Search

This study analyses the coverage of seven free‐access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions—non‐subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%–46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%–11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pay to publish and open access have been studied extensively, but less so in disciplines such as philosophy and ethics. This study examines the habits and perceptions of researchers from these two fields in Spain. The study draws on data from a survey (completed by 201 out of 541 researchers), a public debate with 26 researchers, and 14 in‐depth interviews. Our results offer some interesting insights into the criteria researchers apply when selecting publishers and journals, notably the value they place on the absence of publication fees. However, habits differ for publishing an article or a book, since payment to publish books is more widespread. The study finds contrasting views on the market for publishing books and journals: some respondents perceived what they consider to be the commercialisation of publishing in academic journals, while others provide arguments to support the Spanish book industry. Sceptical views were also voiced on pay to publish as a funding model. Finally, the study finds broad agreement among the researchers surveyed that publicly funded research should be free to read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometric mapping and visualization techniques represent one of the main pillars in the field of scientometrics. Traditionally, the main methodologies employed for representing data are multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis, or correspondence analysis. In this paper we aim to present a visualization methodology known as biplot analysis for representing bibliometric and science and technology indicators. A biplot is a graphical representation of multivariate data, where the elements of a data matrix are represented according to dots and vectors associated with the rows and columns of the matrix. In this paper, we explore the possibilities of applying biplot analysis in the research policy area. More specifically, we first describe and introduce the reader to this methodology and secondly, we analyze its strengths and weaknesses through 3 different case studies: countries, universities, and scientific fields. For this, we use a biplot analysis known as JK-biplot. Finally, we compare the biplot representation with other multivariate analysis techniques. We conclude that biplot analysis could be a useful technique in scientometrics when studying multivariate data, as well as an easy-to-read tool for research decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented that relates to the fate of the manuscripts submitted by the authors which has been rejected by the publishers for publications.