The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era
Open accessAbstract
The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers' high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
Overview
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
Verification
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Global influence and market dominance show that these publishers represent a significant proportion of global scholarly output (Larivière et al., 2015).”
From Use of artificial intelligence tools in the publishing process: expectations from publishers through author guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as Larivière et al., 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Information rules - a strategic guide to the network economy
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1999) · The Journal of Economic Education · doi:10.2307/1183273 · Cited by 5,225 · cited 1×
“Scholarly publications themselves can be considered information goods with high fixed and low variable costs [35,36].”
BackgroundStirling, D. (2003) · SGMD · doi:10.1145/776985.776997 · Cited by 1,563
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. (1971) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/bf01553188 · Cited by 789
Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet
Borgman, C. L. (2007) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7434.001.0001 · Cited by 512
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z · Cited by 507 · cited 1×
“Moreover, these disciplines make a much more important use of books [9] and generally rely on local journals [29], all of which are factors that make it much less interesting for big publishers to buy journals or found new ones in the arts and humanities.”
BackgroundSelf-citationWhat you didn't know that you needed to know.
Holtermann, M. K. (2017) · Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.17.0540 · Cited by 492 · cited 2×
“4 billion US dollars in 2011 [31], the majority of which were generated by a few publishing houses, the scientific journal publishing market faces oligopolistic conditions, where big players such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley-Blackwell and Wolters Kluwer determine annually increasing subscription rate…”
BackgroundTragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholary Journals
Odlyzko, A. (1996) · Journal of universal computer science (Online) · doi:10.3217/jucs-000-00-0003 · Cited by 303 · cited 1×
“Indeed, many authors have discussed the various transformations of the scholarly communication landscape brought by the digital era (see, among others, Borgman [14–15]; Kling and Callahan [16]; Tenopir & King [17]; Odlyzko [18]).”
BackgroundLarivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006) · J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. · doi:10.1002/asi.20349 · Cited by 294 · cited 2×
“During the 20 century they consolidated their position as the main media for diffusing research [6], especially in the natural and medical sciences [9].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCalvert, P. (2001) · doi:10.1108/oir.2001.25.3.214.2 · Cited by 215
Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008) · J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. · doi:10.1002/asi.20744 · Cited by 188 · cited 1×
“Also, the transition from print to electronic—a strong argument for journals to convert to commercial publishers—has happened at a much slower pace in those disciplines as the use for recent scientific information is less pressing [28].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
30 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- AJ Meadows, 1979, The Scientific Journal
- BI Mierzejewska, 2008, Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences
- M Ware, 2012, An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 897
Bradshaw, C. J. A., & Campbell, R. T. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316779521 · Cited by 4
Willinsky, J. (2017) · doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v4n5a3264 · Cited by 3
Open scientific journals: Emerging practices and approaches
Appel, A., Albagli, S., & Maciel, M. L. (2017) · Information Services and Use · doi:10.3233/isu-170862 · Cited by 3
“Electronic publishing led to dissipation of the exchange value of journals or papers as saleable goods, since “the publisher does not have to upload or produce an additional copy each time a paper is accessed on the server as it can be duplicated ad infinitum, which in turn reduces the marginal cost of additional subs…”
Sustaining Scholarly Infrastructures through Collective Action: The lessons that Olson can teach usPreprint
Neylon, C. (2017) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/116756 · Cited by 3
“In practice, between five and nine publishers dominate the market of scholarly publishing (Larivière et al. 2015).”
Background[Editorial] Open Publishing in Engineering
Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., & Fleischfresser, L. (2016) · doi:10.21428/12302 · Cited by 3
Bardiau, M., & Dony, C. (2024) · Insights the UKSG journal · doi:10.1629/uksg.633 · Cited by 6
Rodrigues, R., Garcez, D., & Cauchick-Miguel, P. A. (2023) · Em Questão · doi:10.1590/1808-5245.29.125151 · Cited by 3
Wainwright, J. D., & Bervejillo, G. (. (2021) · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.04.012 · Cited by 3
Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable
Wrzesinski, M., Riechert, P., Dubois, F., & Katzenbach, C. (2021) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4558781 · Cited by 3
Thoughts on Social Justice and Universities
Connell, R. (2019) · Higher Education, Pedagogy and Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26484-0_2 · Cited by 3
Access to Scientific Knowledge: A Historical Perspective
Silva, P. U. K. D., & Vance, C. K. (2017) · Fascinating life sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_2 · Cited by 3
Research and Web 2.0: Technology, Innovation, and Actor Constellations
Ponte, D., & Klein, S. (2017) · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0830-4.ch002 · Cited by 3
Everything but the Signature: A Proposal for AI-Born Journals
Floridi, L. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01207-0 · Cited by 2
“The compression happened, but subscription prices did not fall in real terms, and the publishing industry used the savings to increase profits (Larivière et al., 2015), 37 absorb rising fixed costs, and invest in new capabilities (electronic archives, online distribution infrastructure, metadata…”
Bae, A. J. (2026) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2026.102058
Guidetti, P., Bianchi, C. N., John, B., Pelke, N., & Boudouresque, C. (2026) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-026-00206-1 · Cited by 2
“Predatory journals have been subjected to severe criticism by more established publishers [34].”
The Ghost of the Author: Mechanisation, Metricisation and Narrative Contraction in the Age of AI
Kerimoğlu, C. (2026) · tripleC Communication Capitalism & Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society · doi:10.31269/emr27025 · Cited by 2
“Five major publishers – Elsevier, Springer Nature, John Wiley & Sons, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE Publications – control more than half of this sector, which generates 25 to 34 billion dollars in annual revenue (Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon 2015; Curcic 2023).”
Market Dynamics, Governance and Open Research Metadata in the AI Era
Hook, D. W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19507 · Cited by 2
“The historically inflated annulus of the Web of Science / Scopus duopoly era [18, 19] demonstrates what happens when the annulus width is sustained not by genuine production costs but by barriers to entry and institutional lock-in.”
Xie-Gupta, V. (2026) · Current Sociology · doi:10.1177/00113921261434021 · Cited by 4
Herman, A. C., Andersen, J. P., Hofstra, B., & Nielsen, M. W. (2026) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-026-01640-2 · Cited by 2
The Tempo Giusto : A Call for Recalibrating Time in Human Movement Research
Ramalho, A. L. G., Duarte‐Mendes, P., Paulo, R. M., & Petrica, J. (2025) · Quest · doi:10.1080/00336297.2025.2586504 · Cited by 4
“…that reward output for its own sake, authorship becomes a currency of speed; the “publish or perish” ethos fosters hyperauthorship – proliferating multi-author papers where individual contributions blur or become nominal – diluting accountability (Larivière et al., 2015; Nosek et al., 2012).”
Toward a woven literature: Open-source infrastructure for networked scientific publishing
Karakuzu, A. (2025) · Aperture Neuro · doi:10.52294/001c.146072 · Cited by 2
Wei, H., Liu, X., Ding, J., & Qu, Z. (2025) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2025.101742 · Cited by 2
AI, Education, and Academic Publishing in between Knowledge Capitalism and Socialism
Ma, Y. (2025) · Beijing international review of education · doi:10.1177/25902547251390638 · Cited by 4
“The Internet now seemingly provides free access to countless knowledge and information services, while social media and other online platforms bring people together in a borderless, experiential and collective space that is changing the conditions of imagining, producing and circulating creative and intellectual work.”
InfluentialTourism research: 50 years of tourism, hospitality and events journals published in English
McKercher, B. (2025) · The Tourist Review · doi:10.1108/tr-01-2025-0006 · Cited by 2
Weidener, L., & Shilina, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1650188 · Cited by 3
Elitaş, T., Elitaş, S. K., & Ayhan, N. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251390678 · Cited by 2
Challenges of DAOs in decentralized science: a qualitative analysis of expert interviews
Weidener, L., & Boltz, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1641294 · Cited by 3
“…contemporary science, such as the reproducibility crisis (Ioannidis, 2012; Romero, 2019), oligopolistic structures governing scienti fi c publishing (Larivière et al., 2015), persistent barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration and research funding (Hamburg, 2022; Shilina, 2023), and decline in…”
Akademide Metrik Kültür Erozyonu ve Yükselen Anomaliler
Fırat, M. (2025) · Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.32329/uad.1670503 · Cited by 3
Reimagining the peer review process: addressing bias and fairness
Herman, A. A. (2025) · Review of Communication · doi:10.1080/15358593.2025.2517021 · Cited by 2
Ex Libris: Books, creativity and academic freedom
Gandy, M. (2025) · Area · doi:10.1111/area.70013 · Cited by 2
Shaban, A. A., & Yasin, H. (2025) · Polaris Global Journal of Scholarly Research and Trends · doi:10.58429/pgjsrt.v4n1a213 · Cited by 2
The limits of openness: global knowledge production and its boundaries
Lai, M. (2025) · J. Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-09-2024-0237 · Cited by 2
Seven pains of writing: The discomforts of academic becoming in a judgmental age
Barnett, R., & Inouye, K. (2024) · Arts and Humanities in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14740222241305781 · Cited by 2
“At the same time, academic publishing has developed as a major industry, often with a few massive publishing corporations subsuming niche smaller publishing houses and maximising their outputs via the internet (Lariviere et al., 2015; Szadkowski, 2023).”
The academic publishing system in crises: absences in international urban studies
Appelhans, N. (2024) · Geographica Helvetica · doi:10.5194/gh-79-305-2024 · Cited by 2
Time for Thymol – Let’s Flush out the Chronic Parasites in Peer-Review
Simha, A. (2024) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011241280326 · Cited by 2
“This is due to the unfairness of the publishing ecosystem, where publishing companies rake in the moolah from universities and colleges (and ridiculous open access fees), while editors and reviewers essentially provide free labor (e.g. Larivière et al., 2015; Walter & Mullins, 2019).”
al-Mamun, A. (2024) · TESOL Bangladesh Journal (TBJ) · doi:10.69907/tbj.v1i1.63 · Cited by 2
“That’s why Larivière et al. (2015) thinks that academic publishing is emerging as a profitable business in the present global economy.”
BackgroundAcesso ao conhecimento no contexto da ciência aberta
Oddone, N., & de Souza, L. V. R. L. (2023) · RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação · doi:10.20396/rdbci.v22i00.8673883 · Cited by 2
Moving on in uncertain times: a goodbye
Green, J., McLaren, L., Colvin, C. J., Dew, K., Haines-Saah, R., Speed, E., Bell, K., & Bunton, R. (2023) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2023.2248797 · Cited by 2
Boso, A. K., Rodrigues, R. S., & Mugnaini, R. (2023) · Informação & Informação · doi:10.5433/1981-8920.2022v27n4p32 · Cited by 2
dos Santos, L. L. S., Rodrigues, R., & Neubert, P. D. S. (2023) · Transinformação · doi:10.1590/2318-0889202335e227169 · Cited by 2
Access to full-text documents in libraries via Sci-Hub: a blessing in disguise to library users
Ajani, Y., Tella, A., & Okere, S. (2023) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-03-2023-0053 · Cited by 2
The Politics of Rights Retention
Moore, S. A. (2023) · Publ. · doi:10.3390/publications11020028 · Cited by 2
Open-Access Publishing in Tourism and Hospitality Research
Hernandez-Maskivker, G., Capdevila-Torres, M., Ivanov, S., & Garrod, B. (2023) · Tourism · doi:10.37741/t.71.2.1 · Cited by 2
Articulations of language and value(s) in scholarly publishing circuits
Shi, J. (2023) · Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v9.38148 · Cited by 2
Bibliometic Insights Into Agriculture And Artisanal Mining In Rural Communities
Sununianti, V. V., & Nugroho, H. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences · doi:10.51601/ijersc.v4i2.623 · Cited by 2
“According to Larivière et al. (2015), this country is also home to major commercial publishers, such as Sage Publication, Springer, and Elsevier.”
BackgroundAn Essay about a Philosophical Attitude in Management and Organization Studies Based on Parrhesia
Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2023) · Philosophy of Management · doi:10.1007/s40926-023-00232-9 · Cited by 2
“…acceptance of the academy-industry overlap, the literature registers emerging concepts concerning their social context, such as ‘open science’, which affects scientific communication, currently dominated by an editorial oligopoly (Larivière et al. 2015), or ‘open innovation’ (Smart et al. 2019 ).”
BackgroundScoping good papers for organizations' sustainability in management and engineering research
Sakao, T., Desha, C., Djekić, I., Favi, C., Olayide, O., Zioło, M., Kantola, J. I., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., Tortato, U., Segalás, J., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainability · doi:10.3389/frsus.2023.1148499 · Cited by 2
“It is also compounded by the publishing sector’s profit-seeking enterprises that have spanned increasing the number of volumes and special issues each year, reducing reviewer and revision timeframes, and incentivizing pay-for-publishing arrangements (Taylor, 2012; Larivière et al., 2015; Tsui and McKiernan, 2022).”
BackgroundCiencia abierta como una nueva forma de hacer investigación
López, C. L., Badillo-Vega, R., & Bautista-Valdivia, J. (2022) · Diálogos sobre educación · doi:10.32870/dse.v0i26.1230 · Cited by 2
“…pero la mayoría de las instituciones no pueden entrar en este esquema de mercantilización y publicación de calidad por no contar con recursos para sufragar los gastos de acceso en estas editoriales que monopolizan más de 50% de las publicaciones científicas del mundo (Lariviere et al., 2015).”
BackgroundUna propuesta arriesgada: hacer de los repositorios mega-journals
Ortega, J. (2022) · Anuario ThinkEPI · doi:10.3145/thinkepi.2022.e16a29 · Cited by 2
Whistleblowers in an Academic Gift Culture - A Commentary on the Scandal in Academia
Heron, M. J., & Belford, P. (2022) · SIGCAS Comput. Soc. · doi:10.1145/3585066.3585072 · Cited by 2
“Companies like Elsevier, Black and Wiley, Taylor and Francis, Springer Nature and SAGE control over half of the academic publishing market [36] which was worth almost $20 billion in 2017.”
BackgroundHegemony in global rankings: A Gramscian analysis of bibliometric indices and ranking results
Belenkuyu, C., & Karadağ, E. (2022) · Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · doi:10.1080/09737766.2022.2106165 · Cited by 2
A tudomány tömegesedésének hatásai a felsőoktatás működésére
Király, G., & Kováts, G. (2022) · Educatio · doi:10.1556/2063.31.2022.2.1 · Cited by 4
González‐Sala, F., Silivestru, Y., Osca-Lluch, J., & Vilar, M. M. (2022) · Revista española de Documentación Científica · doi:10.3989/redc.2022.3.1886 · Cited by 4
Decay of Web References in Academic Publications: A Case of Turkish Librarianship Journal
Yayla, K. (2022) · Turk Kutuphaneciligi - Turkish Librarianship · doi:10.24146/tk.1048628 · Cited by 2
Grisi, G., Segundo, J. D. D. B., Freire, C. V., Matias, D., Cruz, M., Laporte, L., Medina, D., Taniguchi, T., Requião, L., G'oes, B., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.01.23.22269716 · Cited by 2
Postprints-to-preprints linkage to enhance access to scientific literature
Moustafa, K. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.2019024 · Cited by 2
“Over the past two decades, for instance, the profit of science publishing has more than doubled for some publishers (Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon 2015).”
BackgroundJovičić, S. M. (2021) · African Journal of Urology · doi:10.1186/s12301-021-00239-6 · Cited by 2
“This information ag with the study reported in literature [1, 20, 21].”
ResultPublishing, the Internet and the Commons: Debates and Developments
Lockett, A. (2021) · Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture · doi:10.16997/wpcc.1048 · Cited by 2
Teaching online in translation studies: a teacher-researcher’s feedback from France
Bordet, G. (2021) · The world universities’ response to COVID-19: remote online language teaching · doi:10.14705/rpnet.2021.52.1275 · Cited by 2
Science Mapping to study academic knowledge circulationPreprint
Cortés-Sánchez, J. D., Chinchilla‐Rodríguez, Z., & Carbonell, K. B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.09484 · Cited by 2
Illusion in the Digitised Public Sphere: Reading WhatsApp through the Grammar of Phantasmagoria
Katiambo, D., & Ochoti, F. (2021) · doi:10.1080/02560046.2021.1945643 · Cited by 2
“…system, for example, journals have been accused of allegedly generating unreasonable profits for multinational publishing firms (Tomaselli 2018; Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon 2015) the alternative is not to corrupt the same system in order to accumulate more rewards through phony publishing…”
BackgroundCollaborative transition to open access publishing by scholarly societies
Naim, K., Brundy, C., & Samberg, R. (2021) · Molecular Biology of the Cell · doi:10.1091/mbc.e20-03-0178 · Cited by 2
“This movement seeking to regain control of scholarly publishing, particularly from commercial — in some cases, oligopolistic (Lariviere et al., 2015) — forces is not new.”
BackgroundA pandemia e a emergência da Ciência Aberta
Rodrigues, E. (2020) · UMinho Editora eBooks · doi:10.21814/uminho.ed.24.12 · Cited by 2
“De acordo com a análise realizada por Lariviére et al. (2015) na Web of Science, no período de 1973 a 2013, os cinco principais editores aumentaram a sua quota no total de publicações, tanto nas ciências naturais e médicas, como nas ciências sociais e humanidades, especialmente desde o advento da…”
BackgroundOpen Access: what we can learn from articles published in geochemistry journals in 2018 and 2019
Pourret, O., Irawan, D. E., Tennant, J., Hursthouse, A., & Hullebusch, E. D. (2020) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3659528 · Cited by 2
“, Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley) [8, 9].”
Change in Format, Register and Narration Style in the Biomedical Literature: A 1948 Example
Galli, C., & Guizzardi, S. (2020) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications8010010 · Cited by 3
“publications, especially in the natural sciences [16].”
University Managerialism and Scientific Publication
de Haro, F. A. (2019) · doi:10.28939/iam.debats-en.2019-4 · Cited by 2
“3 times greater than their respective shares in 1990 (Larivière et al., 2015).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe fundamental problem blocking open access and how to overcome it: the BitViews project
Lamanna, C., & Manna, M. L. (2019) · Insights: The UKSG Journal · doi:10.1629/uksg.488 · Cited by 2
Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals
Ramaswamy, M., & Marciniuk, D. (2019) · Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9_58-1 · Cited by 2
Comparative Education Review Guide to Searching for World Literature 2019
Anderson-Levitt, K. (2019) · Comparative Education Review · doi:10.1086/705466 · Cited by 2
Peer-Review and Academic Archaeology: Quality, Epistemology and Science Policies
Salazar, D., Ramírez, H., Yrarrázaval, S., Saball, A., Troncoso, A., Rogan, J. A., & Correa, C. (2019) · Archaeologies · doi:10.1007/s11759-019-09367-6 · Cited by 4
Roberts, A. (2019) · Administrative Theory & Praxis · doi:10.1080/10841806.2019.1595989 · Cited by 2
Restoring Dignity in Academic Publishing Is a Collective Duty
Shapiro, S., & Franco, E. L. (2018) · JDR Clinical & Translational Research · doi:10.1177/2380084418806839 · Cited by 2
Do we need an Open Science coalition
Tennant, J. (2018) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1407963 · Cited by 2
“…the Web, and the social motivations behind open science, much of the control remains enclosed by an increasingly concentrated number of powerful key players, such as Elsevier, Clarivate Analytics, and Springer Nature (Larivière et al. 2015).”
Information creates relative bargaining power in vendor negotiations
Macy, K. V. (2018) · Bottom Line · doi:10.1108/bl-12-2017-0033 · Cited by 2
Biradar, U. B., Khamari, L., & Bhate, S. (2018) · Information Services and Use · doi:10.3233/isu-180005 · Cited by 2
“17 With stricter budgetary constraints for libraries and lack of cost-effective access to technological advancements in 18 the case of publisher platforms, bridging the gap between content churn-out rate andmeeting demands of knowledge 19 discovery is a growing concern [2].”
BackgroundPurnell, M. (2018) · doi:10.1080/24750158.2018.1436116 · Cited by 2
“It is very complex with journals changing publishers and mergers occurring regularly (Lariviere et al., 2015b).”
BackgroundFor a Virtual Wayzgoose: A Farewell Editorial on the Mutations of Theory and Journals
Stam, H. (2016) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959354316681689 · Cited by 2
How do we build a human-centered open science?Preprint
Lancaster, A. (2016) · doi:10.15200/winn.147624.46708 · Cited by 2
“Obviously this is a nightmare scenario if you’re the head of multibillion dollar highly profitable publishing conglomerate (Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon 2015) that benefits from the free labor of scientists - peer review has been estimated to be worth ~1.9 billion British pounds per year…”
BackgroundInfluentialNwachukwu, B. U., Schairer, W., So, C., Bernstein, J., Herndon, J., & Dodwell, E. (2016) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume · doi:10.2106/jbjs.15.01118 · Cited by 2
Transparenz von Subskriptionskosten in der Schweiz
Gutknecht, C. (2016) · doi:10.12685/027.7-4-1-103 · Cited by 2
Publishing journal articles in Canadian geography
Moore, T., & Coomes, O. (2016) · doi:10.1111/cag.12252 · Cited by 2
[Conflicts of interest: should we lower our guard?].
de Fiore, L. (2015) · Recenti progressi in medicina · doi:10.1701/1940.21082 · Cited by 2
The research trend on tire wear particles: A bibliometric review for 1999–2024
Gao, Y., Tong, Y., Chen, C., & Guo, X. (2025) · Regional Studies in Marine Science · doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2025.104396 · Cited by 2
Ahmad, A., Azeem, A., & Aslam, S. (2024) · Revista de Administração de Empresas · doi:10.1590/s0034-759020240602 · Cited by 2
Challenges for Establishment of Institutional Repositories
Tapfuma, M., & Hoskins, R. (2021) · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-5018-2.ch008 · Cited by 2
Open Access Publications and Their Impact on Sustainability Development Goals
Muth, L. T., & López, J. M. S. (2021) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_137-1 · Cited by 2
Sáez, V. M. M., & Nascimento, C. M. D. (2021) · tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society · doi:10.31269/triplec.v19i2.1258 · Cited by 2
Computational Tools for Literature Review, Analysis, and Synthesis
Ermel, A. P. C., Lacerda, D., Morandi, M. I., & Gauss, L. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_7 · Cited by 2
Peters, M., & Besley, T. (2020) · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7598-3_14 · Cited by 2
Éditorial : le contrôle corporatif nuit à la diffusion des connaissances en sciences de l’éducation
Larivière, V. (2020) · doi:10.7202/1075985ar · Cited by 2
Self-citationContributions towards understanding and building sustainable sciencePreprint
Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2019) · Thesis Commons (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31237/osf.io/4wtpc · Cited by 3
Chemical Information Literacy: A Brief History and Current Practices
Currano, J. N. (2016) · doi:10.1021/bk-2016-1232.ch001 · Cited by 2
Ervens, B., Carslaw, K. S., Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2025) · EGUsphere · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-419 · Cited by 1
English for research publication purposes: A developing field of research and practice
Flowerdew, J. (2026) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2026.05.006 · Cited by 1
Watchdog Science Journalism: How Retraction Watch Fosters Accountability in Science
Fahy, D. (2026) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.12421 · Cited by 1
“Larivière et al. (2015) argued that journal publishing has operated as an oligopoly of international conglomerates, with the top five publishers in 2013 accounting for more than 50 percent of all published papers.”
Open questions for systems ecology
Saavedra, S., & Kéfi, S. (2026) · Systems Ecology · doi:10.67837/2341 · Cited by 1
Editorial Conflicts of Interest in Elite Peer Review
Mindel, V., & Ciriello, R. (2026) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-026-06441-2 · Cited by 6
Your Time, Whose Science? On Tempo Reviewability in Human Movement Research
Ramalho, A. L. G. (2026) · Quest · doi:10.1080/00336297.2026.2702355 · Cited by 1
Open Science in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Transparenz, Reproduzierbarkeit und Zugang
Schmidt, K. M., Neyse, L., Saam, M., Siegfried, D., Vilhuber, L., & Winter, J. (2026) · Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik · doi:10.1515/pwp-2026-0019 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P.
- Affiliations
- Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Larivière, Vincent
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-06-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e0127502
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4465327
- OpenAlex
- W1655306493
- Cited by
- 1,240
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 104 · 2025: 132 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 146 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 125 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 15
- FWCI
- 80.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Canada Research Chairs
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- scholarly publishing, scientific publishing industry, oligopoly, digital era, journal migration, publisher change, citation impact, humanities and social sciences, Web of Science, Reed Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis
- MeSH terms
- Publishing, Journal Impact Factor
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
