Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Purpose: How to obtain a list of the 100 largest scientific publishers sorted by journal count? Existing databases are unhelpful as each of them inhere biased omissions and data quality flaws. This paper tries to fill this gap with an alternative approach. Design/methodology/approach: The content coverages of Scopus, Publons, DOAJ and SherpaRomeo were first used to extract a preliminary list of publishers that supposedly possess at least 15 journals. Second, the publishers' websites were scraped to fetch their portfolios and, thus, their “true” journal counts. Findings: The outcome is a list of the 100 largest publishers comprising 28.060 scholarly journals, with the largest publishing 3.763 journals, and the smallest carrying 76 titles. The usual “oligopoly” of major publishing companies leads the list, but it also contains 17 university presses from the Global South, and, surprisingly, 30 predatory publishers that together publish 4.517 journals. Research limitations/implications: Additional data sources could be used to mitigate remaining biases; it is difficult to disambiguate publisher names and their imprints; and the dataset carries a non-uniform distribution, thus risking the omission of data points in the lower range. Practical implications: The dataset can serve as a useful basis for comprehensive meta-scientific surveys on the publisher-level. Originality/value: The catalogue can be deemed more inclusive and diverse than other ones because many of the publishers would have been overlooked if one had drawn from merely one or two sources. The list is freely accessible and invites regular updates. The approach used here (webscraping) has seldomly been used in meta-scientific surveys.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The top 100 publishers identified by Nishikawa-Pacher are responsible for the publication of 28,060 journals.
“In total, these 100 publishers are responsible for the publication of 28 060 journals.”
From Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: Bibliometric analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 · Cited by 1,240 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- Alba-Fernández, M.V., Ariza-López, F.J., Rodríguez-Avi, J. and García-Balboa, J.L. (2020), "Statistical Methods for Thematic-Accuracy Quality Control Based on an Accurate Reference Sample", Remote Sensing, Vol. 12 No. 5, p. 816.
- Alexiou, G., Vahdati, S., Lange, C., Papastefanatos, G. and Lohmann, S. (2016), "OpenAIRE LOD Services: Scholarly Communication Data as Linked Data", in González-Beltrán, A., Osborne, F. and Peroni, S. (Eds.), Semantics, Analytics, Visualization. Enhancing Scholarly Data, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 45-50.
- Asai, S. (2020), "Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals", Scientometrics, Vol. 123 No. 2, pp. 1037-1049. "Beall's List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers". (2021), 8 December, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20220727081817/https://beallslist.net/ (accessed 29 July 2022).
- Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J.P. and Cooper, M. (2020), "Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing", Research Integrity and Peer Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 8. Beverungen, A., Böhm, S. and Land, C. (2012), "The poverty of journal publishing", Organization, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 929-938.
- Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M.M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A. and Moher, D. (2018), "What is a predatory journal? A scoping review", F1000.
- Collyer, F.M. (2018), "Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South", Current Sociology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
- Delgado-Troncoso, J.E. and Fischman, G.E. (2014), "The future of Latin American academic journals", in Cope, B. and Phillips, A. (Eds.), The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, pp. 379- 400.
- Gardner, V., Robinson, M. and O'Connell, E. (2022), "Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: a publisher case study", Insights, Vol. 35 No. 0, p.
- Hamilton, D.G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R. and Fidler, F. (2020), "Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review", eLife, Vol. 9, p. e62529.
- Harzing, A.-W. (2014), "A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013", Scientometrics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 565-575.
- Himmelstein, D.S., Romero, A.R., Levernier, J.G., Munro, T.A., McLaughlin, S.R., Greshake Tzovaras, B. and Greene, C.S. (2018), "Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature", eLife, Vol. 7, p. e32822.
- Holt, J., Walker, A. and Jones, P. (2021). "Introducing a data availability policy for journals at IOP Publishing: Measuring the impact on authors and editorial teams", Learned Publishing, Vol. 34 No. 41, pp. 478-486.
- Irawan, D.E., Abraham, J., Zein, R.A., Ridlo, I.A. and Aribowo, E.K. (2021), "Open Access in Indonesia", Development and Change, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 651-660.
- Jimenez, A., Vannini, S. and Cox, A. (2022), "A holistic decolonial lens for library and information studies", Journal of Documentation.
- Kendall, G. (2021), "Beall's legacy in the battle against predatory publishers", Learned Publishing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 379-388.
- Koerber, A., Starkey, J.C., Ardon-Dryer, K., Cummins, R.G., Eko, L. and Kee, K.F. (2020), "A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?", The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 46 No. 6, p. 102236.
- Kotsiantis, S., Kanellopoulos, D. and Pintelas, P. (2006), "Handling imbalanced datasets: A review", GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 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, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 475-494.
- Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C. and Hedlund, T. (2011), "The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009", PLOS ONE, Vol. 6 No. 6, p. e20961.
- Lincoln, A.E., Pincus, S., Koster, J.B. and Leboy, P.S. (2012), "The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 307-320.
- Makhija, V., Kumar, V., Tiwari, A. and Verma, A. (2018), "Knowledge Management System using CORE Repository", 2018 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies in Libraries and Information Services (ETTLIS), pp. 59-64.
- Mendonça, S., Pereira, J. and Ferreira, M.E. (2018), "Gatekeeping African studies: what does 'editormetrics' indicate about journal governance?", Scientometrics, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 1513-1534.
- Metz, I., Harzing, A.-W. and Zyphur, M.J. (2016), "Of Journal Editors and Editorial Boards: Who Are the Trailblazers in Increasing Editorial Board Gender Equality?", British Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 712-726.
- Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis", Scientometrics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 213-228.
- O'Brien, A., Graf, C. and McKellar, K. (2019), "How publishers and editors can help early career researchers: Recommendations from a roundtable discussion", Learned Publishing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 383-393.
- Ortega, J.L. (2017), "The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations)", Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 674-687.
- Pacher, A., Heck, T. and Schoch, K. (2021), "Open Editors: A Dataset of Scholarly Journals' Editorial Board Positions", SocArXiV, DOI:10.31235/osf.io/jvzq7. · DOI
- Packer, A.L. (2009), "The SciELO Open Access: A Gold Way from the South", Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 111-126.
- Pieper, D. and Summann, F. (2006), "Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE): An end-user oriented institutional repository search service", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 614-619.
- Porter, S.J. (2022), "Measuring Research Information Citizenship Across ORCID Practice", Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Vol. 7.
- Priem, J., Piwowar, H. and Orr, R. (2022), "OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts", arXiv 2205.01833, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833. · DOI
- Quintana, D.S. and Heathers, J.A.J. (2021), "How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 3-5.
- Ren, S. and Rousseau, R. (2002), "International visibility of Chinese scientific journals", Scientometrics, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
- Schonfeld, R.C. (2012), JSTOR: A History, Princeton University Press.
- Schönfelder, N. (2019), "Article processing charges: Mirroring the citation impact or legacy of the subscription- based model?", Quantitative Science Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-27.
- Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Fry, J., Creaser, C. and Willett, P. (2018), "'Let the community decide'? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 137-161.
- Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Adjei, K.O.K., Owusu-Ansah, C.M., Sooryamoorthy, R. and Balehegn, M. (2019), "Africa's challenges in the OA movement: risks and possibilities", Online Information Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 496-512.
- Van Noorden, R. (2014). "The scientists who get credit for peer review", Nature, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.16102. · DOI
- Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M. and Kousha, K. (2019), "Web of Science and Scopus language coverage", Scientometrics, Vol. 121 No. 3, pp. 1803-1813.
- Wiryawan, K.G. (2014), "The current status of science journals in Indonesia", Science Editing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 71-75.
- Zheng, H., Aung, H.H., Erdt, M., Peng, T.-Q., Raamkumar, A.S. and Theng, Y.-L. (2019), "Social media presence of scholarly journals", Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 256-270.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ganjavi, C., Eppler, M. B., Pekcan, A., Biedermann, B., Abreu, A., Collins, G. S., Gill, I. S., & Cacciamani, G. E. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077192 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
“Nishikawa-Pacher’s study 23 suggested that 30 of these publishers may be considered “predatory,” defined by Jeffrey Beall, creator of Beall’s list of potential predatory journals and publishers, to identify those that “publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the…”
BackgroundMollaki, V. (2024) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231224552 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“To provide grounds for the absence of policies, the publishing policies of the 10 largest scientific publishers, as classified by journal count (Nishikawa-Pacher, 2022), were reviewed based on the information provided in their websites.”
Method
- Authors
- Nishikawa-Pacher, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2022-09-21
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 450-463
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4300964562
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 8.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Documentation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Technische Universität Wien
- Technische Universität Wien Bibliothek
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- scholarly publishers, predatory publishers, university presses, scholarly publishing, web scraping, Scopus, DOAJ, SHERPA/RoMEO, Publons
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review