15 | 750 | 36.3 |
| Government | 50 | 2.42 | 8 | 0.39 | 1 | 0.05 | 3 | 0.15 | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 68 | 3.3 |
| Higher Edcn. | 682 | 33.01 | 60 | 2.90 | 8 | 0.39 | 6 | 0.29 | 8 | 0.39 | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 774 | 37.46 |
| Other | 239 | 11.57 | 40 | 1.94 | 6 | 0.29 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 295 | 14.28 |
| Total | 1365 | 66.07 | 186 | 9.00 | 87 | 4.21 | 102 | 4.94 | 134 | 6.49 | 94 | 4.55 | 45 | 2.18 | 24 | 1.16 | 14 | 0.68 | 15 | 0.73 | 2066 | 100 |
Table 6. Article processing charge by publisher type. Source: study data
Cross-checking the data on processing charges by publisher type in Table 6 with the breakdown by country in Table 7, three countries stand out in terms of both the total number of open-access titles and the option of not charging: Brazil, Spain, and Indonesia. Brazil (and Latin America in general) has a long and well-documented history of open access with the leadership of the SciELO (https://scielo.org) database and the participation of universities. In Spain, open access was embraced by universities, associations, and research centers in an active and militant way through their adoption of the diamond route. The situation in Indonesia is recent; Noorden (2019) attributes the growth of open access there to the government subsidies that allow titles to adopt open access without having to charge fees to authors. Almost all Indonesian journals published by universities, professional associations, and research institutes are open access (Irawan et al., 2021).
| Country | Level of article processing charge in US dollars | Total DOAJ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
No charge |
1–499 | 500– 999 |
1000– 1499 |
1500– 1999 |
2000– 2499 |
2500– 2999 |
3000– 3499 |
3500– 3999 |
4000 and + |
||||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| United States | 63 | 3.05 | 8 | 0.39 | 10 | 0.48 | 14 | 0.68 | 23 | 1.11 | 25 | 1.21 | 10 | 0.48 | 9 | 0.44 | 6 | 0.29 | 5 | 0.25 | 173 | 8.37 | |
| United Kingdom | 49 | 2.37 | 8 | 0.39 | 24 | 1.16 | 32 | 1.55 | 32 | 1.55 | 24 | 1.16 | 16 | 0.77 | 9 | 0.44 | 1 | 0.05 | 5 | 0.25 | 200 | 9.7 | |
| Spain | 200 | 9.68 | 5 | 0.24 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 210 | 10.1 | |
| Brazil | 206 | 9.97 | 9 | 0.44 | - | - | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 217 | 10.5 | |
| Netherlands | 27 | 1.31 | 2 | 0.10 | 15 | 0.73 | 2 | 0.10 | 18 | 0.87 | 10 | 0.48 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 86 | 4.16 | |
| Indonesia | 109 | 5.28 | 56 | 2.71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 166 | 8.0 | |
| Switzerland | 27 | 1.31 | 2 | 0.10 | 9 | 0.44 | 32 | 1.55 | 32 | 1.55 | 24 | 1.16 | 10 | 0.48 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 138 | 6.68 | |
| Germany | 23 | 1.11 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 7 | 0.34 | 9 | 0.44 | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | 2 | 0.10 | 51 | 2.47 | |
| Turkey | 60 | 2.90 | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 68 | 3.29 | |
| Ecuador | 27 | 1.31 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 27 | 1.31 | |
| Ukraine | 47 | 2.27 | 22 | 1.06 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 69 | 3.34 | |
| India | 18 | 0.87 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 22 | 1065 | |
| Poland | 32 | 1.55 | 10 | 0.48 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 46 | 2.27 | |
| Russia | 39 | 1.89 | 3 | 0.15 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 42 | 2.03 | |
| Colombia | 51 | 2.47 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 51 | 2.46 | |
| Mexico | 23 | 1.11 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 26 | 1.26 | |
| Peru | 28 | 1.36 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 28 | 1.35 | |
| China | 22 | 1.06 | - | - | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 26 | 1.26 | |
| Canada | 8 | 0.39 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 17 | 0.82 | |
| Other (≤ 1%) | 306 | 14.81 | 47 | 2.27 | 18 | 0.87 | 12 | 0.58 | 13 | 0.63 | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 403 | 19.5 | |
| TOTAL | 1365 | 66.07 | 186 | 9.00 | 87 | 4.21 | 102 | 4.94 | 134 | 6.49 | 94 | 4.55 | 45 | 2.18 | 24 | 1.16 | 14 | 0.68 | 5 | 0.24 | 2066 | 100 | |
Table 7. Article processing charges by publisher country. Source: study data
Article processing charges of over US$2,000 are charged by journals mainly in the health field, which also accounts for 20% of all open-access titles, followed by biology, which accounts for 5%.
Area of knowledge |
No charge |
Level of article processing charge in US dollars | Total DOAJ |
|||||||||||||||||||
up to 499 |
500– 999 |
1000– 1499 |
1500– 1999 |
2000– 2499 |
2500– 2999 |
3000– 3499 |
3500– 3999 |
4000 and + |
||||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Medical sciences | 183 | 8.86 | 33 | 1.60 | 27 | 1.31 | 21 | 1.02 | 63 | 3.05 | 43 | 2.08 | 21 | 1.02 | 14 | 0.68 | 7 | 0.34 | 8 | 0.15 | 420 | 20.33 |
| Multidisciplinary | 260 | 12.5 | 26 | 1.26 | 14 | 0.68 | 11 | 0.53 | 4 | 0.19 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 317 | 15.34 |
| Education | 132 | 6.39 | 24 | 1.16 | 3 | 0.15 | 4 | 0.19 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 164 | 7.93 |
| Science in general | 82 | 3.97 | 18 | 0.87 | 2 | 0.10 | 14 | 0.68 | 9 | 0.44 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | 137 | 6.63 |
| Biology | 27 | 1.31 | 12 | 0.58 | 10 | 0.48 | 7 | 0.34 | 13 | 0.63 | 23 | 1.11 | 9 | 0.44 | 4 | 0.19 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | 110 | 5.32 |
| Economics | 67 | 3.24 | 18 | 0.87 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 94 | 4.55 |
| Law | 106 | 5.13 | 5 | 0.24 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 113 | 5.47 |
| Philology | 57 | 2.76 | 6 | 0.29 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 66 | 3.19 |
| Physics | 11 | 0.53 | 4 | 0.19 | 4 | 0.19 | 12 | 0.58 | 5 | 0.24 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 44 | 2.13 |
| Computer science | 33 | 1.60 | 7 | 0.34 | 1 | 0.05 | 7 | 0.34 | 5 | 0.24 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 55 | 2.66 |
| Engineering | 23 | 1.11 | 6 | 0.29 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 4 | 0.19 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40 | 1.93 |
| Art | 49 | 2.37 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 51 | 2.46 |
| Agronomy | 29 | 1.40 | 6 | 0.29 | 1 | 0.05 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 43 | 2.08 |
| Psychology | 25 | 1.21 | 2 | 0.10 | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 34 | 1.64 |
| History | 34 | 1.65 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40 | 1.93 |
| Chemistry | 7 | 0.34 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | 7 | 0.34 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 27 | 1.30 |
| Geology | 18 | 0.87 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 5 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | 30 | 1.45 |
| Politics | 33 | 1.60 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40 | 1.93 |
| Mathematics | 13 | 0.63 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.10 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 23 | 1.11 |
| Architecture and urbanism | 27 | 1.31 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 32 | 1.54 |
| Social communication | 31 | 1.50 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 32 | 1.54 |
| Documentation | 28 | 1.36 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 32 | 1.54 |
| Sociology | 20 | 0.97 | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 21 | 1.01 |
| Philosophy | 19 | 0.92 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 22 | 1.06 |
| Civil engineering | 10 | 0.48 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 14 | 0.67 |
| Other** (< 1%) | 39 | 1.89 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | 2 | 0.10 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | 2 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | 56 | 2.71 |
| Uncategorized | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.05 | 2 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9 | 0.43 |
| Total | 1365 | 66.07 | 186 | 9.00 | 87 | 4.21 | 102 | 4.94 | 134 | 6.49 | 94 | 4.55 | 45 | 2.18 | 24 | 1.16 | 14 | 0.68 | 12 | 0.68 | 2066 | 100 |
Table 8. Article processing charges by journal area of knowledge. Source: Study data
Conclusions
The creation of new journals demonstrates the expansion of the publishing market, of which academic journals represent but a small fraction. The need for researchers to publish and the growing number of universities and researchers worldwide inevitably leads to the creation of new titles, not all of which meet the minimum criteria to be classified as academic, defined in this study by being indexed in at least one of the leading international databases, irrespective of the use of DOIs. The countries where the largest number of new titles are being created are the same that have traditionally been global leaders in journal publishing.
An analysis of publisher type confirms that commercial publishers account for a large proportion of new titles, almost half of which are open access, universities also make a significant, and almost 70% of their titles are indexed in DOAJ. The largest percentage of new titles are in the health field, consistent with the predominance of this area of knowledge among older journals. The multidisciplinary area is also well represented, possibly because of journals adopting the PLOS One (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/) model, as it enables the publication of thousands of articles in a single title. It is also worth noting the significant proportion of titles in the field of education, which, like most areas of applied human and social sciences, is usually not so well represented. Newer titles are more likely to be indexed in DOAJ, while older titles are more common in SCOPUS and Web of Science.
An analysis of processing charges reveals that universities in countries that are not home to large commercial publishers (Indonesia, Brazil, and Spain) play a vital role in the creation of new open-access journals with no author processing charges, thanks in all cases to government subsidies. When governments analyse the costs of each publication model to evaluate the necessary reliability and independence of their researchers, they might make better use of public money by keeping research results out of the hands of transnational commercial companies. In this way, open access may effectively change the scene of academic publication.
Acknowledgments
The study was partially funded by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) with grants for Tarcísio Osório Ferreira and Juliana Okawati, who assisted with data collection and processing.
About the authors
Dra. Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9639-6390) holds a degree in Social Communication, a master's degree, and a doctorate in Production Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Full professor at the graduate Program in Information Science at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Completed a post-doctoral research internship in librarianship and documentation at the Universitat de Barcelona. Participated in the editorial board of the UFSC Journals Portal from 2012 to 2022. Regularly evaluates projects for funding agencies and articles for national and international periodicals. Have experience in Information Science, working mainly with: open access, scientific journals, scientific communication and scientific publishing. Contact rosangela.rodrigues@ufsc.br.
Dr. Cristóbal Urbano (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0935-6436) is a professor at the Universitat de Barcelona, Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual (Barcelona, Spain). His research interests include scientific Communication and journals evaluation, metrics on the use of digital Information, digital analytics, information use and Information seeking behavior studies. He can be contacted at urbano@ub.edu
Dra. Patricia Neubert (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8909-1898I) is a professor at the graduate Program in Information Science at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brasil. Her research interests include scientific communication, scientific journals and their editorial structure, metrics of scientific production, open access and publication in Latin America. She can be contatcted at patricia.neubert@ufsc.br
Dr. Josep-Manuel Rodríguez-Gairín (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8375-7911). Doctor in documentation from the Universitat de Barcelona and professor at Universitat de Barcelona, Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual (Barcelona, Spain), where he also coordinates computer science classrooms and advises on technological aspects. He has carried out the infrastructure of projects such as digital journals of library science and documentation (TEMARIA); Revista BID; Information matrix for the evaluation of journals (MIAR); Online resources for preparing research papers (Alehoop); Directory of experts in information (EXIT); International registry of authors-Links to identify scientists (IraLIS), etc. He is a member of CIEPI, ThinkEPI and the technical council of the E-LIS repository. CEO of Kronosdoc company, dedicated to consulting and developing library management programs as GTbib.
Dra. Marta Somoza-Fernández (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4769-9010). She has a degree in Contemporary History (1989) and Cultural Anthropology (1995) and a doctorate in documentation (2009) from the Universitat de Barcelona (UB). She was responsible for the Teledocumentation Service of the Health Sciences Area of the UB library until 2002. Since 1999 she has been a professor at the Department of Library and Documentation of the UB. His lines of research focus on bibliographic databases, information retrieval, bibliometric studies, and user training.
References
Abadal, E. et al. (2019). El plan S para acelerar el acceso abierto: contexto, retos y debate generado. [Plan S to accelerate open access: context, challenges and the debate generated] Hipertext.net, 19, 75-83. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2019.i19.06
American National Standards Institute. (2021). ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2021. JATS: Journal article tag suite. Version 1.3. National Standards Organization. ISBN 978-1-950980-13-0. https://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.96-2021
Appel, A. L., & Albagli, S. (2019). The adoption of article processing charges as a business model by Brazilian open-access journals. Transinformação, Campinas, 31, e180045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889201931e180045
Aspesi, C., Allen, N. S., Crow, R., Daugherty, S., Joseph, H., McArthur, J. T., & Shockey, N (2019). SPARC landscape analysis: the changing academic publishing industry: implications for academic institutions. SPARC. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/landscape-analysis/
Baudry, C., & Charton, G. (2017). Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 110, 1453-1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2225-6
Beasley, G. (2016). Article processing charges: a new route to open access? Information Services & Use, 36(3–4), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-160815
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. George Routledge & Sons.
Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6), e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273
Bojo-Canales, C., & Sanz-Valero, J. (2019). Las revistas de ciencias de la salud de la red SciELO: una análisis de su visibilidad en el ámbito internacional. [The health sciences journals of the SciELO network: an analysis of their visibility at the international level]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 42(4), e245. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2019.4.1629
Boyle, J. (2007). Mertonianism unbound? Imagining free, decentralized access to most cultural and scientific material. In C. Hess, & E. Ostrom. Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice. (pp. 123-144). MIT Press.
Cronin, B. (2014). Scholars and scripts, spoors and scores. In B. Cronin, B. and C. Sugimoto, C. (Eds.). Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. MIT Press.
Gingras, Y. (2020). The transformation of the scientific paper: from knowledge to accounting unit. In M. Biagioli, and A. Lippman, (Eds.). Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0004
Gorraiz, J. et al. (2016, February). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008
Guédon, J-C. et al. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: report of the expert group to the European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/836532
Guédon, J-C. (2011). El acceso abierto y la división entre ciencia “principal” y “periférica”. [Open access and the division between “mainstream” and “peripheral” science]. Crítica y Emancipación, 3(6), 135-180. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11889704.pdf
Guédon, J-C. (2001). Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Association of Research Libraries. http://eprints.rclis.org/6375/1/ARL_Proceedings_138_In_Oldenburg%27s_Long_Shadow%2C_by_Guedon.htm
Guédon, J-C. (2014). Sustaining the ‘Great conversation’: the future of scholarly and scientific journals. In B. Cope and A. Phillips, (Eds,). The future of the academic journal. (pp. 85-112). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.85
Haro, F. A. (2017). O impacto de (não) ter impacto: para uma sociologia crítica das publicações científicos. [The impact of (not) having an impact: towards a critical sociology of scientific publications]. Revista Crítica das Ciências Sociais, Coimbra, 113, 83-106. https://journals.openedition.org/rccs/6659
Huang, Y., Li, R, Zhang, L, & Sivertsen, G. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China. Quantitative Science Studies. 2 (1): 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00103
International Standards Organization. (2019). ISO 8:2019. Information and documentation: presentation and identification of periodicals. International Standards Organization. https://www.iso.org/standard/67723.html
Irawan, D.E., Abraham, J., Zein, R.A., Ridlo, I.A. & Aribowo, E.K. (2021), Open Access in Indonesia. Development and Change, 52: 651-660. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12637
Lin, S., & Zhan, L. (2016). International publishing partnerships for China's English language journals and financial security. Learned Publishing, 29, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1029.
MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (2017). The mismeasure of science: citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3). 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970
Meadows, A. J. (2008). Science and controversy: a biography of Sir Norman Lockyer. Macmillan.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Noorden, R. V. (2019, May 15). Indonesia tops open-access publishing charts. Nature News. http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01536-5
Pereira, J. P. S., Rodrigues, R. S., & Santos, S. M. dos. (2020). Periódicos científicos com indexação descontinuada: a Coleção SciELO Brasil. [Scientific periodicals with discontinued indexing: the SciELO Brasil collection.. Transinformação, 32, paper e200011. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202032e200011.
Pires, E. A. N., Pereira Júnior, A. A., Girard, C. D. T. & Girard, C. M. T. (2017). O Digital Object Identifier (DOI) em periódicos científicos eletrônicos de comunicação e informação. [The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) in electronic scientific communication and information journals.]. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, 15(3), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v15i3.8646260
Robinson-Garcia, N. & Ràfols, I. (2020). The differing meanings of indicators under different policy contexts. the case of internationalization. In C. Daraio & W. Glänzel, (Eds.). Evaluative informetrics: the art of metrics-based research assessment (pp. 213-232). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_10
Rodrigues, R. S., Abadal, E., & Araújo, B. (2020). Open access publishers: the new players. PLoS One, 15, paper e0233432.
Rodrigues, R. S., Fachin, G.R., Schifini, L., & Torrado, E. (2018). Novos periódicos científicos: o caso do Laboratório de Periódicos Científicos UFSC. [New scientific journals: the case of the UFSC Scientific Periodicals Laboratory]. Em Questão, 24, n. 3 177-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.19132/1808-5245243.177-197
Salager-Meyer, F. (2015). Peripheral scholarly journals: From locality to globality. Ibérica, (30), 15–36. https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/726
Santos, S. M., & Noronha, D. P. (2016). O desempenho das universidades brasileiras em rankings internacionais. [The performance of Brazilian universities in international rankings] Em Questão, 22 (2), 186-219. DOI: 10.19132/1808-5245222.186-219
Schneegans, S., Lewis, J. & Straza, T. (Eds.). (2021). UNESCO Science Report: the race against time for smarter development. UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210058575
Shen, C. (2017). Open access scholarly journal publishing in Chinese. Publications, 5(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5040022
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: analysis of Beall's List. El profesional de la información, 25(5), 730-737. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.sep.03
Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., & Moed, H. (2019). Disentangling gold open access. In Glänzel, W. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. (pp. 129-144) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_5
Urbano, C., Rodrigues, R, Somoza-Fernández, M, & Rodríguez-Gairín, J. (2020). Why are new journals created? An international analysis of Information and Documentation titles (2013-2018). Profesional de la Informacion, 29, 1-19.. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.13
Velterop, J. (2018). Plano S: e Taxas de Processamento de Artigo (APCs). SciELO em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/11/27/plano-s-e-taxas-de-processamento-de-artigo-apcs/
Vessuri, H., Guédon, J.-C., & Cetto, A. M. (2003). Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology, London, 62(5), 647-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113512839
Villarroya, A., Claudio-González, M., Abadal, E., & Melero, R. . (2012). Modelos de negócio de las editoriales de revistas científicas: implicaciones para el acceso abierto. El profesional de la información, , 21(2), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.mar.02
Walters, W. H., & Linvill, A. C. (2011). Characteristics of open access journals in six subject areas. College & Research Libraries, Chicago, 72(4), 372-392. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-1xu32
Whitley, R. (2007). Changing Governance of the Public Sciences. In: Whitley, R.; Gläser, J. (Eds.). The Changing Governance of the Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, v. 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_1
Ziman, J. (1981). A força do Conhecimento. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo.
Ziman, J. (1980). The Proliferation of Scientific Literature: A Natural Process. Science, 208(4442), 369-371. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1683389
Ziman, J. (1979). Conhecimento público. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia; São Paulo: EDUSP, 1979.