arXiv subjects

Abdelghani Maddi

Publications and source records attributed to Abdelghani Maddi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

From OA colors to observable access states: A commentary on the 2026 OpenAlex proposal

The OpenAlex Colors Working Group proposes replacing the familiar Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and Closed taxonomy with a work-level framework based on three dimensions: access, location and license. The proposal addresses genuine weaknesses in the legacy color system, particularly its dependence on journal-level characteristics, its difficulty in describing non-article outputs, and its conflation of access conditions with venue business models. This commentary supports that general direction but argues that the proposed labels should not become the primary data model. The central technical issue is that access, location and license are not best understood as three independent attributes of a work: scholarly works commonly have several versions or copies at different locations, and access status, license and version may differ from one location to another. The analysis therefore recommends treating the location/version observation as the atomic unit of OA metadata and deriving work-level labels, legacy colors and user-facing summaries from those observations. Particular attention is given to license semantics, version identification, the normative assumptions embedded in a ``best-available'' hierarchy, the coarse Publisher/Other Platform distinction, temporal change, provenance, compound works, and backward compatibility. Existing standards and infrastructure (including NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions, COAR controlled vocabularies, FAIR provenance principles, and OpenAlex's own current location objects) already provide many of the components needed for such an approach. The result would preserve the simplicity sought by the Working Group while making the underlying data model more extensible, auditable and suitable for funder compliance, bibliometric research and future changes in scholarly communication.

cs.DB↗

arXiv2026

Discoverability matters: Open access models and the translation of science into patents

Scientific research is a key input into technological innovation, yet not all scientific knowledge is equally mobilized in patents. This paper examines how different scientific publishing models shape both the selection of scientific publications cited in patents and their cognitive alignment with patented technologies. Using large-scale data on non-patent references linking patents to scientific publications, combined with metadata from OpenAlex, we compare the Open Access (OA) structure of patent-cited science to that of the scientific literature. We then assess cognitive alignment using semantic similarity between patent abstracts and the abstracts of cited publications, distinguishing between citations appearing in the front section of patents and those embedded in the body of patent texts. We find that patent citations disproportionately draw on publications disseminated through highly visible and institutionally established publishing channels, particularly hybrid and bronze OA models, indicating strong selection effects. However, this dominance in citation counts does not translate into stronger cognitive alignment with patented technologies. On the contrary, publications in fully OA journals (gold and diamond OA) exhibit equal or higher semantic proximity, especially when cited in the body of patents. These results suggest that the contribution of OA to innovation depends less on access alone than on how different publishing models are embedded in information infrastructures that shape the visibility, discoverability, and use of scientific knowledge.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Open Science, Open Innovation? The Role of Open Access in Patenting Activity

Scientific knowledge is a key driver of technological innovation, shaping industrial development and policy decisions worldwide. Understanding how patents incorporate scientific research is essential for assessing the role of academic discoveries in technological progress. Non-Patent References (NPRs) provide a useful indicator of this relationship by revealing the extent to which patents draw upon scientific literature. Here, we show that reliance on scientific research in patents varies significantly across regions. Oceania and Europe display stronger engagement with scientific knowledge, while the Americas exhibit lower reliance. Moreover, NPRs are more likely to be open access than the average scientific publication, a trend that intensifies when Sci-Hub availability is considered. These results highlight the transformative impact of Open Science on global innovation dynamics. By facilitating broader access to research, Open Science strengthens the link between academia and industry, underscoring the need for policies that promote equitable and science-based innovation, particularly in developing regions.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of authorship attributions in scientific publications, focusing on the fairness and precision of individual contributions within academic works. The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal PLOS ONE, covering the period from January 2018 to June 2023. It examines the authorship attributions within these publications to try and determine the prevalence of inappropriate authorship. It also investigates the demographic and professional profiles of affected authors, exploring trends and potential factors contributing to inaccuracies in authorship. Surprisingly, 9.14% of articles feature at least one author with inappropriate authorship, affecting over 14,000 individuals (2.56% of the sample). Inappropriate authorship is more concentrated in Asia, Africa, and specific European countries like Italy. Established researchers with significant publication records and those affiliated with companies or nonprofits show higher instances of potential monetary authorship. Our findings are based on contributions as declared by the authors, which implies a degree of trust in their transparency. However, this reliance on self-reporting may introduce biases or inaccuracies into the dataset. Further research could employ additional verification methods to enhance the reliability of the findings. These findings have significant implications for journal publishers, highlighting the necessity for robust control mechanisms to ensure the integrity of authorship attributions. Moreover, researchers must exercise discernment in determining when to acknowledge a contributor and when to include them in the author list. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the credibility and fairness of academic publications.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Geographical and Disciplinary Coverage of Open Access Journals: OpenAlex, Scopus and WoS

This study aims to compare the geographical and disciplinary coverage of OA journals in three databases: OpenAlex, Scopus and the WoS. We used the ROAD database, managed by the ISSN International Centre, as a reference database which indexes 62,701 OA active resources (as of May 2024). Among the 62,701 active resources indexed in the ROAD database, the Web of Science indexes 6,157 journals, while Scopus indexes 7,351, and OpenAlex indexes 34,217. A striking observation is the presence of 25,658 OA journals exclusively in OpenAlex, whereas only 182 journals are exclusively present in WoS and 373 in Scopus. The geographical analysis focusses on two levels: continents and countries. As for disciplinary comparison, we use the ten disciplinary levels of the ROAD database. Moreover, our findings reveal a striking similarity in OA journal coverage between WoS and Scopus. However, while OpenAlex offers better inclusivity and indexing, it is not without biases. WoS and Scopus predictably favor journals from Europe, North America and Oceania. Although OpenAlex presents a much more balanced indexing, certain regions and countries remain relatively underrepresented. Typically, Africa is proportionally as under-represented in OpenAlex as it is in WoS, and some emerging countries are proportionally less represented in OpenAlex than in WoS and Scopus. These results underscore a marked similarity in OA journal indexing between WoS and Scopus, while OpenAlex aligns more closely with the distribution observed in the ROAD database, although it also exhibits some representational biases.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter?

Amidst the ever-expanding realm of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals, the focus on peer review remains paramount for scientometricians and sociologists of science. Despite this attention, there is a notable scarcity of empirical investigations into the tangible impact of peer review on publication quality. This study aims to address this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of how peer review contributes to the quality of scholarly publications, as measured by the citations they receive.Utilizing an adjusted dataset comprising 57,482 publications from Publons to Web of Science and employing the Raking Ratio method, our study reveals intriguing insights. Specifically, our findings shed light on a nuanced relationship between the length of reviewer reports and the subsequent citations received by publications. Through a robust regression analysis, we establish that, beginning from 947 words, the length of reviewer reports is significantly associated with an increase in citations.These results not only confirm the initial hypothesis that longer reports indicate requested improvements, thereby enhancing the quality and visibility of articles, but also underscore the importance of timely and comprehensive reviewer reports. Furthermore, insights from Publons' data suggest that open access to reports can influence reviewer behavior, encouraging more detailed reports.Beyond the scholarly landscape, our findings prompt a reevaluation of the role of reviewers, emphasizing the need to recognize and value this resource-intensive yet underappreciated activity in institutional evaluations. Additionally, the study sounds a cautionary note regarding the challenges faced by peer review in the context of an increasing volume of submissions, potentially compromising the vigilance of peers in swiftly assessing numerous articles.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

The Nexus of Open Science and Innovation: Insights from Patent Citations

This paper aims to analyze the extent to which inventive activity relies on open science. In other words, it investigates whether inventors utilize Open Access (OA) publications more than subscription-based ones, especially given that some inventors may lack institutional access. To achieve this, we utilized the (Marx, 2023) database, which contains citations of patents to scientific publications (Non-Patent References-NPRs). We focused on publications closely related to invention, specifically those cited solely by inventors within the body of patent texts. Our dataset was supplemented by OpenAlex data. The final sample comprised 961,104 publications cited in patents, of which 861,720 had a DOI. Results indicate that across all disciplines, OA publications are 38% more prevalent in patent citations (NPRs) than in the overall OpenAlex database. In biology and medicine, inventors use 73% and 27% more OA publications, respectively, compared to closed-access ones. Chemistry and computer science are also disciplines where OA publications are more frequently utilized in patent contexts than subscription-based ones.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

PubPeer and Self-Correction of Science: Male-Led Publications More Prone to Retraction

This article has a dual objective. Firstly, it aims to investigate whether gender diversity in publications reviewed on Pubpeer has an impact on the (non)retraction of those publications. Secondly, it seeks to analyze the reasons for retractions and examine if there are disparities in retractions based on male-female collaborations. To achieve this, the study utilized a sample of 93,563 publications discussed on Pubpeer spanning the period from 2012 to 2021. The findings reveal that among the reviewed publications, 5% (4,513) were retracted. The concentration index and regression results indicate that publications authored solely by men or led by male authors are 20% to 29% more likely to be retracted compared to those authored solely by women. Regarding the reasons for retractions, the results show that regardless of gender, authors, when working alone, are more prone to engaging in activities such as fake peer review or plagiarism. Women are more concentrated in image manipulation and data errors, while men are more involved in article duplication. Furthermore, the results demonstrate an inverse relationship between the number of authors and retractions, suggesting that a higher number of authors may facilitate better publication control and reduce the temptation for misconduct.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2023

Streetlight Effect in Post-Publication Peer Review: Are Open Access Publications More Scrutinized?

The Streetlight Effect represents an observation bias that occurs when individuals search for something only where it is easiest to look. Despite the significant development of Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) in recent years, facilitated in part by platforms such as PubPeer, existing literature has not examined whether PPPR is affected by this type of bias. In other words, if the PPPR mainly concerns publications to which researchers have direct access (eg to analyze image duplications, etc.). In this study, we compare the Open Access (OA) structures of publishers and journals among 51,882 publications commented on PubPeer to those indexed in OpenAlex database (\#156,700,177). Our findings indicate that OA journals are 33% more prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total (52% for the most commented journals). This result can be attributed to disciplinary bias in PubPeer, with overrepresentation of medical and biological research (which exhibits higher levels of openness). However, after normalization, the results reveal that PPPR does not exhibit a Streetlight Effect, as OA publications, within the same discipline, are on average 16% less prevalent in PubPeer than in the global total. These results suggest that the process of scientific self-correction operates independently of publication access status.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Measuring open access publications: a novel normalized open access indicator

The issue of open access (OA) to scientific publications is attracting growing interest within the scientific community and among policy makers. Open access indicators are being calculated. In its 2019 ranking, the ''Centre for Science and Technology Studies'' (CWTS) provides the number and the share of OA publications per institution. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of institutions makes comparisons based on the shares of OA publications biased. We show that OA publishing practices vary considerably according to discipline. As a result, we propose two methods to normalize OA share; by WoS subject categories and by disciplines. Normalized Open Access Indicator (NOAI) corrects for disciplinary composition and allows a better comparability of institutions or countries.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

On the peer review reports: It's not the size that matters ... really?

Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic of peer review over the past twenty years, given its primordial role in a context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals. Although the topic is addressed under different prisms, few studies have empirically analyzed to what extent it can affect the quality of publications. Here we study the link between the length of reviewers' reports and the citations received by publications. To do this, we used data from the Publons database (58,093 peer review reports). We have adjusted this sample to match the WoS database structure. Our regression results show that peer review positively affects the quality of publications. In other words, the more indepth (longer) the referees' reports are, the greater the publication improvements will be, resulting in an increase in citations received. This result is important from both the point of view of reviewers and that of journal's chiefseditors. Even if it is not a remunerated activity, it is important that it be more valued at least within the framework of research evaluation exercises, given its positive impact on science.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Open access in Europe: a national and regional comparison

Open access to scientific publications has progressively become a key issue for European policy makers, resulting in concrete measures by the different country members to promote its development. The aim of paper is, after providing a quick overview of OA policies in Europe, to carry out a comparative study of OA practices within European countries, using data from the Web of Science (WoS) database. This analysis is based on two indicators: the OA share that illustrates the evolution over time, and the normalized OA indicator (NOAI) that allows spatial comparisons, taking into account disciplinary structures of countries. Results show a general trend towards the development of OA over time as expected, but with large disparities between countries, depending on how early they begin taking measures in favor of OA. While it is possible to stress the importance of policy and its influence on open access at country level, this does not appear to be the case at the regional level. There is not much variability between regions, within the same country, in terms of open access indicators.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

On the culture of open access: the Sci-hub paradox

Shadow libraries, also known as ''pirate libraries'', are online collections of copyrighted publications that have been made available for free without the permission of the copyright holders. They have gradually become key players of scientific knowledge dissemination, despite their illegality in most countries of the world. Many publishers and scientist-editors decry such libraries for their copyright infringement and loss of publication usage information, while some scholars and institutions support them, sometimes in a roundabout way, for their role in reducing inequalities of access to knowledge, particularly in low-income countries. Although there is a wealth of literature on shadow libraries, none of this have focused on its potential role in knowledge dissemination, through the open access movement. Here we analyze how shadow libraries can affect researchers' citation practices, highlighting some counter-intuitive findings about their impact on the Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA). Based on a large randomized sample, this study first shows that OA publications, including those in fully OA journals, receive more citations than their subscription-based counterparts do. However, the OACA has slightly decreased over the seven last years. The introduction of a distinction between those accessible or not via the Scihub platform among subscription-based suggest that the generalization of its use cancels the positive effect of OA publishing. The results show that publications in fully OA journals are victims of the success of Sci-hub. Thus, paradoxically, although Sci-hub may seem to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, it negatively affects the OA movement as a whole, by reducing the comparative advantage of OA publications in terms of visibility for researchers. The democratization of the use of Sci-hub may therefore lead to a vicious cycle, hindering efforts to develop full OA strategies without proposing a credible and sustainable alternative model for the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

The quality of the Web of Science data: a longitudinal study on the completeness of authors-addresses links

The author-affiliation links are the essential elements used for multiple purposes, such as the disambiguation of authors, the attribution of credits of a publication and fractional counting, the analysis of scientific networks, etc. In this article we analyzed the author-affiliation link quality in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 2000 and 2021. We analyzed the link completeness for 32,676,914 scientific publications under different angles: WoS index, document type and the number of authors per publication. The analysis showed that the author-affiliation link begins to be well informed from 2008. The share of publications for which all addresses and all authors are linked is close to 100% from 2016. The results show a strong variability according to the WoS index, the document type and the number of authors per publication. AHCI is the index with the highest completeness rate, unlike the SCI. For the document type, these are the Conference proceedings where the completeness rate is better and/or can be completed. Regarding the number of authors, statistics show that the higher the number, the more addresses and unlinked authors there are. Finally, the analysis of a random sample of 100 publications showed that in more than 50% of the cases, the author-address links do not exist in the original publication, and the WoS reproduced only the available information provided by the editor.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

Does Open Access Really Increase Impact? A Large-Scale Randomized Analysis

The Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA) has been a major topic of discussion in the literature over the past twenty years. In this paper, we propose a method to constitute a control group to isolate the OACA effect. Thus, we compared citation impact (MNCS) of 2,458,378 publications in fully OA journals to that (weighted MNCS) of a control group of non-OA publications (\#10,310,842). Similarly, we did the same exercise for OA publications in hybrid journals (\#1,024,430) and their control group (\#11,533,001), over the period 2010-2020. The results showed that there is no OACA for publications in fully OA journals, and that there is rather a disadvantage. Conversely, the OACA seems to be a reality in hybrid journals, suggesting that a better accessibility in this context tends to improve the visibility of publications. The lack of OACA for publications in fully OA journals is to be expected, as a great proportion of OA journals are newly created and less attractive to high-impact senior researchers.Another striking result of this paper is the fall of the OACA from 2016. The citation advantage fell from 70% to 9% between 2016 and 2020 (for publications in hybrid journals). We wonder if this fall is linked to the increase in the notoriety of pirate sites (eg Sci-Hub) from 2016. In other words, the democratization of pirate sites instantly cancels the positive effect of OA publication insofar as the question of access to scientific content no longer arises.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

Article Processing Charges, Altmetrics and Citation Impact: Is there an economic rationale?

The present study aims to analyze 1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications 2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from Altmetrics.com database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the ''number of readers'' indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

Analyse scientométrique du domaine de l'infectiologie de 2000 à 2020

Research on infectious diseases constitutes a transversal scientific field. A specific corpus is designed by combining a controlled language (Medline MeSH thesaurus) and the categorization of journals (Web of Science). From this global corpus, the article characterizes the publications from the top 20 countries publishing in the field and evolutions between 2000 and 2020. Topic maps show the research themes within the field of infectious diseases both in the world and in France. The explosion of publications on Covid-19 in 2020 has a quite visible impact on the topic map in infectious diseases and changes the position of some countries in this field of research. The conclusion points to issues for further research as more complete data will become available on the Covid-19 period.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Game theory and scholarly publishing: premises for an agreement around open access

Stakeholders in research and scientific publishing are gradually joining the Open-Access (OA) movement, which is gaining momentum to become nowadays at the heart of scientific policies in high-income countries. The rise of OA generates profound changes in the chain of production and dissemination of knowledge. Free access to peer-reviewed research methods and results has contributed to the dynamics of science observed in recent years. The modes of publication and access have also evolved; the classic model, based on journal subscriptions is gradually giving way to new economic models that have appeared with the arrival of OA. The objective of this article is twofold. First, propose a model for the publishing market based on the literature as well as on changes in open science policies. Second, analyze publishing strategies of publishers and institutions. To do so, we relied on game theory in economics. Results show that in the short term, the publisher's equilibrium strategy is to adopt a hybridpublishing model, while the institutions' equilibrium strategy is to publish in OA. This equilibrium is not stable and that in the medium/long term, the two players will converge on an OA publishing strategy. The analysis of the equilibrium in mixed-strategies confirms this result.

econ.GN↗