arXiv subjects

Madelaine Hare

Publications and source records attributed to Madelaine Hare.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Funders open access mandates: uneven uptake and challenging models

Over the last two decades, research funders have adopted Open Access (OA) mandates, with various forms and success. While some funders emphasize gold OA through article processing charges, others favour green OA and repositories, leading to a fragmented policy landscape. Compliance with these mandates depends on several factors, including disciplinary field, monitoring, and availability of repository infrastructure. Based on 5 million papers supported by 36 funders from 20 countries, 11 million papers funded by other organisations, and 10 million papers without any funding reported, this study explores how different policies influence the adoption of OA. Findings indicate a sustained growth in OA overall, especially hybrid and gold OA, and that funded papers are more likely to be OA than unfunded papers. Those results suggest that policies such as Plan S, as well as read-and-publish agreements, have had a strong influence on OA adoption, especially among European funders. However, the global low uptake of Diamond OA and limited indexing of OA outputs in Latin American countries highlight ongoing disparities, influenced by funding constraints, journal visibility, and regional infrastructure challenges.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Big Deal cancellations and scholarly publishing: Insights from faculty and graduate student interviews

Big Deal cancellations are increasingly undertaken by academic librarians faced with rising subscription costs and shrinking collections budgets. While past research has focused on librarians' decision-making processes and communication strategies, this study aims to understand the perspectives and experiences of faculty and graduate students with Big Deal cancellations through interviews at three medium-sized Canadian institutions. It considers cancellations as a collaborative process of information exchange, rather than a top-down process. This study's findings can inform how and why cancellation projects can be undertaken with enhanced understandings of their lived realities of Big Deals and the current state of scholarly publishing. This study has been accepted by College and Research Libraries and will be published in July 2026.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Investigating Document Type, Language, Publication Year, and Author Count Discrepancies Between OpenAlex and Web of Science

Bibliometrics, whether used for research or research evaluation, relies on large multidisciplinary databases of research outputs and citation indices. The Web of Science (WoS) was the main supporting infrastructure of the field for more than 30 years until several new competitors emerged. OpenAlex, a bibliographic database launched in 2022, has distinguished itself for its openness and extensive coverage. While OpenAlex may reduce or eliminate barriers to accessing bibliometric data, one of the concerns that hinders its broader adoption for research and research evaluation is the quality of its metadata. This study aims to assess metadata quality in OpenAlex and WoS, focusing on document type, publication year, language, and number of authors. By addressing discrepancies and misattributions in metadata, this research seeks to enhance awareness of data quality issues that could impact bibliometric research and evaluation outcomes.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

A bibliometric analysis of Canadian LIS scholars and practitioners' research contributions

Canada's research productivity in Library and Information Science (LIS) is significant: studies have found that Canada ranks third globally in terms of output. As the LIS field continues to grow, the pace of output accelerates, and the scope of this work expands. The recently launched Canadian Publications in Library and Information Science Database compiles all Canadian scientific publications, including those authored by faculty members and academic librarians. This database offers the advantage of encompassing articles and librarian publications that may not be typically included in traditional bibliometric surveys, such as those conducted using databases like Web of Science, Scopus, and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Using this data, this study maps the scholarly contributions of Canadian LIS scholars and academic librarians to the field of LIS and examines whether Canadian LIS research is characterized by silos. This paper examines the similarities and differences in research output, impact, topics, and publication venues between academic librarians and scholars in Canada, as well as the extent to which academics and practitioners engage in research collaborations or reference each other's work. We find that while there is some degree of overlap in research topics and publication venues between LIS academics and academic librarians, the two groups appear to act as distinct research communities with distinct topical foci and publishing habits. The two groups also do not appear to engage with each other strongly, either through collaboration or citing each other's work.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Canadian Publications in Library and Information Science: A Database of research by LIS academics and practitioners in Canada

The aim of the Canadian publications in Library and Information Science (LIS) database is to help break down the silos in which the two main target audiences - LIS faculty members and academic librarians - conduct their research. As part of a larger project entitled "Breaking down research silos", we created a database of research contributions by Canadian LIS researchers (academics and practitioners). This was motivated by a desire to make research by Canadian LIS scholars and practitioners more visible and foster collaboration between these two groups. The aim of this paper is to introduce the database, describe the process through which it was created, provide descriptive statistics of the database content, and highlight areas for future development.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023

This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. APCs are fees charged for publishing in some fully open access journals (gold) and in subscription journals to make individual articles open access (hybrid). There is currently no way to systematically track institutional, national or global expenses for open access publishing due to a lack of transparency in APC prices, what articles they are paid for, or who pays them. We therefore curated and used an open dataset of annual APC list prices from Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley in combination with the number of open access articles from these publishers indexed by OpenAlex to estimate that, globally, a total of \$8.349 billion (\$8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars) were spent on APCs between 2019 and 2023. We estimate that in 2023 MDPI (\$681.6 million), Elsevier (\$582.8 million) and Springer Nature (\$546.6) generated the most revenue with APCs. After adjusting for inflation, we also show that annual spending almost tripled from \$910.3 million in 2019 to \$2.538 billion in 2023, that hybrid exceed gold fees, and that the median APCs paid are higher than the median listed fees for both gold and hybrid. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APCs paid and offers much needed insight into an otherwise opaque aspect of the business of scholarly publishing. We call upon publishers to be more transparent about OA fees.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023)

This paper introduces a dataset of article processing charges (APCs) produced from the price lists of six large scholarly publishers - Elsevier, Frontiers, PLOS, MDPI, Springer Nature and Wiley - between 2019 and 2023. APC price lists were downloaded from publisher websites each year as well as via Wayback Machine snapshots to retrieve fees per journal per year. The dataset includes journal metadata, APC collection method, and annual APC price list information in several currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, CHF, JPY, CAD) for 8,712 unique journals and 36,618 journal-year combinations. The dataset was generated to allow for more precise analysis of APCs and can support library collection development and scientometric analysis estimating APCs paid in gold and hybrid OA journals.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

The open access coverage of OpenAlex, Scopus and Web of Science

Diamond open access (OA) journals offer a publishing model that is free for both authors and readers, but their lack of indexing in major bibliographic databases presents challenges in assessing the uptake of these journals. Furthermore, OA characteristics such as publication language and country of publication have often been used to support the argument that OA journals are more diverse and aim to serve a local community, but there is a current lack of empirical evidence related to the geographical and linguistic characteristics of OA journals. Using OpenAlex and the Directory of Open Access Journals as a benchmark, this paper investigates the coverage of diamond and gold through authorship and journal coverage in the Web of Science and Scopus by field, country, and language. Results show their lower coverage in WoS and Scopus, and the local scope of diamond OA. The share of English-only journals is considerably higher among gold journals. High-income countries have the highest share of authorship in every domain and type of journal, except for diamond journals in the social sciences and humanities. Understanding the current landscape of diamond OA indexing can aid the scholarly communications network with advancing policy and practices towards more inclusive OA models.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Who Re-Uses Data? A Bibliometric Analysis of Dataset Citations

Open data is receiving increased attention and support in academic environments, with one justification being that shared data may be re-used in further research. But what evidence exists for such re-use, and what is the relationship between the producers of shared datasets and researchers who use them? Using a sample of data citations from OpenAlex, this study investigates the relationship between creators and citers of datasets at the individual, institutional, and national levels. We find that the vast majority of datasets have no recorded citations, and that most cited datasets only have a single citation. Rates of self-citation by individuals and institutions tend towards the low end of previous findings and vary widely across disciplines. At the country level, the United States is by far the most prominent exporter of re-used datasets, while importation is more evenly distributed. Understanding where and how the sharing of data between researchers, institutions, and countries takes place is essential to developing open research practices.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Do you cite what you tweet? Investigating the relationship between tweeting and citing research articles

The last decade of altmetrics research has demonstrated that altmetrics have a low to moderate correlation with citations, depending on the platform and the discipline, among other factors. Most past studies used academic works as their unit of analysis to determine whether the attention they received on Twitter was a good predictor of academic engagement. Our work revisits the relationship between tweets and citations where the tweet itself is the unit of analysis, and the question is to determine if, at the individual level, the act of tweeting an academic work can shed light on the likelihood of the act of citing that same work. We model this relationship by considering the research activity of the tweeter and its relationship to the tweeted work. Results show that tweeters are more likely to cite works affiliated with their same institution, works published in journals in which they also have published, and works in which they hold authorship. It finds that the older the academic age of a tweeter the less likely they are to cite what they tweet, though there is a positive relationship between citations and the number of works they have published and references they have accumulated over time.

cs.SI↗