Juan Pablo Alperin’s research while affiliated with Simon Fraser University and other places

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the global adoption of open science (OS) practices. However, as the pandemic subsides, the debate around OS continues to evolve. This study investigates how the pandemic has shaped the OS discourse and identifies key issues and challenges. Interviews were conducted with influential stakeholders across the research and publishing communities. The findings show that while many areas of debate remained constant, the ways in which they were discussed exposed underlying systemic challenges, which must be addressed if OS is to progress. These issues included the scope and definition of OS; regional variations in its implementation; the relationship between OS and fundamental questions of the purpose and practice of science; and the need to reform incentives and reward structures within the research system. A more complex understanding of OS is required, which takes into account the importance of equity and diversity and the challenges of implementing OS in different cultural and geographical contexts. The study emphasises the importance of shifting scientific culture to prioritise values such as quality, integrity, and openness, and reforming rewards structures to incentivise open practices.

National, international and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration and better access to scientific knowledge. Yet, there is mounting concern that OS policies do not effectively capture the ethos of OS, and particularly its goal of making science more collaborative, inclusive and socially engaged. This study explores how OS is conceptualized in emerging OS policies and to what extent notions of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), as well as public participation are reflected in policy guidelines and recommendations. We use a qualitative document research approach to critically analyse 52 OS policy documents published between January 2020 and December 2022 in Europe and the Americas. Our results show that OS policies overwhelmingly focus on making research outputs publicly accessible, neglecting to advance the two aspects of OS that hold the key to achieving an equitable and inclusive scientific culture—namely, EDI and public participation. While these concepts are often mentioned and even embraced in OS policy documents, concrete guidance on how they can be promoted in practice is overwhelmingly lacking. Rather than advancing the openness of scientific findings first and promoting EDI and public participation efforts second, we argue that incentives and guidelines must be provided and implemented concurrently to advance the OS movement’s stated goal of making science open to all.

Introduction: Scholarly research spans multiple languages, making multilingual metadata crucial for organizing and accessing knowledge across linguistic boundaries. These multilingual metadata already exist and are propagated throughout scholarly publishing infrastructure, but the extent to which they are correctly recorded, or how they affect metadata quality more broadly is little understood. Methods: Our study quantifies the prevalence of multilingual records across a sample of publisher metadata and offers an understanding of their completeness, quality, and alignment with metadata standards. Utilizing the Crossref API to generate a random sample of 519,665 journal article records, we categorize each record into four distinct language types: English monolingual, non-English monolingual, multilingual, and uncategorized. We then investigate the prevalence of programmatically-detectable errors and the prevalence of multilingual records within the sample to determine whether multilingualism influences the quality of article metadata. Results: We find that English-only records are still in the vast majority among metadata found in Crossref, but that, while non-English and multilingual records present unique challenges, they are not a source of significant metadata quality issues and, in few instances, are more complete or correct than English monolingual records. Discussion & Conclusion: Our findings contribute to discussions surrounding multilingualism in scholarly communication, serving as a resource for researchers, publishers, and information professionals seeking to enhance the global dissemination of knowledge and foster inclusivity in the academic landscape.

Background: In this commentary, we argue that it is time for communication scholars to turn their attention to how and why data journalists engage with the increasing amount of open research and government data available online. Analysis: We review the limited scholarship that has investigated data journalists’ engagement with open data and suggest directions for future research. Conclusions and implications: Research that explicitly examines data journalists’ use of open data is sorely needed, especially research that attends to the varied forms and practices that can emerge in different national and institutional contexts.

This paper examines the evolving role of preprint servers within the scholarly communication system and their relationship with peer-reviewed journals. Historically prominent in fields like physics and mathematics, preprints have flourished in popularity across various disciplines in the past decade. Today, over 50 preprint servers exist, offering a platform for early and rapid dissemination of research findings. Preprint servers have traditionally fulfilled several functions of scholarly communication, including registration of research findings and archiving. However, recent trends indicate a shift towards servers challenging the established roles of peer-reviewed journals by adopting aspects of the certification and curation function. Through qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with 14 preprint server managers, this study explores how preprint servers view their role in the certification and curation of scientific knowledge, the significant challenges facing preprints, and the potential future dynamics between preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals. Our findings point to a lack of consensus on how the relationship between preprint servers and journals could or should develop, and to diverging views on how the certification and curation functions are best performed, and by whom. We consider these tensions in the context of the ongoing sustainability and credibility challenges faced by preprint servers, situate them within evolving research policy frameworks, and discuss their implications for the diversity of future scholarly communication practices.

Purpose This study explores the evolving role of preprint servers within the scholarly communication system, focusing on their relationship with peer-reviewed journals. As preprints become more common, questioning and understanding their future role is critical for maintaining a healthy scholarly communication ecosystem. By examining the values, concerns and goals of preprint server managers, this study highlights the significant influence these individuals have in shaping the future of preprints. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative, interview-based approach was used to gather insights from preprint server managers on their roles, challenges and visions for the future of preprints within the broader scholarly communication system. Findings The findings point to a lack of consensus on how preprint servers and journals should interact and to diverging views on how the certification and curation functions are best performed and by whom. Concerns about credibility and long-term financial sustainability are increasingly driving independent and community-run preprint servers to align more closely with journals, potentially undermining the disruptive and emancipatory potential of preprints. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the relationship between preprints and journals from the perspective of preprint server managers in the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It sheds light on how preprint servers are navigating external pressures and market dynamics, how they are seeking to establish credibility and trust, and how, in doing so, they are reshaping the core functions of scholarly communication.

This study examines OpenAlex’s indexing of journals using Open Journal Systems (JUOJS), reflecting two open source software initiatives supporting inclusive scholarly participation. By analyzing a dataset of 47,625 active JUOJS, we reveal that 71% of these journals have at least one article indexed in OpenAlex. Our findings underscore the central role of Crossref DOIs in achieving indexing, with 97% of the journals using Crossref DOIs included in OpenAlex. However, this technical dependency reflects broader structural inequities, as resource-limited journals, particularly those from low-income countries (47% of JUOJS) and non-English language journals (55%-64% of JUOJS), remain underrepresented. Our work highlights the theoretical implications of scholarly infrastructure dependencies and their role in perpetuating systemic disparities in global knowledge visibility. We argue that even inclusive bibliographic databases like OpenAlex must actively address financial, infrastructural, and linguistic barriers to foster equitable indexing on a global scale. By conceptualizing the relationship between indexing mechanisms, persistent identifiers, and structural inequities, this study provides a critical lens for rethinking the dynamics of universal indexing and its realization in a global, multilingual scholarly ecosystem.

Background We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community’s preferences for the JTT. Methods We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT. Results Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: ‘factors impacting support for JTT metrics’ and ‘suggestions for user clarity.’ Conclusions Participants suggested that the publishing community’s primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.

This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. It does so through a codebook thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists from the Global North. We find that journalists’ perceptions of these academic controversies vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. While some of these perceptions and practices may support high-quality media coverage of science, others have the potential to compromise journalists’ ability to serve the public interest. Results provide some of the first insights into the nature and potential implications of journalists’ internalization of the logics of science.