A List of Academic Publishers and their Scholarly Journals: A Webscraping Approach

Andreas Pacher1,2

1TU Wien Bibliothek (Vienna, Austria)

2Vienna School of International Studies (Vienna, Austria)

[email protected]

Abstract. Meta-scientific surveys at the publisher- and journal-level cannot attain comprehensiveness if they omit large and middle-sized publishers. To hedge against this risk of biased omissions, one would need an exhaustive list of major scientific presses and their journals. Such an inclusive catalogue, however, does not exist yet. This paper explores whether webscraping multiple heterogeneous research-related platforms could fill this gap. In a first step, the project draws from the content coverages of Scopus, Publons, DOAJ and SherpaRomeo to extract a preliminary list of publishers that supposedly possess at least 30 journals. In a second step, the project scrapes each of the publisher’s website to fetch their respective journal portfolios. The outcome is a list of 137 publishers comprising 25.816 journals. Many of the publishers, especially those that operate outside the U.S. and Western Europe, would have been overlooked if one had drawn from merely one or two sources. The catalogue can thus be deemed comprehensive, inclusive and diverse. Despite a few limitations (e.g., the non-uniform distribution of the data, or the difficulty of disambiguating publisher names and their imprints), the dataset can serve as a useful basis for large-scale scientometrics analyses investigating the landscape of academic publishers and scholarly journals.

Keywords: Scientometrics, bibliometrics, webscraping, publishers, journals.

Introduction

Imagine a research team planning to conduct a survey about the landscape of scholarly journals. Perhaps they want to find out how academic publishers enact policies related to peer review (Besançon et al. 2020; Hamilton et al. 2020) or open access (Laakso 2014; Laakso et al. 2011), or maybe they are interested in examining how scientific journals foster diversity (Metz et al. 2016) or support early career researchers (O’Brien et al. 2019). Whatever the specific aim, an exhaustive examination first necessitates a reasonable sample, possibly a catalogue of all major publishers and their journals. One might spontaneously think of a dozen major presses, and find a further dozen with appropriate search queries, but such an unsystematic approach cannot but entail unintended omissions (Tennant 2020). An authoritative list of large and mid-sized scientific presses seems indispensable for a systematic meta-scientific research. It turns out, however, that there is no such comprehensive, publicly accessible list of scholarly journal publishers. While there are indeed large databases of scientific outlets, they usually do not aim at comprehensiveness. As a result, their samples of publishers and their journal counts diverge significantly. Web of Science, for instance, is more exclusive than Scopus which, however, is not promiscuous neither (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016); like other databases, it instead proclaims a set of criteria that are to be fulfilled before a publisher can have its journals indexed, leading to potentially large-scale omissions.1 Smaller catalogues follow their specific rationales and thus do not intend to achieve an all-inclusive overview of the landscape of scientific publishing. The lists at the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), for instance, exclusively record journals and publishers that fulfil conditions pertaining to open access policies. The possibly most comprehensive dataset, the one crawled by Google Scholar, may have harvested an impressive directory of publisher-level and journal-level data, but it is not available openly, thereby remaining invisible to the public (Harzing 2014). Other options do not offer viable alternatives either; Sci-Hub (Himmelstein et al. 2018), a kind of ‘Black Open Access’ website (Björk 2017), does not transparently disclose its coverage source, and only comprises articles with a digital object identifier (DOI) – but not all publishers necessarily use DOIs. CrossRef faces the same issue regarding DOIs, and adds to the difficulty by not listing ‘publishers’, but rather ‘members’ which may or may not overlap with the legal entity of a publisher. – Thus, in searching for a list of the largest academic publishers by journal count, one will only encounter a heterogeneous and incomplete blend of fragmentary numbers. An authoritative list, however, could be helpful in many ways. It would aid in achieving robust analyses regarding various aspects of scholarly publishing, such as the prices of Article Processing Charges (APCs) (Asai 2020; Schönfelder 2019); on peer review practices (Tomkins et al. 2017); on journals’ social media presence (Zheng et al. 2019); on their profit- orientation (Beverungen et al. 2012); on their open access and pre-print policies (Sarabipour et al. 2019); on ‘editormetrics’ (Mendonça et al. 2018); on community engagement through paper awards (Lincoln et al. 2012) or podcasts (Quintana and Heathers 2021); and so forth. Without a near-complete catalogue of publishers and journals, any researcher risks omitting some residing in their blind spot. A scientist who usually covers STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) disciplines may overlook, for example, the publisher Philosophy Documentation Center which possesses 238 journals; a social scientist may not know of the Austin Publishing Group despite its portfolio size of 202 journals; and a Western scientist may easily miss the Chinese company Hans Publishers (with 136 journals) or the Indonesian press of Universitas Gadjah Mada (with 109 journals). Without a list aiming comprehensively at capturing the largest academic publishers by the number of scholarly journals they publish, any research on the landscape of scientific publishing therefore exposes itself to biased omissions. To fill this gap, a webscraping approach could aid in generating a list of major academic publishers as well as their journals. Due to coverage biases inherent to every platform, this approach should webscrape not just a single, but rather multiple research-related sources. The present project does so in two steps. It first fetches data from four large platforms so as to obtain a list of publishers that have at least 30 scholarly journals in their portfolio. As a second step, it accesses each of these publishers’ websites to scrape their journal data. The overall aim is thus to generate a catalogue of major academic publishers and their scholarly journals, a list more comprehensive and inclusive than any of the existing ones. The following describes the methodical approach in greater detail. The chapter afterwards presents the results comprising 137 academic publishers and 25.816 journals. The discussion section then outlines various flaws and limitations, including on the data quality due to its non-uniform data distribution, unreliable numbers, or the difficulty of disambiguating imprints. The paper concludes with possible guidances on how the limitations nevertheless point towards future research paths so as to reach the wider goal of a complete overview of academic publishers and their scholarly journals that could serve as a starting point for broad meta-scientific investigations.

Methods

To generate a comprehensive list of academic publishers and their scholarly journals, two separate methodical steps are necessary. The first one comprises data collection on the

1 To name but one example, the Italian publisher Fabrizio Serra Editore boasts 155 scholarly journals in its portfolio, but none of them are indexed in Scopus. publisher-level. Based on the preliminary results of that first step, the second one proceeds with gathering journal-level data. The following will describe the respective approach in sequence. The data and the codes are available in a GitHub repository (Pacher 2021).

Publisher-Level Data

Data Sample and Data Collection

One single data source seems insufficient when one seeks to attain a complete overview over the landscape of scholarly publications; for each source inheres its own biases and indexing criteria. Instead, one should draw from multiple platforms. While they may be heterogenous in their character and scope, they may, taken together, provide a more complete menu of publishers than if one merely used a single database. The present project uses four data samples, each of which comprises not only a large list of academic publishers, but also (at least implicitly) the number of journals assigned to them. The first one is Scopus, a large-scale database of scientific publications that provides an openly available source title list. Using the most recent version from October 2020 comprising 40.804 journals in total (Scopus 2021), the names of the publishers was extracted and their frequency (i.e., journal count) counted. The second data sample, Publons, is a platform designed to document and verify peer reviews. It allows anyone to register a referee report conducted for any journal from any publisher (Van Noorden n.d.). It thus follows a ‘bottom-up’ approach which potentially covers even publishers that tend to be invisibilized in other indexing services. Using webscraping with R’s rvest library (Wickham and RStudio 2020), this project accessed Publons’ directory of publishers (‘All publishers’ n.d.) and scraped all journals that had at least 1.000 verified reviews. The third source is DOAJ, the directory of open access journals, or a platform that explicitly aims at a global coverage of scholarly publishers and journals. To fetch the relevant information, this project used the JSON-formatted journal metadata from DOAJ’s public data dump (Directory of Open Access Journals 2021). The final source of publishers used was Sherpa Romeo, a website which aggregates open access archiving policies from a growing number of more than 4.500 publishers. Their publisher list (Publons 2021) was scraped with R. All data were collected on 11. December 2020.

Data Analysis

Having collected four datasets comprising publisher names and their number of journals according to each respective platform, this project joined these datasets together, harmonized some publisher names, and extracted the highest journal count per publisher. For example, if the publisher Copernicus Publications has 41 journals in Scopus, 47 in Publons, 40 in DOAJ, and 71 in Sherpa Romeo, that publisher is assigned a journal count of 71. Having garnered these data, the list was sorted by the number of journals in a descending order. Only those publishers were kept whose maximum count amounted to at least 30.

Preliminary Publisher-Level Results

The preliminary result extracted 178 publishers that supposedly publish at least 30 journals (see the selection at Table 1; the full list is available as the ‘preliminary’ list at the GitHub repository). Many of the publishers listed are not indexed in all four data sample platforms, meaning that they would have been overlooked if this project merely drew from one or two sources.

Table 1. A preliminary, not-yet validated and not-yet refined list of the major academic publishers by the highest journal count according to Scopus, Publons, DOAJ or Sherpa Romeo.

Jnl Jml Rank Publisher Rank Publisher Count Count 1 Taylor & Francis 3964 [ … ] 2 Elsevier 3920 165 Univ Nacional Autonoma de Mexico 32 3 Springer Nature 3411 166 European Geosciences Union 31 4 Springer 2975 167 Gerflint 31 5 Wiley 2352 168 Global Science Books 31 6 Peter Lang 1410 169 John Libbey Eurotext 31 7 SAGE 1199 170 L'Expansion Scientifique Francaise 31 8 De Gruyter 901 171 Pergamon 31 9 IEEE 863 172 Science Publications 31 10 Wolters Kluwer Health 566 173 Sweet and Maxwell 31 11 Hindawi 509 174 Carl Hanser Verlag 30 12 Emerald 480 175 Juta Law 30 13 Brill 459 176 Libbey 30 14 Cambridge Univ Press 456 177 Presses Universitaires de France 30 15 Oxford Univ Press 443 178 Scientific Publishers 30

However, some issues of data quality are obviously present, requiring a thorough refinement of the data. Most conspicuous is the presence of both Springer (the overarching company) and Springer Nature (the imprint), whereby the number of journals for Springer Nature seems highly inflated (it actually only exhibits 156 journals under that imprint’s label, and not 3.411). There are, in addition, highly skewed numbers; for instance, Peter Lang is listed with supposedly 1.410 journals, even though the real number resides at 23; or IEEE is enumerated with 863 journals, albeit it actually possesses just 257; on the other hand, the publisher Science and Education Publishing is assigned the count of 76 journals, but in reality has 125, meaning that almost 50 journals were omitted. After manual refinement of the 178 presses identified various imprints, duplications, discontinued presses and non-publishers (e.g., Egyptian Knowledge Bank or SciELO). A total of 41 publishers was thus removed so that the project remains with a preliminary list of 137 academic publishers. While the overview acquired thus far may indeed be useful for comprehensive studies in meta-scientific investigations, this only applies to cases where the precise journal counts are not essential. A more accurate depiction requires a further methodical step that takes a closer look at journal-level data.

Journal-Level Data Based on the preliminary list that resulted from the publisher-level data collection, the next step was to visit each listed publisher’s website to find the respective portfolio of journals. In order to webscrape each publisher’s respective journal list, the so-called CSS2 selectors that harbor the names and the links of the journals are required; for instance, if a (fictitious) publisher website lists a journal name and journal link in the HTML code as Journal of International Aid, then the CSS selector for that could be a.url_journal. Oftentimes, it suffices to collect the CSS selector once so as to scrape hundreds of journal names of the same publisher due to the structured presentation of websites. The manual collection of these CSS selectors for each of the 137 publishers was undertaken in January 2021.

2 Cascading Style Sheets, a computer language used for layouting and structuring websites (usually in conjunction with HTML, or Hypertext Markup Language). The respective publisher websites were then scraped in the final day of January 2021 and the first days of February 2021. This procedure fetched data about journal names and journal URLs, along with the publisher and the date of scraping.3

Results

The outcome of the data-collection resulted in a catalogue of 137 academic publishers and 25.816 journals.4 With this list, it is now possible to validate the number of outlets of each press and order the publishers by journal counts. While the top ones resemble the prominent ‘oligopoly’ of academic publishing (Larivière et al. 2015), many of the middle-ranging ones may offer surprisingly unknown or only faintly familiar names to researchers whose usual range is confined to a specific discipline or to a specific region. The top 50, ordered by journal count, is visible in Table 2.

Table 2. The final list of the 50 largest academic publishers ordered by their journal counts.

Journal Journal Rank Publisher Rank Publisher Count Count 1 Springer 3692 26 Nauka 162 2 Taylor & Francis 2909 27 Springer Nature 156 3 Elsevier 2467 28 Fabrizio Serra 155 4 Wiley 1646 29 JSciMedCentral 147 5 SAGE 1310 30 Hans Publishers 136 6 De Gruyter 1100 31 Intellect Books 125 7 OMICS 742 32 Science and Education Publishing 125 8 Oxford University Press 483 33 Academic Journals 120 9 Inderscience 470 34 Pleiades 119 10 Cambridge University Press 414 35 Science Domain International 111 11 Medknow 399 36 KeAi 110 12 Emerald 375 37 Universitas Gadjah Mada 109 13 Wolters Kluwer 351 38 Karger 107 14 BioMedCentral 316 39 IOP 98 15 MDPI 309 40 Mary Ann Liebert 98 16 Brill 250 41 PAGEPress 98 17 SCIRP 247 42 John Hopkins University Press 97 18 Philosophy Documentation Center 238 43 Frontiers 96 19 IGI Global Publishing 231 44 IOS Press 94 20 Thieme 230 45 Medcrave 93 21 Hindawi 227 46 APA 91 22 IEEE 209 47 Dovepress 91 23 Austin Publishing Group 202 48 John Benjamins 89 24 World Scientific 188 49 Ubiquity Press 89 25 iMedPub 165 50 University of Chicago Press 85

Discussion

Scraping multiple databases of scientific publishers offers an effective way towards a comprehensive overview of the landscape of academic publishing. The present project utilized data from Scopus, Publons, DOAJ and Sherpa Romeo to automatically enumerate a

3 Due to some errors (e.g., outdated security certificates of the respective host server) or due to improperly structured websites, 16 journal counts had to be collected manually. 4 Of these, 890 journals pertained to the 16 publishers whose journal counts were gathered manually. These 890 journals are missing from the dataset at GitHub. list of major academic publishers and their scholarly journals as complete as possible. It first gathered a list of publishers that allegedly published at least 30 journals, before validating each publisher’s journal count that resulted in a catalogue of 137 publishers and their 25.816 scholarly periodicals. Many of these publishers, especially in the mid- and smaller range, would have been omitted if one had drawn only from a subset of the databases. This is especially pertinent to those that are either located in the Global South (Collyer 2018; Mills and Inouye 2020; Okune et al. 2018) or that publish articles in languages other than English (“LOTE”) (Vera-Baceta et al. 2019). Many of these are not indexed in any of the major scientific databases, and some of them do not issue DOIs for various possible reasons, making it easy to overlook them in conventional searches. Examples include the Iranian press of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (with 56 journals), the Chinese ones of KeAi (110 journals) and Baishideng (47 journals), the major Indonesian players like the presses of Universitas Gadjah Mada (109 journals), Universitas Diponegoro (79 journals) and Universitas Negeri Semarang (57 journals), Eastern European publishers like the Nekladatelske Stredisko Clsje Purkyne (44 journals), or Latin American academic entities belonging to the Universidade de Brasília (80 journals), the Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia (69 journals), or to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (69 journals as well). The fact that the present project did not omit them indicates that the catalogue gathered here is less susceptible to systemically biased omissions than if one had used merely one or two sources. The list generated by this project thus offers a gateway towards large-scale analyses regarding macro-scale engagements, actions and policies of publishers and journals. May they relate to open access aspects, to the conduct of peer review, to article processing charges, to the availability of metadata or to editorial boards – whatever the use case, a webscraping approach that gathers meta-scientific information seems to offer a viable path for unbiased and inclusive samples. And it is on the basis of these samples that one can thoroughly investigate existing research cultures in all their diversity. However, there are various weaknesses and limitations to be discussed. First and foremost, while the upper ‘cloud’ of the dataset may accurately depict the league of the largest academic publishers, the mid- and lower ranges may be more susceptible to errors and omissions. The dataset identified 39 publishers that allegedly publish a number of journals between 30 and 50, but it is possible that the real number of publishers in that spectrum is much higher. In other words, the dataset is most likely an imbalanced one due to the non- uniform distribution of the underlying data (Kotsiantis et al. 2006). That is, there is a high probability of the largest publishers to occur in any of the four samples, but the smaller the publisher, the less likely it is that one identifies them through webscraping the four sources (a problem of undersampling). After all, the use of multiple platforms does not dispense with the necessity to be aware of inherent biases; it is possible that there are still enough publishers that have not made it into either of the four data samples used for this project. Such biases could be mitigated by drawing from more and more sources. CORE (Makhija et al. 2018), OpenAIRE Explore (Alexiou et al. 2016), the Directory of Free Arab Journals (DFAJ) (2021), SciELO (Packer 2009), or African Journals OnLine (AJOL) (2021) may serve as likely candidates, though one would first need to ensure that one can indeed obtain structured data from them. Other data difficulties remain. The difficulty of disambiguating publisher names and their imprints was already mentioned with reference to Springer and Springer Nature. A related issue arises when the samples used mention aggregators or information retrieval platforms erroneously as publishers; this is the case with SciELO, for example, or with the Egyptian Knowledge Base. A further limitation lies in the fact that some of the journals that are counted may be discontinued or inactive (Cortegiani et al. 2020). The next step of such a project should thus necessarily entail a closer and possibly manual assessment of each publisher’s precise journal count. Once these limitations are addressed, the webscraping approach outlined here may fill a gap in the meta-scientific literature, especially with regards to exhaustive surveys of university presses, scholarly publishers and scientific journals. Without a reliably comprehensive list, scientometric examinations would risk an incomplete coverage of the diverse landscape of academic publishing. The most likely journals and publishers that are invisibilized are the ones that are underrepresented anyway. With additional data refinements and even more encompassing, alternative sources, the list may finally attain a satisfying degree of saturation and accuracy. Once one can be certain that there is a complete and inclusive catalogue of academic publishers and scholarly journals from all around the world without any blind spots, this cannot but benefit the whole science of science.

References

African Journals Online. (2021). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajol. Accessed 19 January 2021 Alexiou, G., Vahdati, S., Lange, C., Papastefanatos, G., & Lohmann, S. (2016). OpenAIRE LOD Services: Scholarly Communication Data as Linked Data. In A. González-Beltrán, F. Osborne, & S. Peroni (Eds.), Semantics, Analytics, Visualization. Enhancing Scholarly Data (pp. 45–50). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 53637-8_6 Asai, S. (2020). Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals. Scientometrics, 123(2), 1037–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J. P., & Cooper, M. (2020). Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z Beverungen, A., Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2012). The poverty of journal publishing. Organization, 19(6), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448858 Björk, B.-C. (2017). Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1096 Collyer, F. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020 Cortegiani, A., Ippolito, M., Ingoglia, G., Manca, A., Cugusi, L., Severin, A., et al. (2020). Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project. F1000. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23847.2 Directory of Free Arab Journals. (2021). http://www.dfaj.net/. Accessed 8 February 2021 Directory of Open Access Journals. (2021). Public Data Dump. https://doaj.org. Accessed 4 January 2021 Hamilton, D. G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R., & Fidler, F. (2020). Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review. eLife, 9, e62529. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529 Harzing, A.-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y Himmelstein, D. S., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Greshake Tzovaras, B., & Greene, C. S. (2018). Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLife, 7, e32822. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32822 Kotsiantis, S., Kanellopoulos, D., & Pintelas, P. (2006). Handling imbalanced datasets: A review. GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, 30(1), 25–36. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3 Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLOS ONE, 6(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961 Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830 Makhija, V., Kumar, V., Tiwari, A., & Verma, A. (2018). Knowledge Management System using CORE Repository. In 2018 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies in Libraries and Information Services (ETTLIS) (pp. 59–64). https://doi.org/10.1109/ETTLIS.2018.8485240 Mendonça, S., Pereira, J., & Ferreira, M. E. (2018). Gatekeeping African studies: what does “editormetrics” indicate about journal governance? Scientometrics, 117(3), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2909-1 Metz, I., Harzing, A.-W., & Zyphur, M. J. (2016). Of Journal Editors and Editorial Boards: Who Are the Trailblazers in Increasing Editorial Board Gender Equality? British Journal of Management, 27(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12133 Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2020). Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325 Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015- 1765-5 O’Brien, A., Graf, C., & McKellar, K. (2019). How publishers and editors can help early career researchers: Recommendations from a roundtable discussion. Learned Publishing, 32(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1249 Okune, A., Hillyer, R., Albornoz, D., Posada, A., & Chan, L. (2018). Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science. In ELPUB 2018. Toronto, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31 Pacher, A. (2021). andreaspacher/academic-publishers (GitHub). https://github.com/andreaspacher/academic-publishers. Accessed 7 February 2021 Packer, A. L. (2009). The SciELO Open Access: A Gold Way from the South. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 111–126. Publons. (2021). All publishers. https://publons.com/publisher/?page=1. Accessed 4 January 2021 Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. A. J. (2021). How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.003 Sarabipour, S., Debat, H. J., Emmott, E., Burgess, S. J., Schwessinger, B., & Hensel, Z. (2019). On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLOS Biology, 17(2), e3000151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 Schönfelder, N. (2019). Article processing charges: Mirroring the citation impact or legacy of the subscription-based model? Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00015 Scopus. (2020). Content Coverage. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus- works/content?dgcid=RN_AGCM_Sourced_300005030. Accessed 4 January 2021 Sherpa Romeo. (2021). Publishers. https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/view/publisher_list/1.html. Accessed 4 January 2021 Tennant, J. P. (2020). Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge. European Science Editing, 46, e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708–12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114 Van Noorden, R. (n.d.). The scientists who get credit for peer review. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.16102 Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2019). Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1803–1813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z Wickham, H., & RStudio. (2020). rvest: Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages. https://CRAN.R- project.org/package=rvest. Accessed 4 January 2021 Zheng, H., Aung, H. H., Erdt, M., Peng, T.-Q., Raamkumar, A. S., & Theng, Y.-L. (2019). Social media presence of scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24124