Hubbry Logo
Academic publishingAcademic publishingMain
Open search
Academic publishing
Community hub
Academic publishing
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Academic publishing
Academic publishing
Academic publishing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Scientific and technical journal publications per million residents of the world as of 2020

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or theses. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

Most established academic disciplines have their own journals and other outlets for publication, although many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. There is also a tendency for existing journals to divide into specialized sections as the field itself becomes more specialized. Along with the variation in review and publication procedures, the kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions to knowledge or research differ greatly among fields and subfields. In the sciences, the desire for statistically significant results leads to publication bias.[1]

Academic publishing is undergoing major changes as it makes the transition from the print to the electronic format. Business models are different in the electronic environment. Since the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. An important trend, particularly with respect to journals in the sciences, is open access via the Internet. In open access publishing, a journal article is made available free for all on the web by the publisher at the time of publication.

Both open and closed journals are sometimes funded by the author paying an article processing charge, thereby shifting some fees from the reader to the researcher or their funder. Many open or closed journals fund their operations without such fees and others use them in predatory publishing. The Internet has facilitated open access self-archiving, in which authors themselves make a copy of their published articles available free for all on the web.[2][3][4] Some important results in mathematics have been published only on arXiv.[5][6][7]

History

[edit]

The Journal des sçavans (later spelled Journal des savants), established by Denis de Sallo, was the earliest academic journal published in Europe. Its content included obituaries of famous men, church history, and legal reports.[8] The first issue appeared as a twelve-page quarto pamphlet[9] on Monday, 5 January 1665,[10] shortly before the first appearance of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, on 6 March 1665.[11]

The publishing of academic journals has started in the 17th century, and expanded greatly in the 19th.[12] At that time, the act of publishing academic inquiry was controversial and widely ridiculed. It was not at all unusual for a new discovery to be announced as a monograph, reserving priority for the discoverer, but indecipherable for anyone not in on the secret: both Isaac Newton and Leibniz used this approach. However, this method did not work well. Robert K. Merton, a sociologist, found that 92% of cases of simultaneous discovery in the 17th century ended in dispute. The number of disputes dropped to 72% in the 18th century, 59% by the latter half of the 19th century, and 33% by the first half of the 20th century.[13] The decline in contested claims for priority in research discoveries can be credited to the increasing acceptance of the publication of papers in modern academic journals, with estimates suggesting that around 50 million journal articles[14] have been published since the first appearance of the Philosophical Transactions. The Royal Society was steadfast in its not-yet-popular belief that science could only move forward through a transparent and open exchange of ideas backed by experimental evidence.

Early scientific journals embraced several models: some were run by a single individual who exerted editorial control over the contents, often simply publishing extracts from colleagues' letters, while others employed a group decision-making process, more closely aligned to modern peer review. It was not until the middle of the 20th century that peer review became the standard.[15]

The COVID-19 pandemic hijacked the entire world of basic and clinical science, with unprecedented shifts in funding priorities worldwide and a boom in medical publishing, accompanied by an unprecedented increase in the number of publications.[16] Preprints servers become much popular during the pandemic, the Covid situation has an impact also on traditional peer-review.[17] The pandemic has also deepened the western monopoly of science-publishing, "by August 2021, at least 210,000 new papers on covid-19 had been published, according to a Royal Society study. Of the 720,000-odd authors of these papers, nearly 270,000 were from the US, the UK, Italy or Spain."[18]

Publishers and business aspects

[edit]
See also: Academic journal § Costs

In the 1960s and 1970s, commercial publishers began to selectively acquire "top-quality" journals that were previously published by nonprofit academic societies. When the commercial publishers raised the subscription prices significantly, they lost little of the market, due to the inelastic demand for these journals. Although there are over 2,000 publishers, five for-profit companies (Reed Elsevier, Springer Science+Business Media, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) accounted for 50% of articles published in 2013.[19][20] (Since 2013, Springer Science+Business Media has undergone a merger to form an even bigger company named Springer Nature.) Available data indicate that these companies have profit margins of around 40% making it one of the most profitable industries,[21][22] especially compared to the smaller publishers, which likely operate with low margins.[23] These factors have contributed to the "serials crisis" – total expenditures on serials increased 7.6% per year from 1986 to 2005, yet the number of serials purchased increased an average of only 1.9% per year.[24]

Unlike most industries, in academic publishing the two most important inputs are provided "virtually free of charge".[23] These are the articles and the peer review process. Publishers argue that they add value to the publishing process through support to the peer review group, including stipends, as well as through typesetting, printing, and web publishing. Investment analysts, however, have been skeptical of the value added by for-profit publishers, as exemplified by a 2005 Deutsche Bank analysis which stated that "we believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process... We are simply observing that if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available."[23][21]

Crisis

[edit]
Main article: Serials crisis

A crisis in academic publishing is "widely perceived";[25] the apparent crisis has to do with the combined pressure of budget cuts at universities and increased costs for journals (the serials crisis).[26] The university budget cuts have reduced library budgets and reduced subsidies to university-affiliated publishers. The humanities have been particularly affected by the pressure on university publishers, which are less able to publish monographs when libraries can not afford to purchase them. For example, the ARL found that in "1986, libraries spent 44% of their budgets on books compared with 56% on journals; twelve years later, the ratio had skewed to 28% and 72%."[25] Meanwhile, monographs are increasingly expected for tenure in the humanities. In 2002 the Modern Language Association expressed hope that electronic publishing would solve the issue.[25]

In 2009 and 2010, surveys and reports found that libraries faced continuing budget cuts, with one survey in 2009 finding that 36% of UK libraries had their budgets cut by 10% or more, compared to 29% with increased budgets.[27][28] In the 2010s, libraries began more aggressive cost cutting with the leverage of open access and open data. Data analysis with open source tools like Unpaywall Journals empowered library systems in reducing their subscription costs by 70% with the cancellation of the big deal with publishers like Elsevier.[29]

Academic journal publishing reform

[edit]
Main article: Academic journal publishing reform

Several models are being investigated, such as open publication models or adding community-oriented features.[30] It is also considered that "Online scientific interaction outside the traditional journal space is becoming more and more important to academic communication".[31] In addition, experts have suggested measures to make the publication process more efficient in disseminating new and important findings by evaluating the worthiness of publication on the basis of the significance and novelty of the research finding.[32]

Scholarly paper

[edit]
See also: Scientific literature § Scientific article, and Academic journal § Scholarly articles

In academic publishing, a paper is an academic work that is usually published in an academic journal. It contains original research results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also called an article, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more referees (who are academics in the same field) who check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A paper may undergo a series of reviews, revisions, and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months. Next, there is often a delay of many months (or in some fields, over a year) before an accepted manuscript appears.[33] This is particularly true for the most popular journals where the number of accepted articles often outnumbers the space for printing. Due to this, many academics self-archive a 'preprint' or 'postprint' copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.[citation needed]

Some journals, particularly newer ones, are now published in electronic form only. Paper journals are now generally made available in electronic form as well, both to individual subscribers, and to libraries. Almost always these electronic versions are available to subscribers immediately upon publication of the paper version, or even before; sometimes they are also made available to non-subscribers, either immediately (by open access journals) or after an embargo of anywhere from two to twenty-four months or more, in order to protect against loss of subscriptions. Journals having this delayed availability are sometimes called delayed open access journals. Ellison in 2011 reported that in economics the dramatic increase in opportunities to publish results online has led to a decline in the use of peer-reviewed articles.[34]

Categories of papers

[edit]
See also: Academic journal § Types of article

An academic paper typically belongs to some particular category such as:

Note: Law review is the generic term for a journal of legal scholarship in the United States, often operating by rules radically different from those for most other academic journals.

Peer review

[edit]
Main article: Academic peer review

Peer review is a central concept for most academic publishing; other scholars in a field must find a work sufficiently high in quality for it to merit publication. A secondary benefit of the process is an indirect guard against plagiarism since reviewers are usually familiar with the sources consulted by the author(s). The origins of routine peer review for submissions dates to 1752 when the Royal Society of London took over official responsibility for Philosophical Transactions. However, there were some earlier examples.[37]

While journal editors largely agree the system is essential to quality control in terms of rejecting poor quality work, there have been examples of important results that are turned down by one journal before being taken to others. Rena Steinzor wrote:

Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox.[38]

"Confirmatory bias" is the unconscious tendency to accept reports which support the reviewer's views and to downplay those which do not. Experimental studies show the problem exists in peer reviewing.[39]

There are various types of peer review feedback that may be given prior to publication, including but not limited to:

  • Single-blind peer review
  • Double-blind peer review
  • Open peer review

Rejection rate

[edit]

The possibility of rejections of papers is an important aspect in peer review. The evaluation of quality of journals is based also on rejection rate. The best journals have the highest rejection rates (around 90–95%).[40] American Psychological Association journals' rejection rates ranged "from a low of 35 per cent to a high of 85 per cent."[41] The complement is called "acceptance rate".

Publishing process

[edit]

The process of academic publishing, which begins when authors submit a manuscript to a publisher, is divided into two distinct phases: peer review and production.

The process of peer review is organized by the journal editor and is complete when the content of the article, together with any associated images, data, and supplementary material are accepted for publication. The peer review process is increasingly managed online, through the use of proprietary systems, commercial software packages, or open source and free software. A manuscript undergoes one or more rounds of review; after each round, the author(s) of the article modify their submission in line with the reviewers' comments; this process is repeated until the editor is satisfied and the work is accepted.

The production process, controlled by a production editor or publisher, then takes an article through copy editing, typesetting, inclusion in a specific issue of a journal, and then printing and online publication. Academic copy editing seeks to ensure that an article conforms to the journal's house style, that all of the referencing and labelling is correct, and that the text is consistent and legible; often this work involves substantive editing and negotiating with the authors.[42] Because the work of academic copy editors can overlap with that of authors' editors,[43] editors employed by journal publishers often refer to themselves as "manuscript editors".[42] During this process, copyright is often transferred from the author to the publisher.

In the late 20th century author-produced camera-ready copy has been replaced by electronic formats such as PDF. The author will review and correct proofs at one or more stages in the production process. The proof correction cycle has historically been labour-intensive as handwritten comments by authors and editors are manually transcribed by a proof reader onto a clean version of the proof. In the early 21st century, this process was streamlined by the introduction of e-annotations in Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, and other programs, but it still remained a time-consuming and error-prone process. The full automation of the proof correction cycles has only become possible with the onset of online collaborative writing platforms, such as Authorea, Google Docs, Overleaf, and various others, where a remote service oversees the copy-editing interactions of multiple authors and exposes them as explicit, actionable historic events. At the end of this process, a final version of record is published.

From time to time some published journal articles have been retracted for different reasons, including research misconduct.[44]

Citations

[edit]
Main article: Citation

Academic authors cite sources they have used, in order to support their assertions and arguments and to help readers find more information on the subject. It also gives credit to authors whose work they use and helps avoid plagiarism. The topic of dual publication (also known as self-plagiarism) has been addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as in the research literature itself.[45][46][47]

Each scholarly journal uses a specific format for citations (also known as references). Among the most common formats used in research papers are the APA, CMS, and MLA styles.

The American Psychological Association (APA) style is often used in the social sciences. The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) is used in business, communications, economics, and social sciences. The CMS style uses footnotes at the bottom of page to help readers locate the sources. The Modern Language Association (MLA) style is widely used in the humanities.

Publishing by discipline

[edit]

Natural sciences

[edit]
Main articles: Scientific literature, Technical literature, and Medical literature
Shares of the top five STM publishers in 2010 and 2020

Scientific, technical, and medical (STM) literature is a large industry which generated $23.5 billion in revenue in 2011; $9.4 billion of that was specifically from the publication of English-language scholarly journals.[48] The overall number of journals contained in the WOS database increased from around 8,500 in 2010 to around 9,400 in 2020, while the number of articles published increased from around 1.1 million in 2010 to 1.8 million in 2020.[49]

Most scientific research is initially published in scientific journals and considered to be a primary source. Technical reports, for minor research results and engineering and design work (including computer software), round out the primary literature. Secondary sources in the sciences include articles in review journals (which provide a synthesis of research articles on a topic to highlight advances and new lines of research), and books for large projects, broad arguments, or compilations of articles. Tertiary sources might include encyclopedias and similar works intended for broad public consumption or academic libraries.

A partial exception to scientific publication practices is in many fields of applied science, particularly that of U.S. computer science research. An equally prestigious site of publication within U.S. computer science are some academic conferences.[50] Reasons for this departure include a large number of such conferences, the quick pace of research progress, and computer science professional society support for the distribution and archiving of conference proceedings.[51]

Since 2022, the Belgian web portal Cairn.info is open to STM.

Social sciences

[edit]

Publishing in the social sciences is very different in different fields. Some fields, like economics, may have very "hard" or highly quantitative standards for publication, much like the natural sciences. Others, like anthropology or sociology, emphasize field work and reporting on first-hand observation as well as quantitative work. Some social science fields, such as public health or demography, have significant shared interests with professions like law and medicine, and scholars in these fields often also publish in professional magazines.[52]

Humanities

[edit]

Publishing in the humanities is in principle similar to publishing elsewhere in the academy; a range of journals, from general to extremely specialized, are available, and university presses issue many new humanities books every year. The arrival of online publishing opportunities has radically transformed the economics of the field and the shape of the future is controversial.[53] Unlike science, where timeliness is critically important, humanities publications often take years to write and years more to publish. Unlike the sciences, research is most often an individual process and is seldom supported by large grants. Journals rarely make profits and are typically run by university departments.[54]

The following describes the situation in the United States. In many fields, such as literature and history, several published articles are typically required for a first tenure-track job, and a published or forthcoming book is now often required before tenure. Some critics complain that this de facto system has emerged without thought to its consequences; they claim that the predictable result is the publication of much shoddy work, as well as unreasonable demands on the already limited research time of young scholars. To make matters worse, the circulation of many humanities journals in the 1990s declined to almost untenable levels, as many libraries cancelled subscriptions, leaving fewer and fewer peer-reviewed outlets for publication; and many humanities professors' first books sell only a few hundred copies, which often does not pay for the cost of their printing. Some scholars have called for a publication subvention of a few thousand dollars to be associated with each graduate student fellowship or new tenure-track hire, in order to alleviate the financial pressure on journals.

Open access journals

[edit]
Main article: Open access journal

Under Open Access, the content can be freely accessed and reused by anyone in the world using an Internet connection. The terminology going back to Budapest Open Access Initiative, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, and Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. The impact of the work available as Open Access is maximised because, quoting the Library of Trinity College Dublin:[55]

  • Potential readership of Open Access material is far greater than that for publications where the full-text is restricted to subscribers.
  • Details of contents can be read by specialised web harvesters.
  • Details of contents also appear in normal search engines like Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, etc.

Open Access is often confused with specific funding models such as Article Processing Charges (APC) being paid by authors or their funders, sometimes misleadingly called "open access model". The reason this term is misleading is due to the existence of many other models, including funding sources listed in the original the Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration: "the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves". For more recent open public discussion of open access funding models, see Flexible membership funding model for Open Access publishing with no author-facing charges.

Prestige journals using the APC model often charge several thousand dollars. Oxford University Press, with over 300 journals, has fees ranging from £1000-£2500, with discounts of 50% to 100% to authors from developing countries.[56] Wiley Blackwell has 700 journals available, and they charge different amounts for each journal.[57] Springer, with over 2600 journals, charges US$3000 or EUR 2200 (excluding VAT).[58] A study found that the average APC (ensuring open access) was between $1,418 and US$2,727.[59]

The online distribution of individual articles and academic journals then takes place without charge to readers and libraries. Most open access journals remove all the financial, technical, and legal barriers Archived 2021-05-06 at the Wayback Machine that limit access to academic materials to paying customers. The Public Library of Science and BioMed Central are prominent examples of this model.

Fee-based open access publishing has been criticized on quality grounds, as the desire to maximize publishing fees could cause some journals to relax the standard of peer review. Although, similar desire is also present in the subscription model, where publishers increase numbers or published articles in order to justify raising their fees. It may be criticized on financial grounds as well because the necessary publication or subscription fees have proven to be higher than originally expected. Open access advocates generally reply that because open access is as much based on peer reviewing as traditional publishing, the quality should be the same (recognizing that both traditional and open access journals have a range of quality). In several regions, including the Arab world, the majority of university academics prefer open access publishing without author fees, as it promotes equal access to information and enhances scientific advancement, a previously unexplored but crucial topic for the region's higher education.[60][61] It has also been argued that good science done by academic institutions who cannot afford to pay for open access might not get published at all, but most open access journals permit the waiver of the fee for financial hardship or authors in underdeveloped countries. In any case, all authors have the option of self-archiving their articles in their institutional repositories or disciplinary repositories in order to make them open access, whether or not they publish them in a journal.

If they publish in a Hybrid open access journal, authors or their funders pay a subscription journal a publication fee to make their individual article open access. The other articles in such hybrid journals are either made available after a delay or remain available only by subscription. Most traditional publishers (including Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press, and Springer Science+Business Media) have already introduced such a hybrid option, and more are following. The fraction of the authors of a hybrid open access journal that makes use of its open access option can, however, be small. It also remains unclear whether this is practical in fields outside the sciences, where there is much less availability of outside funding. In 2006, several funding agencies, including the Wellcome Trust and several divisions of the Research Councils in the UK announced the availability of extra funding to their grantees for such open access journal publication fees.

In May 2016, the Council for the European Union agreed that from 2020 all scientific publications as a result of publicly funded research must be freely available. It also must be able to optimally reuse research data. To achieve that, the data must be made accessible, unless there are well-founded reasons for not doing so, for example, intellectual property rights or security or privacy issues.[62][63]

Growth

[edit]
logo
Scholia has a profile for growth of scholarly literature (Q107292942).

In recent decades there has been a growth in academic publishing in developing countries as they become more advanced in science and technology. Although the large majority of scientific output and academic documents are produced in developed countries, the rate of growth in these countries has stabilized and is much smaller than the growth rate in some of the developing countries.[citation needed] The fastest scientific output growth rate over the last two decades has been in the Middle East and Asia with Iran leading with an 11-fold increase followed by the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Cyprus, China, and Oman.[64] In comparison, the only G8 countries in top 20 ranking with fastest performance improvement are, Italy which stands at tenth and Canada at 13th globally.[65][66]

By 2004, it was noted that the output of scientific papers originating from the European Union had a larger share of the world's total from 36.6% to 39.3% and from 32.8% to 37.5% of the "top one per cent of highly cited scientific papers". However, the United States' output dropped from 52.3% to 49.4% of the world's total, and its portion of the top one percent dropped from 65.6% to 62.8%.[67]

Iran, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa were the only developing countries among the 31 nations that produced 97.5% of the most cited scientific articles in a study published in 2004. The remaining 162 countries contributed less than 2.5%.[67] The Royal Society in a 2011 report stated that in share of English scientific research papers the United States was first followed by China, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, and Canada. The report predicted that China would overtake the United States sometime before 2020, possibly as early as 2013. China's scientific impact, as measured by other scientists citing the published papers the next year, is smaller although also increasing.[68] Developing countries continue to find ways to improve their share, given research budget constraints and limited resources.[69]

Role for publishers in scholarly communication

[edit]

There is increasing frustration amongst OA advocates, with what is perceived as resistance to change on the part of many of the established academic publishers. Publishers are often accused of capturing and monetising publicly funded research, using free academic labour for peer review, and then selling the resulting publications back to academia at inflated profits.[70] Such frustrations sometimes spill over into hyperbole, of which "publishers add no value" is one of the most common examples.[71]

However, scholarly publishing is not a simple process, and publishers do add value to scholarly communication as it is currently designed.[72] Kent Anderson maintains a list of things that journal publishers do which currently contains 102 items and has yet to be formally contested from anyone who challenges the value of publishers.[73] Many items on the list could be argued to be of value primarily to the publishers themselves, e.g. "Make money and remain a constant in the system of scholarly output". However, others provide direct value to researchers and research in steering the academic literature. This includes arbitrating disputes (e.g. over ethics, authorship), stewarding the scholarly record, copy-editing, proofreading, type-setting, styling of materials, linking the articles to open and accessible datasets, and (perhaps most importantly) arranging and managing scholarly peer review. The latter is a task that should not be underestimated as it effectively entails coercing busy people into giving their time to improve someone else's work and maintain the quality of the literature. Not to mention the standard management processes for large enterprises, including infrastructure, people, security, and marketing. All of these factors contribute in one way or another to maintaining the scholarly record.[71]

It could be questioned though, whether these functions are actually necessary to the core aim of scholarly communication, namely, dissemination of research to researchers and other stakeholders such as policy makers, economic, biomedical and industrial practitioners as well as the general public.[74] Above, for example, we question the necessity of the current infrastructure for peer review, and if a scholar-led crowdsourced alternative may be preferable. In addition, one of the biggest tensions in this space is associated with the question if for-profit companies (or the private sector) should be allowed to be in charge of the management and dissemination of academic output and execute their powers while serving, for the most part, their own interests. This is often considered alongside the value added by such companies, and therefore the two are closely linked as part of broader questions on appropriate expenditure of public funds, the role of commercial entities in the public sector, and issues around the privatisation of scholarly knowledge.[71]

Publishing could certainly be done at a lower cost than common at present. There are significant researcher-facing inefficiencies in the system including the common scenario of multiple rounds of rejection and resubmission to various venues as well as the fact that some publishers profit beyond reasonable scale.[75] What is missing most[71] from the current publishing market, is transparency about the nature and the quality of the services publishers offer. This would allow authors to make informed choices, rather than decisions based on indicators that are unrelated to research quality, such as the JIF.[71] All the above questions are being investigated and alternatives could be considered and explored. Yet, in the current system, publishers still play a role in managing processes of quality assurance, interlinking and findability of research. As the role of scholarly publishers within the knowledge communication industry continues to evolve, it is seen as necessary[71] that they can justify their operation based on the intrinsic value that they add,[76][77] and combat the perception that they add no value to the process.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Academic publishing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Academic publishing is the subfield of that disseminates academic research and scholarship, primarily through peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and . It serves as the primary mechanism for validating, communicating, and preserving scientific and contributions, enabling the progression of disciplines by subjecting submissions to scrutiny. The core process entails researchers submitting manuscripts to journals or presses, followed by rigorous —often double-blind—to assess originality, methodology, and significance, with accepted works then edited, typeset, and distributed globally. Originating with learned societies in the that handled and distribution until the mid-20th century, the field has shifted toward commercial models dominated by a few multinational conglomerates controlling over half of the scientific, technical, and medical publishing market, yielding high profit margins amid researcher-provided labor for authoring and reviewing. Despite its foundational role in knowledge advancement—"" incentivizing output for academic careers—this system faces controversies including predatory journals exploiting lax oversight, escalating access costs burdening institutions, and an explosion in publication volume straining and . The rise of models challenges traditional paywalls, aiming to broaden dissemination while grappling with sustainability and integrity issues.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Origins

In the ancient , scholarly knowledge was primarily disseminated through oral instruction in philosophical schools and the labor-intensive copying of manuscripts by scribes. Plato's , founded around 387 BCE and enduring for over 900 years, emphasized dialogic teaching among roughly 100 students, fostering the exchange of ideas on , , and without reliance on printed texts. Aristotle's , established circa 335 BCE, incorporated a substantial library and collaborative research involving up to 1,000 participants, producing treatises that were manually reproduced and shared among adherents. The , initiated under Ptolemy I after 332 BCE as part of the research institution, aggressively collected and duplicated texts—including mandatory copying of arriving scrolls—amassing around 500,000 book-rolls to support scholarly annotation and translation. Roman scholars extended these practices, with figures like (c. 129–216 CE) authoring medical compendia that circulated via elite networks of copyists and patrons, though dissemination remained elite-bound and prone to textual corruption from manual errors. Following the Western Roman Empire's collapse in the 5th century CE, classical texts survived largely through Byzantine preservation and monastic scriptoria in Europe, where monks replicated works amid limited institutional support. The under (r. 768–814 CE) revived systematic copying in monastic centers like and Tours, standardizing scripts such as to enhance readability and fidelity. By the , the rise of universities—beginning with in 1088 for , followed by around 1150 for and circa 1167—formalized scholarly exchange through lectures, quaestiones (systematic inquiries), and public disputations, where theses were debated orally before masters and students to refine arguments. These disputations, central to the scholastic method, validated ideas via adversarial reasoning rather than empirical verification, with proceedings often recorded in form for limited circulation among faculty and . Manuscripts dominated pre-modern dissemination, requiring authors or patrons to finance bespoke copies distributed via personal networks or university libraries, resulting in scarce editions vulnerable to loss or alteration. Private letters supplemented this, enabling remote collaboration, as seen in epistolary exchanges among 12th–14th-century theologians debating Aristotelian interpretations. Absent mechanized reproduction, output was constrained—Europe held only thousands of manuscripts by 1450—prioritizing theological and classical exegesis over novel empirical findings, with Islamic centers like Baghdad's House of Wisdom (9th century) influencing Europe via translated works on optics and mathematics. This era's causal limitations stemmed from high copying costs and illiteracy rates exceeding 90% among non-clerics, confining "publishing" to artisanal replication for ecclesiastical or aristocratic validation rather than broad verification.

Emergence of Modern Journals

The mid-17th century marked the birth of modern academic journals, coinciding with the Scientific Revolution's emphasis on empirical observation and systematic knowledge dissemination. The earliest periodical of this kind was the , initiated by French lawyer and scholar Denis de Sallo (under the pseudonym Sieur de Hédouville) and published weekly starting January 5, 1665, in . This publication reviewed books, legal decisions, scientific observations, and historical accounts, serving as a centralized repository for intellectual output across and nascent sciences, thereby addressing the fragmentation of previously reliant on private letters and lengthy treatises. Complementing this, the Royal Society of London sponsored Philosophical Transactions, the first journal devoted exclusively to and experimental findings, with its inaugural issue appearing on March 6, 1665, under the editorship of , the society's first secretary. , a German-born with extensive European correspondence networks, aimed to register discoveries for priority of , accelerate feedback among scholars, and promote the Baconian ideal of collaborative empirical ; the journal featured abstracts of letters, book reviews, and original reports on topics from microscopy to astronomy, with 113 issues published by 1677 despite interruptions like the in 1665-1666. These pioneering efforts institutionalized serial publication, leveraging the printing press's scalability to make accessible beyond elite circles, though initial distribution was limited to subscribers and society members numbering in the hundreds. Editorial processes involved informal vetting—Oldenburg consulted fellows for advice on veracity and novelty, rejecting about 10-20% of submissions based on contemporary records—but lacked anonymous, multi-referee , which only formalized in the with examples like the Edinburgh Medical Journal incorporating such practices from 1733 onward. By the late 17th century, the model proliferated: Germany's Acta Eruditorum debuted in 1682 as a multilingual review journal emphasizing and physics, while France's Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences began in 1666 (published irregularly until 1699), reflecting state patronage's role in sustaining output amid high production costs estimated at 200-300 livres per issue for Journal des sçavans. This expansion, totaling fewer than 50 journals by 1700, laid the groundwork for journals as primary vehicles for scientific priority claims and critique, supplanting ad hoc pamphlets that had briefly surged post-Gutenberg but lacked periodicity.

Post-WWII Expansion and Professionalization

Following , academic publishing underwent rapid expansion driven by substantial increases in government funding for scientific research. In the United States, Vannevar Bush's 1945 report Science: The Endless Frontier advocated for federal support of basic research, leading to the establishment of the in 1950 and a surge in research grants that fueled growth in universities and researcher numbers. This "" era, characterized by priorities and public investment, resulted in a boom in research output, with the number of scholarly journals growing at an annual rate of 4.35% from 1945 to 1976, doubling approximately every 16 years. By 1951, estimates placed the total at around 10,000 scholarly journals worldwide, reflecting the proliferation of specialized outlets to accommodate rising publication volumes. The expansion was accompanied by professionalization, as commercial publishers significantly increased their involvement in scholarly journal production after 1945, shifting from predominantly society-led operations to a more industrialized model. This transition professionalized editing, printing, and distribution processes, enabling scalability amid growing submissions, while itself became codified as a formal between 1945 and 1970. Commercial firms capitalized on the demand, assuming roles in and subscription management that academic societies often lacked the to handle efficiently. A key aspect of this professionalization was the standardization of as a routine gatekeeping mechanism for journal acceptance. Prior to WWII, reviews were and editor-dominated, but the postwar influx of manuscripts—coupled with heightened from agencies—necessitated formal external by domain experts to maintain and . By the late , major journals like those from the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted systematic blind , which became the norm across disciplines by the , aligning publication standards with the merit-based ethos of federally supported research. This process, while enhancing rigor, also institutionalized delays and selectivity in publishing workflows.

Digital Transition and Online Publishing

The digital transition in academic publishing gained momentum in the 1990s as the and enabled electronic dissemination of scholarly content, shifting from print-dominated models to hybrid and eventually formats. Early precursors included electronic preprints and , but full-text journals became feasible around 1994, allowing researchers to access articles remotely without physical copies. This era marked the first major , where content moved from paper to bits while preserving traditional workflows like and subscription-based access. A pivotal development was the launch of in August 1991 by physicist at , which provided an open repository for physics preprints and facilitated rapid, informal sharing among scholars, bypassing delays inherent in print journals. This platform demonstrated the internet's potential for accelerating scientific communication, with over 2 million submissions archived by 2023, influencing fields beyond physics. Early online-only peer-reviewed journals emerged concurrently; for example, New Horizons in Adult Education began as one of the first such outlets in 1987, though widespread adoption occurred in the mid-1990s as commercial publishers digitized issues and universities hosted electronic serials. The advantages of online publishing included faster publication timelines—often reducing months-long print lags—enhanced searchability via full-text indexing, incorporation of hyperlinks, supplements, and global accessibility independent of holdings. By the early , major publishers like and Springer had transitioned most journals to digital platforms, with backfile digitization projects enabling retrospective access; for instance, JSTOR's electronic archives grew to encompass millions of pages by 2005. However, challenges arose, including concerns over long-term , as early web content risked obsolescence without robust archiving, prompting initiatives like the Archive's efforts and LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) protocols developed in 2002. This transition intertwined with the (OA) movement, which leveraged digital infrastructure to challenge subscription barriers; the 2000 launch of as a free biomedical archive exemplified public funding's role in promoting unrestricted access. By 2020, OA publishing surpassed traditional subscription models in volume for the first time, driven by author-pays article processing charges (APCs) and institutional mandates, though this raised issues of equity for researchers in underfunded regions unable to cover fees. Overall, online publishing reduced printing and distribution costs for providers while increasing article visibility metrics, with download counts often exceeding print circulations by orders of magnitude, fundamentally altering scholarly impact measurement from citations alone to include like shares.

Core Publishing Processes

Types of Scholarly Outputs

Scholarly outputs in academic publishing encompass diverse formats through which researchers disseminate findings, analyses, and syntheses of knowledge. Traditional categories, as classified in research evaluation frameworks, include peer-reviewed journal articles, authored , book chapters, and conference items such as papers and proceedings. These outputs are prioritized in metrics like 's Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) and Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessments, reflecting their role in establishing scholarly credibility and career advancement. Peer-reviewed journal articles constitute the predominant type, especially in STEM fields, where they report original , methodologies, or . Subtypes include empirical original articles detailing experiments or observations, articles synthesizing existing , and shorter formats like letters or short communications for preliminary or niche findings. In 2022, global scientific publication output exceeded 3 million articles annually, underscoring their volume and centrality, though quality varies by journal impact and rigor. Books and monographs, more prevalent in humanities and social sciences, offer comprehensive treatments of topics, often involving extensive original scholarship or edited collections; they undergo editorial scrutiny but less standardized than articles. Book chapters, typically invited contributions to edited volumes, provide focused discussions within broader contexts. Conference papers and proceedings capture timely research presented at disciplinary gatherings, often preceding full journal publication; they are peer-reviewed in varying degrees but criticized for brevity and lower archival standards in some fields. Theses and dissertations represent capstone outputs for graduate degrees, embodying original research but generally not peer-reviewed for public dissemination unless adapted into articles or books. Emerging outputs, such as preprints deposited on servers like or , enable rapid sharing prior to formal review, with over 2 million preprints archived by 2023, though they lack editorial vetting and may propagate errors. Datasets, software code, and protocols are increasingly recognized as citable outputs, particularly in data-driven disciplines, supported by repositories like or Figshare that assign DOIs for persistence and citation. Non-traditional research outputs (NTROs), including curated exhibitions or performances in creative fields, expand the scope but remain marginal in core publishing metrics.

Submission and Editorial Workflow

Authors submit manuscripts to academic journals through online submission systems such as Editorial Manager, ScholarOne Manuscripts, or publisher-specific portals, adhering to detailed guidelines on formatting, word limits, abstract structure, and supplementary materials. These systems, used by major publishers like , Wiley, and , facilitate uploads of cover letters, author disclosures, and conflict-of-interest statements, often requiring iDs for author identification. Upon submission, automated checks verify file completeness, plagiarism via tools like , and compliance with ethical standards such as ICMJE authorship criteria or COPE guidelines. Incomplete or non-compliant submissions are typically returned for correction within days. The editorial workflow begins with an initial assessment by the journal's managing or associate editor, who evaluates the manuscript's fit to the journal's scope, novelty, methodological , and potential impact, often within 1-2 weeks. Manuscripts failing this desk review—estimated at 30-50% in many fields—are rejected without external review to conserve resources. For those advancing, the or handling editor assigns 2-4 independent peer reviewers, selected from databases or recommendations, ensuring expertise and absence of conflicts. Reviewers, often anonymous in single- or double-blind formats, assess validity, , and clarity, submitting reports within 4-6 weeks, though delays are common. Editors synthesize these reports, weighing reviewer consensus against journal standards, and issue decisions: outright rejection (most frequent outcome), minor/major revision, or rare direct acceptance. Revision cycles involve authors addressing editor and reviewer comments, resubmitting with a point-by-point response letter, typically within 1-3 months per round; multiple iterations occur in 20-40% of cases before final disposition. Accepted manuscripts enter production, involving copyediting for and style, author proofs for final approval, and formatting for digital or print output, with timelines varying from weeks to months depending on publisher backlog. Throughout, editorial policies enforce transparency, such as public errata for post-publication issues, though systemic delays—averaging 6-12 months from submission to publication—persist due to reviewer shortages and high submission volumes exceeding 2 million annually across STM fields. Variations exist by discipline and publisher; for instance, open-access journals like emphasize rapid initial screening over exhaustive novelty checks.

Peer Review Practices

Peer review in academic publishing involves the evaluation of submitted manuscripts by independent experts in the relevant field to assess scientific validity, methodological rigor, , and contribution to . The process typically begins with an initial editorial screening for scope fit, novelty, and basic quality, often resulting in desk rejection for a significant portion of submissions; for instance, approximately one-third of papers receive desk rejection within two weeks, while one-sixth may wait a month or longer. Manuscripts advancing beyond this stage are assigned to 2-3 reviewers, who provide confidential reports recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection, after which the editor makes the final decision. This system aims to filter out flawed research while improving accepted work through constructive feedback. Common variants include single-anonymized review, where reviewers know the authors' identities but not vice versa; double-anonymized review, concealing both parties' identities to mitigate ; and open review, disclosing identities for transparency. Less prevalent forms encompass transparent review, which publishes reviewer comments alongside the article; collaborative review, involving multiple reviewers in ; and post-publication review, where scrutiny occurs after online release. Single- and double-anonymized models dominate, with double-anonymized intended to reduce prestige or affiliation effects, though shows persistent biases. Review timelines average several months, influenced by reviewer availability and journal volume, contributing to delays in dissemination. Acceptance rates vary by discipline and journal prestige, averaging 35-40% globally, with exhibiting higher rates than social sciences; top outlets like reject 84% at initial screening and accept only 6.1% of original research submissions overall. Rejection rates post-review can reach 80% on average, often due to methodological weaknesses, scope mismatch, or ethical concerns rather than outright invalidity. Reviewers focus on validity of methods, accuracy of , and relevance, but the process rarely detects subtle like fabricated data, succeeding in only 8.1% of cases for papers later retracted. Despite its role in upholding standards, exhibits limitations in ensuring reproducibility and truth, as evidenced by the , where many published findings in fields like fail independent verification; non-replicable papers are cited 16 times more per year on average, perpetuating errors. Retractions, numbering thousands annually, often follow peer-reviewed publication due to undetected issues like or data manipulation, with examples including mass withdrawals from publishers like Springer and Wiley in 2012-2023 for fabricated peer reviews or ethical breaches. proves more adept at flagging methodological flaws than ethical or violations. Biases compromise impartiality, including institutional affiliation favoritism, where submissions from receive preferential treatment, disadvantaging authors from lesser-known institutions. Ideological and political skews, stemming from academia's left-leaning demographic imbalance—evidenced by surveys showing disproportionate liberal affiliation among faculty—can manifest as gatekeeping against dissenting views, particularly in social sciences and ; studies document this asymmetry, with conservatives facing higher scrutiny despite equivalent quality. Such systemic biases, unaddressed by anonymization alone, undermine causal realism in evaluation, prioritizing conformity over empirical rigor.

Production and Dissemination Stages

Upon acceptance of a manuscript following , the production process begins with copy-editing, where editorial staff revise the text for clarity, grammatical accuracy, adherence to journal style guides (such as or specific house rules), and factual consistency, often querying authors for ambiguities. This stage typically involves substantive edits only if minor revisions were pending from review, but focuses primarily on polishing without altering scholarly content, with turnaround times ranging from 1-4 weeks depending on journal volume. Next, the edited manuscript advances to or composition, where it is formatted into the journal's layout, including , headings, figures, tables, and references, often using XML markup for digital compatibility to enable rendering alongside PDF versions. Authors receive page proofs—preliminary versions—for final review, during which they check for production errors like faults but are generally prohibited from introducing substantive changes to avoid delays. Proof corrections are returned within 48-72 hours, after which final files are generated; for print journals, this includes and binding, though most production now prioritizes digital outputs. The entire production phase from to online often spans 4-8 weeks for major publishers, influenced by factors like artwork complexity and author responsiveness. Dissemination commences with the article's online-first release, where it receives a digital object identifier (DOI) registered via agencies like Crossref or DataCite for persistent linking and citation tracking, typically within days of final approval. Publishers host the content on their platforms (e.g., ScienceDirect for Elsevier or Taylor & Francis Online), making it accessible via subscriptions, paywalls, or open access under licenses like Creative Commons, with metadata deposited in indexes such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science to enhance discoverability. For subscription-based journals, access is gated, while open-access models rely on article processing charges to fund immediate availability; dissemination tools include RSS feeds, email alerts, and social sharing integrations, though empirical studies indicate that only 20-30% of articles garner significant post-publication citations without active author promotion. Articles are later assigned to a formal issue (volume and number) for archival purposes, with print versions—if produced—distributed to subscribers, but digital formats dominate, accounting for over 90% of accesses in STM fields by 2020. Long-term preservation occurs through publisher archives and services like CLOCKSS or Portico to mitigate risks of data loss.

Economic and Institutional Framework

Key Publishers and Market Structure

The scholarly publishing market exhibits oligopolistic characteristics, with a handful of large commercial publishers controlling a significant portion of journal output and revenues. As of 2023, the top five publishers—, Springer Nature, Wiley, , and SAGE—account for approximately 49% of the global market share in scholarly journals, up from 39% in earlier periods, reflecting ongoing consolidation through . This concentration is particularly pronounced in science, technology, and medicine (STM) fields, where these firms leverage , brand prestige, and bundled subscription packages to maintain dominance. Elsevier, a subsidiary of Group, stands as the largest player, publishing around 2,700 journals and generating over $3.3 billion in revenue from academic publishing activities in recent years. , formed by the 2015 merger of and Nature Publishing Group, follows closely, with substantial output in hybrid and open-access models contributing to its revenue stream. Wiley and (part of ) also rank among the leaders, each managing thousands of titles and benefiting from acquisitions that expand their portfolios. SAGE rounds out the group, focusing on social sciences and alongside STM content. While non-profit society publishers such as the American Chemical Society and IEEE hold niches in specialized fields, they represent a diminishing share relative to the commercial giants, whose profit margins often exceed 30-40%. High barriers to entry, including the entrenched citation networks and institutional inertia favoring established journals, perpetuate this structure, enabling publishers to sustain premium pricing despite producing minimal added value beyond branding and distribution. Emerging open-access publishers like MDPI and Frontiers have gained traction, publishing hundreds of thousands of articles annually, yet they operate on the fringes without displacing the core oligopoly.

Revenue Models: Subscriptions and Article Processing Charges

The subscription model has historically dominated academic publishing revenue, with institutions and libraries paying recurring fees for access to journal content, often through bundled "big deals" that package multiple titles to reduce per-journal costs but increase overall expenditures. This reader-pays approach generates stable income for publishers, funding editorial, , and dissemination processes, while restricting access to paying subscribers and enabling high profit margins for commercial entities. For instance, RELX's Scientific, Technical & Medical (STM) division, which includes , reported revenues of £3,245 million in 2024, with subscriptions forming the core of its electronic revenue stream comprising 79% of total sales. Globally, subscription-based revenues continue to exceed those from alternative models, though exact breakdowns vary by publisher due to hybrid arrangements. Article processing charges (APCs), conversely, underpin the gold model, where authors, their institutions, or funders pay upfront fees to cover publication costs, rendering articles immediately freely accessible without subscription barriers. APCs range widely, with medians of $2,000 for fully journals and $3,230 for hybrid options in 2023, though high-end charges can exceed $12,000, particularly in prestige journals like those in portfolios. Hybrid journals, which retain subscription bases while offering APC-funded for individual articles, blend both models and accounted for significant growth; for example, published 44% of its primary research as in 2023, up from 38% in 2022, with APCs contributing to revenue diversification. Globally, APC expenditures reached an estimated $1.7 billion annually on average from 2019 to 2023 across six major publishers, with 2023 figures led by ($682 million), ($583 million), and ($547 million).
PublisherEstimated 2023 APC Revenue (millions USD)
MDPI681.6
Elsevier582.8
Springer Nature546.6
Others (Wiley, Frontiers, Taylor & Francis)Varies, totaling ~$1.7B globally for top six
This shift toward APCs, driven by open access mandates, has increased the proportion of open access articles to approximately 48-50% of total scholarly output by 2023, yet it transfers financial burdens from readers to authors and funders, raising concerns over equity for researchers in under-resourced regions where waivers cover only select low-income economies. While APCs promote broader dissemination, average charges rose 4-10% from 2023 to 2024, outpacing inflation and prompting scrutiny of pricing transparency, as 31% of fully open access journals impose no fees but often lack rigorous peer review. Commercial publishers maintain profitability across models, with APCs supplementing rather than replacing subscriptions in most cases, as evidenced by sustained subscription dominance in RELX's portfolio.

Cost Structures and Profit Margins

The primary costs in academic publishing encompass editorial acquisition, peer review coordination, production (including copyediting, , and formatting), digital platform maintenance, marketing, and administrative overheads. Marginal costs per additional article are low in the digital era, as printing and distribution expenses have diminished significantly, with largely relying on unpaid academic volunteers. For instance, total publication costs per article for small journals average around US$354, while larger journals benefit from , reducing per-article expenses. Production and dissemination stages, such as XML tagging and hosting on platforms like , constitute a substantial portion of variable costs, estimated at $1,000–$5,000 per article depending on complexity and editing needs. Fixed costs dominate, including salaries for professional editors, IT infrastructure for submission systems, and legal compliance for copyright management, which do not scale linearly with output volume. Industry analyses indicate that administrative and marketing expenses have risen with journal proliferation, but digital transitions have offset traditional printing costs, which once accounted for up to 20% of budgets. In subscription-based models, revenue predictability allows publishers to amortize these costs across bundled journal packages, whereas open access relies on article processing charges (APCs) that must cover similar overheads plus author-side fees, often ranging from $2,000–$5,000 per article. Profit margins in scholarly publishing are among the highest across industries, frequently exceeding 30%, driven by and inelastic institutional demand. RELX, parent of , reported an adjusted of 33.9% for 2024 across its operations, with the scientific, technical, and medical (STM) division contributing £1.17 billion in adjusted operating profit that year. Elsevier's STM-specific margins are estimated at 37–40%, reflecting revenues from subscriptions and APCs against subdued cost growth. Comparable figures prevail among peers: and Wiley maintain margins in the 20–30% range, bolstered by hybrid models blending subscriptions with APCs, while the overall sector averages 30–40% for leading firms. These elevated margins stem from oligopolistic structures where top publishers control over 50% of outputs, enabling premium pricing despite free scholarly inputs.

The Serials Crisis Revisited

The serials crisis denotes the persistent escalation of scholarly journal subscription costs beyond and institutional budgets, originating in the but enduring amid digital publishing shifts. Academic libraries allocate approximately 40% of their budgets to serials, a rise from 25% in 1998, as real-term expenditures on journals increase while overall funding stagnates. This imbalance forces cancellations and restricts access, undermining research dissemination despite expanded output. Recent price surveys indicate average e-journal package increases of 4% in 2024, succeeding 5% in 2023 and 3.75% in 2022, with projections of 5.5–6.5% for 2026—rates surpassing general consumer price inflation. Such trends reflect historical patterns where periodical costs outpaced inflation by multiples, as seen in 1966 (7% vs. 1.9%) and 1986 (8.9% vs. 1.9%). The scholarly journals market reached $10.8 billion in 2023, growing at 2.3% annually, yet libraries capture diminishing value per subscription due to bundled "big deals" that embed high-cost titles. Market concentration amplifies pricing power, with five publishers—Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage—controlling over half of peer-reviewed articles and deriving substantial revenues from both subscriptions and article processing charges (APCs). These firms reported OA revenues exceeding $1 billion from 2015–2018, including $589.7 million for and $221.4 million for , alongside subscription models yielding 5–7% annual hikes. Profit margins surpass 30%, as APCs often exceed production costs estimated at $200–$1,000 per article, perpetuating through non-disintermediated rather than cost reductions from digital efficiencies. The transition to hybrid and open access has not alleviated pressures, with hybrid APCs averaging $2,905 versus $1,989 for , signaling a potential "OA sequel" to subscription woes as fees rise without proportional quality gains. Libraries face dual burdens from legacy subscriptions and emerging APC mandates, exacerbating access inequities for non-funded while publishers leverage oligopolistic structures to maintain revenues. This revisited crisis underscores causal links between concentrated , inelastic demand from "must-have" journals, and institutional funding constraints, hindering equitable knowledge advancement.

Criticisms and Systemic Challenges

Predatory Publishing Phenomenon

Predatory publishing refers to a fraudulent model in academic publishing where journals or publishers charge authors article processing charges (APCs) while providing minimal or no legitimate services, such as rigorous , editorial oversight, or indexing in reputable databases. These entities mimic legitimate scholarly journals to exploit researchers' need to publish, often prioritizing profit over quality and transparency. The phenomenon primarily arose within the (OA) ecosystem, where APCs fund publication, but predatory operators deviate by skipping essential quality controls. The term "predatory open access publishing" was popularized by librarian , who in 2010 began documenting exploitative practices after observing a surge in low-quality OA journals following the expansion of OA models. Beall's initial analyses from 2009 to 2012 identified 18 publishers exhibiting predatory traits, leading to his comprehensive list of potential predatory journals and publishers, which peaked at over 1,000 entries by 2016. This list highlighted systemic issues like inadequate and deceptive marketing, but Beall discontinued it in January 2017 amid reported threats and institutional pressures from the . Common characteristics of predatory publishers include aggressive solicitation via unsolicited emails promising rapid publication, lack of transparent processes, invention of bogus metrics like fake impact factors, excessively broad journal scopes, and hidden or exorbitant fees disclosed only post-acceptance. Manuscripts are often published without substantive revisions or expert evaluation, and editorial boards may list fabricated or unaware scholars. These operations frequently originate from regions with lax regulations, such as parts of and , and fail to adhere to standards like those from the (COPE). The scale of predatory publishing has grown significantly, with articles in such journals rising from approximately 53,000 in 2010 to 420,000 by 2014, reflecting exploitation of global publish-or-perish incentives. By 2023, estimates suggest over 15,000 active predatory journals worldwide, though exact figures vary due to the opaque nature of these entities; Cabell's Predatory Reports database, a successor tool to , cataloged thousands as of May 2022. This proliferation particularly affects fields like and social sciences, where non-English-speaking researchers from developing countries are disproportionately targeted, comprising up to 70% of submissions in some analyses. Predatory publishing undermines by flooding the literature with unvetted, low-quality research, which can mislead policymakers, clinicians, and subsequent studies, thereby eroding public trust in science. It diverts research funding—estimated in millions annually—to worthless outputs and harms researchers' careers, with surveys indicating 13.79% of academics fearing negative impacts on tenure, promotion, or grants from inadvertent publication there. In severe cases, predatory outlets hold manuscripts "hostage" by demanding fees post-submission or publishing without consent, exacerbating inequities as vulnerable scholars pay for illusory prestige. Responses include community-driven tools like the Think. Check. Submit. campaign, which advises verifying journal credentials, and databases such as Cabell's International and the Stop Predatory Journals list for . Institutions increasingly implement policies to exclude predatory publications from evaluations, while initiatives like the (DOAJ) enforce inclusion criteria to whitelist legitimate OA venues. Despite these, challenges persist due to the ease of launching fake journals online and the absence of universal regulatory oversight, underscoring the need for heightened researcher vigilance and systemic reforms in evaluation metrics.

Failures in Quality Assurance and Retractions

Retractions in academic publishing represent a critical indicator of lapses in quality assurance, as they highlight instances where peer-reviewed work contains irreparable flaws such as data fabrication, plagiarism, methodological errors, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Despite peer review's intended role as a gatekeeper, numerous studies demonstrate its limitations in detecting these issues prior to publication, with reviewers identifying only about 25% of deliberately introduced errors in experimental manuscripts. The Retraction Watch database, which tracks such events, documented over 48,000 retractions as of late 2024, reflecting a sharp upward trajectory driven by improved post-publication scrutiny rather than enhanced pre-publication rigor. This increase—approximately 10-fold over the past two decades—occurs against a backdrop of exploding publication volumes, yet the retraction rate reached about 1 in 500 papers by 2023, underscoring persistent vulnerabilities in the system. Common causes of retractions include data manipulation and image irregularities, which peer review frequently overlooks due to its reliance on volunteer experts who may lack incentives or tools for exhaustive verification. For instance, in health sciences, procedural and errors accounted for 26.5% of retractions in analyzed cases, often evading detection during review because of superficial assessments focused on novelty over . High-profile failures, such as the 1998 Lancet paper by falsely linking the to autism—retracted in 2010 after 12 years—illustrate how can endorse fundamentally flawed claims with profound real-world consequences, including setbacks. Similarly, the 2020 Surgisphere scandal involved a Lancet preprint on treatments based on fabricated datasets, which influenced global policy before rapid post-publication analysis exposed the fraud that initial reviewers missed. Delays in retraction exacerbate these failures, with median times from to retraction often exceeding a year, allowing erroneous findings to propagate through citations—retracted papers have garnered millions of post-retraction cites in aggregate. breaks down further in resource-strapped journals, where overburdened reviewers and editors prioritize speed over depth, contributing to acceptance of papers with glaring inconsistencies, as seen in cases where fraudulent submissions bypassed scrutiny in over 150 outlets during targeted tests of review robustness. While retractions signal self-correction, their rarity relative to undetected errors—estimated to affect a substantial underreported fraction of the —reveals systemic misalignments, including inadequate for reviewers and journals' hesitance to retract due to reputational risks. Efforts to quantify these gaps, such as analyses, confirm inconsistent error detection across disciplines, particularly in high-stakes fields like where crises amplify the stakes.

Ideological and Political Biases in Gatekeeping

Surveys of political affiliations reveal a marked imbalance, with liberals comprising 50-60% or more in many fields, while conservatives represent 5-12%, particularly pronounced in social sciences and . This skew extends to editors and peer reviewers, who are drawn from the same academic pools, creating a gatekeeping apparatus with limited ideological diversity. A FIRE survey of U.S. faculty found only 20% believed a conservative would "fit well" in their department, compared to 83% for liberals, indicating self-reported openness gaps that influence review outcomes. Empirical studies document biases in the peer review process favoring research aligned with progressive viewpoints. A 2025 analysis of over 30,000 journal articles across topics found a slight but consistent liberal bias in publication decisions, with liberal-leaning papers more likely to be accepted, especially in politically charged domains like and ; differences persisted even after controlling for author backgrounds and institutions. In a Norwegian survey experiment, evaluators showed ideological skews affecting assessments, though the effect size was modest, underscoring how homogeneity amplifies subtle preferences into systemic filters. Such biases manifest in higher rejection rates for heterodox submissions, as evidenced by conservative researchers reporting routine dismissals of methodologically sound work on topics like biological sex differences or critiques, often justified via methodological critiques rather than substantive flaws. This gatekeeping dynamic contributes to viewpoint monopolies, particularly in fields where empirical findings clash with egalitarian priors, such as intelligence research or gender equity studies. For example, a study by Duarte et al. in highlighted how anonymous conservative submissions faced harsher scrutiny, with reviewers demanding unattainable evidence standards absent for ideologically congruent work. In natural sciences, biases appear less overt but emerge in contested areas like modeling dissent or gain-of-function , where editorial choices have delayed or blocked publications challenging consensus narratives, as seen in retractions or non-publications during the . The resulting homogeneity fosters causal overreach in interpreting data through ideological lenses, prioritizing narrative coherence over , and erodes public trust when suppressed views later gain traction outside formal channels.

Misaligned Incentives and Publish-or-Perish Culture

The publish-or-perish culture in academia compels researchers to prioritize frequent outputs to achieve tenure, secure , and advance careers, often at the expense of methodological rigor and long-term scientific validity. This paradigm emerged prominently in the late amid expanding systems and competitive grant environments, where hiring, promotion, and resource allocation increasingly hinge on quantifiable metrics like publication counts and journal impact factors rather than the intrinsic merit or replicability of research. Such incentives misalign the core aims of —advancing verifiable knowledge—with personal and institutional imperatives for visibility and prestige, fostering a system where researchers are rewarded for volume and novelty over thorough validation or null findings. These pressures manifest in detrimental practices that undermine research integrity, including "salami slicing" (fragmenting single studies into multiple minimal publications), p-hacking (manipulating data analysis to achieve ), and selective reporting that omits negative or inconclusive results. Journals, driven by their own incentives to maximize citations and impact factors, preferentially publish positive, surprising outcomes, creating a that discourages replication attempts—essential for confirming reliability—which are viewed as lacking novelty and thus rarely accepted. A 2025 survey reported that 62% of researchers attributed irreproducibility "always" or "very often" to publication pressures, linking this culture directly to rushed experiments, inadequate peer validation, and the broader reproducibility crisis observed across fields like and , where replication rates for high-profile studies have fallen below 50% in large-scale efforts. Quantitatively, the proliferation of papers under these incentives has correlated with rising retraction rates; for instance, flawed research stemming from haste or over-optimism contributes to thousands of annual retractions, distorting the scientific record and eroding . This dynamic not only skews toward "high-risk, high-reward" pursuits but also exacerbates burnout among academics, as evidenced by studies showing negative correlations between publication pressure and policy-relevant or fact-based orientations in fields like . While proponents argue the culture drives productivity—evident in the exponential growth of global outputs—the causal trade-offs include suppressed incremental advancements and a systemic undervaluation of open, reproducible workflows, prompting recent calls from institutions to decouple rewards from raw output metrics.

Reforms, Innovations, and Alternatives

Open Access Movements and Mandates

The (OA) movement emerged in the early 2000s as an advocacy effort to make scholarly literature freely available online without financial or legal barriers, motivated by rising subscription costs and restricted access to publicly funded research. The Budapest Open Access Initiative, convened on February 14, 2002, by the Open Society Institute, provided the first formal definition of OA, distinguishing between (green OA) and publishing in OA journals ( OA), and called for global implementation by removing access barriers while preserving . This was followed by the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing on June 20, 2003, which focused on biomedical research and urged immediate free online availability of peer-reviewed articles upon acceptance, emphasizing rights retention by authors for non-commercial distribution. The Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, issued on October 22, 2003, by the and other European institutions, expanded the scope to endorse online access to original documents with minimal restrictions on reuse, provided proper attribution. These declarations galvanized libraries, researchers, and funders, with organizations like advocating for systemic shifts away from subscription models toward sustainable OA infrastructures. OA mandates, which require or strongly encourage researchers to make outputs openly accessible, gained traction as enforcement mechanisms to realize these visions, often imposed by funding agencies and institutions. The Research Councils UK (RCUK) introduced a policy in 2005 requiring funded research to be deposited in repositories within six months of publication, evolving into a stricter 2012 mandate for immediate deposit where feasible. The U.S. (NIH) established its Public Access Policy in 2008, mandating submission of peer-reviewed manuscripts to within 12 months of publication for grants awarded after December 2007, aiming to accelerate dissemination of taxpayer-funded biomedical research. More ambitiously, , launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S—a consortium of research funders including the and —requires all peer-reviewed publications from funded projects after January 1, 2021, to be immediately OA under compliant licenses, rejecting hybrid subscription-OA models unless transformative agreements are in place. By 2023, over 400 institutional and funder mandates were tracked globally, predominantly favoring green OA via repositories like or institutional archives. Empirical assessments of these mandates reveal increased but mixed evidence on broader impacts, with causal effects often confounded by concurrent trends in digital dissemination. NIH's boosted open of affected articles by approximately 50 points, correlating with a 12-27% rise in citations from patents, suggesting enhanced to , though attribution to the mandate alone is debated due to pre-existing practices. Similarly, studies on European mandates under precursors indicate higher citation rates for OA articles—up to 18% in some fields—but attribute only modest gains to mandates after controlling for self-selection biases, where higher-impact work is more likely to go OA voluntarily. Critically, while access expands readership in developing regions, mandates have shifted financial burdens from subscriptions to article processing charges (APCs), averaging 2,000−2,000-3,000 per article in gold OA, potentially exacerbating inequalities for unfunded researchers without demonstrating proportional gains in scientific progress or replication rates. Overall, mandates enforce compliance through reporting and funding conditions, yet their net welfare effects remain empirically underdetermined, with little robust evidence of transformative acceleration in discovery beyond baseline digitization trends.

Preprint Servers and Accelerated Sharing

Preprint servers are digital repositories that enable researchers to publicly share draft manuscripts, known as , prior to formal and journal publication. These platforms facilitate rapid dissemination of preliminary findings, establishing timestamps for scientific priority and allowing early community feedback. The concept originated in physics, where informal preprint distribution via mail or fax predated digital servers, but formalized with the launch of on August 14, 1991, by physicist at to centralize electronic distribution of high-energy physics papers. arXiv, now operated by , has expanded to cover physics, , , quantitative , , and , hosting over 2.86 million submissions as of October 2025, with approximately 20,000 new papers added monthly. Discipline-specific servers followed, including for , launched in 2013 by and receiving over 2,000 submissions per month by 2019, and for health sciences, introduced in 2019. Other platforms like SSRN for social sciences and ChemRxiv for chemistry have further diversified access, with collective submissions across major biology and health servers surging during the , where preprints comprised up to 40% of early English-language research outputs and 32% of NIH-funded COVID-related papers. By enabling accelerated sharing, preprint servers address delays inherent in traditional peer-reviewed publishing, which can span months or years, particularly in fast-evolving fields. This model promotes without paywalls, fosters collaborative refinement through comments, and mitigates "scooping" risks by documenting discovery dates, as evidenced by arXiv's role in physics where preprints have long supplemented journal articles without undermining . During crises like , servers like and expedited global response by disseminating results weeks ahead of journal versions, informing policy and subsequent studies despite occasional errors in unvetted work. Many journals, including those from and , now explicitly permit preprint posting, integrating it into workflows without viewing it as prior publication. Benefits include enhanced visibility for early-career researchers, broader citation potential, and cost-free distribution, with preprints often accruing citations comparable to or exceeding final versions in fields like physics. However, drawbacks persist: absence of rigorous vetting can propagate flawed analyses or unsupported claims, as seen in some preprints later retracted or corrected, potentially misleading media or policymakers. Servers implement basic moderation, such as endorsement systems on to curb spam, but lack formal , raising integrity concerns; studies note higher retraction risks for premature releases, though empirical evidence shows most preprints align substantially with published iterations. Critics argue this democratizes access but amplifies low-quality outputs in overburdened fields, while proponents counter that community scrutiny often identifies issues faster than journal delays. Adoption has grown beyond physics, with biology and medicine seeing sustained increases post-2020, driven by funder mandates like NIH's 2023 policy recognizing s for grant evaluations. Integration with tools like overlay journals or AI-assisted screening hints at hybrid models, yet challenges remain in ensuring equitable access and countering predatory mimicry of legitimate servers. Overall, preprint servers have reshaped by prioritizing speed and openness, compelling traditional outlets to adapt amid that they enhance rather than erode scientific when used judiciously.

Integration of AI Tools and Automation

AI tools have been increasingly adopted in academic publishing workflows since the early 2020s, primarily to automate repetitive tasks such as manuscript screening, editing, and initial peer review assessments. Publishers like Elsevier and Taylor & Francis have integrated AI systems to expedite the peer review cycle by automating routine checks for formatting, completeness, and basic scientific validity, reducing processing times from weeks to days in some cases. These tools analyze submission metadata, suggest potential reviewers based on expertise matching, and flag inconsistencies, thereby addressing bottlenecks in high-volume journals where manual review can overwhelm editors. In plagiarism and content authenticity detection, AI-powered software such as and has evolved to identify not only copied text but also AI-generated content, employing algorithms trained on vast corpora to detect patterns indicative of large language models like GPT variants. By 2024, over 80% of major scholarly publishers reported using such detectors as standard pre-submission filters, with tools like Proofig AI extending scrutiny to image manipulation and in figures. However, these systems exhibit high false-positive rates, particularly for non-native English writing or specialized , necessitating human verification to avoid erroneous rejections. For manuscript preparation and literature synthesis, AI assistants like Paperpal and Writefull aid authors in generating abstracts, refining , and conducting automated reviews by retrieving relevant articles and performing keyword analysis. Integration into platforms such as and journal submission systems has accelerated knowledge dissemination, with preprint servers using AI to categorize and recommend papers, potentially increasing citation rates by improving discoverability. Despite efficiency gains—evidenced by a 2025 study showing AI-assisted reviews cutting workload by 30-50%—reliance on these tools risks perpetuating biases embedded in training data, such as underrepresentation of non-Western research, and generating "hallucinated" references or unsubstantiated claims that evade detection. Ethical guidelines from bodies like COPE emphasize mandatory disclosure of AI use and human oversight, as unchecked could undermine research integrity by amplifying errors or failing to address causal nuances in complex fields. In parallel with tool-focused deployments, early experiments have also appeared in which are treated as attributed contributors within academic metadata infrastructures. One documented example is the , an AI-based authorship entity created by the and associated with an ORCID iD () and a semantic specification deposited on Zenodo with a DOI. In these cases, the AI system is listed as an author alongside human collaborators in philosophical and meta-theoretical publications, while major publishers and ethics guidelines continue to state that AI tools should not be credited as authors. Such experiments remain rare and contested, but they illustrate how large language models and related systems began to move from purely invisible infrastructure toward explicitly modeled participants in scholarly workflows, raising new questions about attribution, responsibility, and the boundaries of . A 2025 review highlighted that while AI enhances scalability amid rising publication volumes, it exacerbates systemic pressures by enabling lower-quality submissions to proliferate, demanding robust validation protocols to preserve credibility. Ongoing developments include hybrid models where AI triages submissions for human experts, but from pilot programs indicates variable efficacy, with error rates up to 15% in bias-sensitive evaluations.

Recent Calls for Radical Overhaul

In October 2025, released a titled Publishing Futures: Working Together to Deliver Radical Change in Academic Publishing, advocating for systemic reforms to address escalating publication volumes, financial unsustainability, and inequities in access. The highlights a surge of 897,000 additional indexed articles from 2016 to 2022, attributing this to misaligned incentives that prioritize quantity over quality, with 64% of surveyed stakeholders noting the system's bias toward volume. It calls for reducing output through incentive reforms, such as redefining academic rewards to emphasize high-impact, diverse contributions rather than sheer numbers, and formally recognizing as a valued scholarly activity with associated and compensation. The report further urges collective action among funders, institutions, and publishers to transition toward equitable models, including support for in low- and middle-income countries and greater transparency in publisher costs to eliminate hybrid model inefficiencies. While the proposals emphasize to sustain the ecosystem, critics note potential conflicts given the publisher's stake in maintaining revenue streams amid pressures. Complementary to these, a 2025 editorial in Technology Networks echoed the "publish less, publish better" mantra, linking predatory practices to eroded trust and calling for stricter quality controls and incentive realignments to curb low-value output. Peer review has faced parallel scrutiny for overload and inefficacy, prompting radical proposals. In a July 2025 Cureus editorial, Enzo Emanuele and Piercarlo Minoretti argued that the system requires transformation into a professionalized model where reviewers are paid, trained, and certified, akin to sports referees, to counter declining participation—often requiring up to 35 invitations per two reviewers—and issues like AI-generated reviews in 10% of cases. They propose funding via 2-3% of article processing charges, enabling specialist input (e.g., statisticians) for rigorous evaluation, though implementation would demand publisher or funder buy-in amid debates over added costs. An August 2025 Nature analysis described as an "overloaded system" strained by paper avalanches, with some experts advocating extreme measures like phasing it out in favor of post-publication scrutiny or alternative validation to accelerate dissemination while relying on community vetting. Journals like are experimenting with streamlined models, and funders are piloting open review incentives, but evidence from studies (e.g., Hanson et al., 2024) underscores persistent delays and biases, fueling calls for evidence-based overhauls rather than incremental tweaks. These proposals reflect causal pressures from exponential submission growth outpacing reviewer capacity, though abolishing pre-publication review risks unfiltered errors without proven substitutes.

Disciplinary Variations

Natural and Physical Sciences

In natural and physical sciences, academic publishing centers on peer-reviewed journal articles disseminating empirical , experimental validations, and theoretical models derived from reproducible methods. These disciplines generate substantially higher publication volumes than social sciences or humanities, with journal articles comprising the dominant output format; for instance, between 2011 and 2019, per-author journal publications in STEM fields rose markedly while book outputs declined sharply. Articles typically feature concise formats of 5-15 pages, adhering to rigid structures prioritizing methods, results, and over extended narrative interpretation. Preprint servers facilitate accelerated knowledge exchange, originating in physics with 's launch in 1991, which by the outpaced traditional journals in speed for disseminating findings. This practice, enabling public access to unrefereed manuscripts, remains integral to physical sciences like physics and astronomy, where arXiv hosts submissions across quantitative and nonlinear sciences as well. Adoption has grown in natural sciences through servers like , though less ubiquitously than in physics, reflecting a cultural emphasis on timely verification over exclusive gatekeeping. Commercial publishers dominate the sector, with the top five—Elsevier, , Wiley, , and others—controlling an increasing of , , and (STM) articles, rising to over 50% by 2022 amid consolidation trends. processes in these fields rigorously evaluate technical validity, methodological rigor, and evidential support, often employing single- or double-anonymized systems where referees scrutinize and replicability before acceptance. High-impact outlets like and impose stringent selectivity, accepting fewer than 10% of submissions to prioritize transformative contributions. Publication practices underscore causal mechanisms in natural phenomena, with emphasis on quantitative metrics like citation rates that scale higher in these fields due to collaborative, data-intensive norms. Unlike social sciences, where interpretive debates prevail, natural and physical sciences publishing prioritizes and empirical falsification, though challenges like selective reporting persist across disciplines.

Social Sciences and Replication Concerns

The replication crisis in social sciences, particularly evident since the mid-2010s, has revealed that a substantial portion of published findings fail to reproduce under similar conditions, eroding confidence in the reliability of empirical claims. Large-scale replication efforts, such as the Open Science Collaboration project involving 100 psychological studies from top journals, found that only 36% of replications yielded statistically significant results, compared to 97% in the originals, with replicated effect sizes averaging half the magnitude of initial reports. This discrepancy arises partly from low statistical power in original studies—often below 50%—exacerbated by small sample sizes and flexible analytic choices that inflate Type I errors. Questionable research practices (QRPs), including selective reporting of dependent variables, p-hacking through repeated analyses until significance, and hypothesizing after results are known (), are widespread in social sciences, with surveys indicating that over 50% of researchers admit to engaging in at least one such practice and up to 96% reporting use across various QRPs. These practices correlate with the anomalously high rate of positive findings in journals, exceeding 90% for statistically significant results, far above what random error rates would predict. In , replication efforts lag behind but similarly uncover issues; for instance, a 2021 analysis of 18 studies replicated 61% at conventional significance levels, though broader databases highlight inconsistent reproducibility due to data opacity and model-dependent results. Publishing incentives amplify these concerns, as journals prioritize novel, statistically significant results over null or replication attempts, creating a file-drawer problem where non-replicable findings go unpublished while QRPs enable "success." This systemic bias toward positive outcomes, combined with underpowered designs common in resource-constrained experiments, perpetuates fragile knowledge; for example, high-profile effects like or certain priming manipulations have largely failed replication, prompting reevaluation of accumulated literature. Efforts to mitigate include preregistration and transparency mandates, which recent meta-analyses show can elevate replication rates to nearly 90% in compliant studies, yet adoption remains uneven due to entrenched norms. Overall, these issues underscore the need for methodological reforms to align publishing with verifiable causal evidence rather than exploratory patterns prone to .

Humanities and Monograph Focus

In the humanities, academic publishing prioritizes monographs—sustained, book-length treatments of specialized topics—over the shorter journal articles prevalent in the sciences, as these works allow for comprehensive interpretive arguments central to fields like , , and . Unlike STEM disciplines, where rapid dissemination via journals drives incremental findings, humanities values depth and synthesis, often drawing on archival sources or theoretical frameworks that exceed article constraints. This format aligns with the evaluative norms of humanities departments, where emphasizes originality and contextual engagement rather than empirical replicability. Monographs remain a cornerstone for career advancement, with many institutions requiring at least one peer-reviewed for tenure, viewing it as evidence of independent scholarly maturity. Department chairs across fields consistently uphold this standard, often prioritizing publications for their rigorous vetting processes, though digital alternatives are emerging to address . Evaluation metrics diverge from citation counts, focusing instead on book reviews, adoption in curricula, and external letters assessing intellectual contribution, which mitigates some quantitative pressures but introduces subjective judgments susceptible to interpersonal networks. Publishing monographs faces structural challenges, including protracted timelines—from submission to print spanning 18-24 months—and diminishing economic returns, with average under 500 copies due to niche audiences and shrinking budgets. presses, reliant on subsidies, have reduced output of specialized titles amid cuts, prompting a pivot toward hybrid open-access models funded by grants or institutional support. Gatekeeping in humanities publishing exhibits patterns of ideological conformity, with faculty and reviewers predominantly identifying as left-leaning—around 60% liberal or far-left in recent surveys—potentially disadvantaging heterodox perspectives. Analysis of ideological theses in books from major presses like reveals minimal representation of conservative viewpoints, comprising only 2% of relevant titles, reflecting broader institutional homogeneity that prioritizes aligned narratives over empirical diversity. This dynamic, compounded by prestige biases favoring elite institutions, underscores causal risks in selection processes where reviewer demographics influence acceptance rates for non-conforming work.

Assessment and Impact Measurement

Citation-Based Metrics

Citation-based metrics evaluate the influence of academic publications and researchers by quantifying the number of times works are cited by others, providing a proxy for scholarly impact within peer-reviewed . These metrics emerged in the mid-20th century as tools to rank journals and authors amid growing publication volumes, with early applications in selecting periodicals for indexing services like the Science Citation Index launched in 1964. They are computed using databases such as or , which track citations across millions of documents, but their validity depends on comprehensive coverage and accurate attribution. The journal impact factor (JIF), developed by in the 1950s and formalized in the 1970s for , measures a journal's average citation rate by dividing the number of citations in a given year to articles published in the prior two years by the number of citable items (typically research articles and s) from those years. For instance, a 2023 JIF for exceeded 50, reflecting high citation volumes in multidisciplinary sciences, while humanities journals often register below 1 due to longer review cycles and fewer citations overall. JIFs are influential in library subscriptions and tenure decisions but are journal-level aggregates, ill-suited for assessing individual articles or authors, as citation patterns vary by discipline—e.g., short-term spikes in biomedicine versus sustained but lower counts in mathematics. At the author or researcher level, the , introduced by physicist in 2005, defines an individual's h as the largest number where h publications have each received at least h citations, balancing productivity and impact without favoring outliers. A researcher with an h-index of 20, for example, has 20 papers cited at least 20 times each, with any excess citations on those or additional papers not altering the value. Variants like the g-index adjust for highly cited works, but the h-index dominates evaluations, correlating moderately with peer judgments in sciences yet showing field biases—e.g., lower values in social sciences due to smaller citation pools. Tools like automate h-index calculations, though discrepancies arise from database incompleteness. Despite utility, citation metrics suffer systemic limitations, including sensitivity to field norms, where yields higher counts than , leading to incomparable cross-disciplinary rankings. Self-citations inflate scores—up to 30% in some fields—and manipulations like citation cartels or "citation mills" (coordinated reciprocal citing via low-quality outlets) undermine integrity, with evidence of organized schemes boosting h-indices by 20-50% in affected cases as of 2025. Over-optimization for metrics encourages salami-slicing publications and discourages replication studies, which garner fewer citations, exacerbating reproducibility crises in fields like . Academic institutions' heavy reliance on these for funding and promotion, despite warnings from bodies like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA, 2012 onward), perpetuates gaming, as metrics cease measuring true impact once targeted. Empirical analyses show weak or negative correlations between high JIFs and article ratings by experts, highlighting that citations often reflect visibility or network effects rather than causal scholarly value.

Alternative Indicators of Influence

Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, encompass a range of non-traditional bibliometric indicators that capture online attention and engagement with scholarly outputs beyond formal citations, including mentions in , outlets, blogs, documents, and reference managers. These metrics emerged as a response to the limitations of citation counts, which often lag years behind publication and primarily reflect academic rather than broader societal influence. Introduced conceptually in a 2010-2011 manifesto by researchers like Jason Priem, altmetrics leverage data from platforms such as (now X), , , and to quantify rapid dissemination and discussion. Examples of altmetrics include the Attention Score, which aggregates weighted mentions across sources—such as 1 point for a mention versus 8 for a policy document citation—and tracks downloads or views on platforms like or publisher sites. In clinical and , studies have shown that articles with high altmetric scores often predict short-term citation bursts, with correlations observed as early as 6 months post-publication, though long-term scholarly impact remains more tied to traditional citations. For instance, a 2022 analysis of over 100,000 biomedical papers found that top altmetric performers garnered 10-20 times more immediate online attention, reflecting public or practitioner interest rather than peer-reviewed validation. Beyond , other quantitative indicators include download and view counts from repositories like SSRN or publisher databases, which provide proxies for accessibility and initial readership; a 2012 study reported that download rates from correlated modestly with eventual citations (r ≈ 0.3-0.5) but offered faster signals of potential influence. In applied fields, citations serve as evidence of technological translation, with academic papers cited in indicating practical ; for example, U.S. and Trademark Office data from 2000-2020 show that university-originated inventions account for about 15% of forward citations in high-impact . Policy citations, tracked via tools like Overton, measure governmental uptake, as seen in a analysis where papers influencing policy documents averaged 2-5 times higher non-academic citations than uncited peers. These alternatives aim to assess multifaceted influence, such as societal relevance in policy-driven research or in STEM, but face significant limitations including vulnerability to gaming (e.g., coordinated campaigns inflating scores) and poor correlation with substantive impact. A 2021 review highlighted data inconsistency across providers and the risk of equating attention with quality, noting that often amplify hype-driven topics over rigorous work. Similarly, download metrics overlook whether content is read or applied, while patent data biases toward patentable fields like , underrepresenting or basic . suggests altmetrics explain only 10-20% variance in broader societal outcomes, underscoring their role as supplements rather than replacements for .

Limitations of Current Evaluation Systems

Current evaluation systems in academic publishing, primarily peer review and quantitative metrics such as citation counts, impact factors, and the , face significant limitations in ensuring research quality and reliability. often fails to detect fundamental flaws in scientific rigor, including improper statistical analyses, missing controls, and inadequate methodology, as evidenced by its inability to prevent the publication of irreproducible results despite widespread scrutiny. This process is prone to biases, including among reviewers who favor familiar paradigms or incentivized consensus, which can suppress novel or dissenting work. Additionally, the time-intensive nature of contributes to substantial delays, with some journals requiring six months to over a year for decisions, exacerbating the "publish or perish" pressure that prioritizes speed and volume over depth. Quantitative metrics exacerbate these issues by rewarding superficial indicators of impact rather than substantive contributions. Citation-based measures like the do not differentiate between original and derivative literature reviews, allowing manipulation through excessive publication of low-impact papers to inflate scores. Such metrics correlate weakly or even negatively with independent assessments of research quality, as they overlook factors like methodological soundness and fail to account for field-specific citation norms, disadvantaging disciplines with lower citation rates. Impact factors, tied to journal prestige, similarly incentivize salami-slicing of results into multiple papers and citation cartels, where groups mutually cite to boost metrics, distorting evaluations of individual merit. A core systemic flaw is the reinforcement of publication bias toward statistically significant or positive findings, which undermines reproducibility; meta-analyses indicate that non-significant results are underrepresented, contributing to replication failure rates exceeding 50% in fields like psychology and economics. Evaluation systems rarely reward replication studies or null results, perpetuating a cycle where false positives accumulate in the literature and hinder cumulative scientific progress. These limitations collectively prioritize quantifiable outputs over verifiable truth, fostering an environment where career advancement depends more on gaming the system than on robust evidence, as critiqued in analyses of academic incentive structures. Reforms, such as open peer review or weighted assessments incorporating reproducibility checks, have been proposed but remain inconsistently adopted due to entrenched institutional reliance on flawed proxies.

References

  1. https://guides.library.jhu.edu/scholarly_publishing/explained
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5344687/
  3. https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/scholarlypublishing
  4. https://library.cityu.edu/academicpublishing
  5. https://libguides.uthsc.edu/metrics
  6. https://nps.edu/web/gwc/academic-publishing
  7. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-025-10042-8
  8. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/16/academic-journal-publishers-universities-price-subscriptions
  9. https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/research-support/copyright-guidance/copyright-academic-research-and-publication/scholarly-publishing-traditional-and-open-access
  10. https://council.science/blog/more-is-not-better-the-developing-crisis-of-scientific-publishing/
  11. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/context/faculty_publications/article/3714/viewcontent/Knowledge_Commons_in_Ancient_Greece.pdf
  12. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037d-e814-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  13. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1389&context=iatul
  14. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2661
  15. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/05/350-years-of-scientific-publication-from-the-journal-des-scavans-and-philosophical-transactions-to-scielo/
  16. https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/
  17. https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/history-philosophical-transactions/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10024814/
  19. https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/19/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4528406/
  21. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/information-culture/the-mostly-true-origins-of-the-scientific-journal/
  22. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-04/EndlessFrontier75th_w.pdf
  23. https://serials.uksg.org/articles/729/files/submission/proof/729-1-729-1-10-20150210.pdf
  24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0073275321999901
  25. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/19148/1/untanglingacpub.pdf
  26. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/
  27. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
  28. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-second-digital-transformation-of-scholarly-publishing/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4170977/
  30. https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2024/02/journals-open-access-reduce-inequity
  31. https://www.symplectic.co.uk/open-access-timeline/
  32. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/01/29/the-second-digital-transformation/
  33. https://blog.mdpi.com/2023/07/07/history-of-open-access/
  34. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/10/21/the-evolution-of-open-access-a-brief-history/
  35. https://libguides.usc.edu.au/HERDC-ERA/publication-categories
  36. https://www.proof-reading-service.com/blogs/academic-publishing/what-types-of-articles-are-published-in-academic-and-scientific-journals
  37. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy-and-by-scientific-field
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_different_types_of_publication_in_academia
  39. https://www.proof-reading-service.com/blogs/academic-publishing/workflow-of-academic-and-scientific-journal-publishing
  40. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/making-your-submission/
  41. https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/peer-review-process
  42. https://plos.org/resource/understanding-the-publishing-process/
  43. https://www.ijcasereportsandimages.com/editorial-workflow.php
  44. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/the-peer-review-process.html
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590238522005884
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5050543/
  47. https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/phases-academic-journal-production-why-every-editor-needs-to-know/
  48. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11215012/
  50. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/
  51. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html
  52. https://www.papertrue.com/blog/peer-review-introduction/
  53. https://www.aje.com/arc/types-of-peer-review
  54. https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/epi.2019.jul.07
  55. https://www.evscienceconsultant.com/blog/acceptance-rates-of-manuscripts-by-peer-reviewed-journals
  56. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ecd8/cd215c7e07a4d71a7c1fb9f637ea17012078.pdf
  57. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-be-true-is-cited-more
  58. https://www.enago.com/academy/peer-review-failures-retraction-crisis/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157723000482
  60. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.681
  61. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202005/political-biases-in-academia
  62. https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/ideological-gatekeeping-future-peer-review/
  63. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/
  64. https://www.elsevier.support/publishing/answer/author-guide-to-the-publication-process
  65. https://utppublishing.com/publish-with-us/journals/editing-and-production
  66. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process
  67. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/information-for-authors/during-peer-review-production
  68. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/10/30/quantifying-consolidation-in-the-scholarly-journals-market/
  69. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/4/4/778/118070/The-oligopoly-s-shift-to-open-access-How-the-big
  70. https://wordsrated.com/academic-publishers-statistics/
  71. https://www.promarket.org/2024/04/24/high-prices-and-market-power-of-academic-publishing-reduce-article-citations/
  72. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hidden-fortune-academic-publishers-closer-look-industrys-kannan-cmxac
  73. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-academic-publishing-rort/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4465327/
  75. https://www.ce-strategy.com/the-brief/big-five/
  76. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2024-ar-sections/relx-2024-market-segments.pdf
  77. https://www.science.org/content/article/pay-publish-model-open-access-pricing-scientists
  78. https://www.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/oa-report-delivering-highest-usage-and-impact/27440804
  79. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.16551
  80. https://thepublicationplan.com/2024/10/15/open-access-loses-market-share-for-the-first-time-in-years-will-it-bounce-back/
  81. https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-open-access-charges-price-increases-back-on-trend
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8276192/
  83. https://macrolingo.com/justification-for-article-processing-charges-apcs/
  84. https://universityopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/What-are-the-costs-in-journal-publishing.pdf
  85. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-costs-of-publishing-monographs/
  86. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/relx-2024-annual-report.pdf
  87. https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-world-2025-2-elsevier-parent-company-reports-10-rise-in-profit-to-3-2bn/
  88. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31605/what-are-the-profit-margins-of-academic-publishers
  89. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Public-Research-and-Publisher-Profits.docx.pdf
  90. https://theconversation.com/academic-publishing-is-a-multibillion-dollar-industry-its-not-always-good-for-science-250056
  91. https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2024/04/29/the-state-of-academic-publishing-in-3-graphs-5-trends-and-4-thoughts/
  92. https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-library-spending-and-the-serials-crisis
  93. https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/learning-from-the-past-periodicals-price-survey-2025
  94. https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-total-value-of-scholarly-journals-market
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7237319/
  96. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1374
  97. https://www.ismpp-newsletter.com/2025/09/09/predatory-publishing/
  98. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/greeceatlse/2024/12/10/the-rise-of-predatory-publishing/
  99. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.631
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9782588/
  101. https://beallslist.net/
  102. https://retractionwatch.com/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1420798/
  104. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/34/Supplement_3/ckae144.678/7844774
  105. https://www.aapsnewsmagazine.org/aapsnewsmagazine/articles/new-page3/feb25/meetings-feb25?
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871751/
  107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2531987
  108. https://www.medlink.com/news/when-peer-review-goes-wrong
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772963X25002200
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11781634/
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972307571X
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10294629/
  113. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
  114. https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoliticization-of-higher-ed/
  115. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty
  116. https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-survey-only-20-university-faculty-say-conservative-would-fit-well-their-department
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394848042_The_Gatekeepers_of_Academia_Investigating_Bias_in_Journal_Publication_Across_Topics_Author_Backgrounds_and_Institutions
  118. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9477.12229
  119. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-24022-005
  120. https://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/
  121. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/social-science-political-disparities-self-selection/
  122. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291124000147
  124. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04253-w
  125. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/reproducibility-crisis-or-not
  126. https://phys.org/news/2024-11-survey-highlights-publish-perish-culture.html
  127. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2024/10/exploring-the-publish-or-perish-mentality-and-its-impact-on-research-paper-retractions/
  128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228279658_Intended_and_Unintended_Consequences_of_a_Publish-or-Perish_Culture_A_Worldwide_Survey
  129. https://news.iu.edu/college/live/news/45216-iu-researchers-co-author-study-challenging-publish
  130. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/
  131. https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm
  132. https://sparcopen.org/
  133. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/103/5/954/97689/The-Impact-of-Open-Access-Mandates-on-Invention
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223018175
  135. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-024-01796-4
  136. https://info.arxiv.org/about/index.html
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8335983/
  138. https://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions
  139. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201909/preprints.cfm
  140. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188771v1.full-text
  141. https://journals.biologists.com/bio/article/14/6/bio062111/368433/Staying-ahead-of-the-curve-a-decade-of-preprints
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10452616/
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046348/
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5999550/
  145. https://blog.cabells.com/2024/04/03/pros-cons-and-what-you-should-know-about-medical-research-preprints/
  146. https://www.cureusjournals.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-preprints-in-academic-publishing
  147. https://bmjmedicine.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000309
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/nihpreprints/
  149. https://ribbonfish.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AI-in-Academic-Publishing-Whitepaper-Ribbonfish-2025-2-1.pdf
  150. https://blog.scienceopen.com/2025/08/how-ai-is-transforming-peer-review/
  151. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394713508_A_review_on_integration_of_artificial_intelligence_in_academic_publishing_Current_state_prospects_and_implications
  152. https://www.proofig.com/
  153. https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/emerging-ai-dilemmas-scholarly-publishing
  154. https://paperpal.com/
  155. https://ijlsit.org/archive/volume/10/issue/1/article/3139/pdf
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11858604/
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838153/
  158. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6030-5730
  159. https://zenodo.org/records/15732480
  160. https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2509.14189
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11224801/
  162. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/68ef9df9a6c3702e57eae12a/Cambridge-University-Press-Publishing-futures.pdf
  163. https://www.cambridge.org/gb/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/radical-reform-needed
  164. https://www.technologynetworks.com/biopharma/articles/publish-less-publish-better-scientists-call-for-predatory-publishing-practices-to-stop-404950
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12341012/
  166. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02457-2
  167. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263410
  168. https://ease.org.uk/2022/06/academic-writing-publishing-is-vastly-different-in-stem-vs-humanities/
  169. https://open-access.network/en/information/publishing/preprints
  170. https://www.nature.com/npjscilearn/editorial-policies/peer-review
  171. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-academic-journals-like-Nature-and-Science-and-other-scientific-journals
  172. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5107
  173. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/4/2/394/114876/Field-level-differences-in-paper-and-author
  174. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716
  175. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/files/7385883/RPP_SCIENCE_2015.pdf
  176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407624002136
  177. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
  178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766123000241
  179. https://replicationindex.com/2021/02/02/prevalenceqrpsocpsy/
  180. https://blog.repec.org/2020/08/04/a-replication-database-for-economics-and-social-sciences-the-replicationwiki/
  181. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804324001642
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10241466/
  183. https://www.science.org/content/article/preregistering-transparency-and-large-samples-boost-psychology-studies-replication-rate
  184. https://libguides.memphis.edu/scholcomm/academic/monographs
  185. https://openbooks.fchi.emory.edu/for-authors/monographs.html
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9946702/
  187. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235286907_The_role_and_future_of_the_monograph_in_Arts_Humanities_research
  188. https://btaa.org/docs/default-source/reports/scholarlycommunicationssummitreport_dec03f6a0.pdf?sfvrsn=2a790545_2
  189. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750158.2021.1943771
  190. https://www.library.upenn.edu/news/challenges-and-changes
  191. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-ed-gamma/2024/08/30/trade-ification-death-monograph
  192. https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/2012-issues/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education
  193. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/20/study-suggests-top-humanities-journals-favor-research-elite-institutions
  194. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202114
  195. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4150161/
  196. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/essays/history-of-journal-impact-factor/
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10771139/
  198. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/researchimpact/hindex
  199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9382220/
  200. https://arxiv.org/html/2504.20081
  201. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-88709-7
  202. https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4470104/
  204. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000868
  205. https://www.researchtrends.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=researchtrends
  206. https://www.altmetric.com/about-us/what-are-altmetrics/
  207. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9199871/
  208. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12381
  209. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169721810020095
  210. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000439
  211. https://hsl.osu.edu/news/altmetrics-explained-beyond-citations-in-research-impact
  212. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8253863/
  213. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/1/2/792/96132/Can-altmetrics-reflect-societal-impact
  214. https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/peer-review-the-limitations-and-the-progress-of-science/
  215. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2341287923001333
  216. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11294107/
  217. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/research-metrics-and-analytics/articles/10.3389/frma.2024.1385080/full
  218. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11563668/
  219. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368122001248
  220. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.240688
  221. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/05390184231151610
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.