arXiv subjects

Philippe Mongeon

Publications and source records attributed to Philippe Mongeon.

16 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

The participation of public in knowledge production: a citizen science projects overview

Citizen Science (CS) is related to public engagement in scientific research. The tasks in which the citizens can be involved are diverse and can range from data collection and tagging images to participation in the planning and research design. However, little is known about the involvement degree of the citizens to CS projects, and the contribution of those projects to the advancement of knowledge (e.g. scientific outcomes). This study aims to gain a better understanding by analysing the SciStarter database. A total of 2,346 CS projects were identified, mainly from Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Of these projects, 91% show low participation of the citizens (Level 1 "citizens as sensors" and 2 "citizens as interpreters", from Haklay's scale). In terms of scientific output, 918 papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) were identified. The most prolific projects were found to have lower levels of citizen involvement, specifically at Levels 1 and 2.

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↗

arXiv2022

An open dataset of scholars on Twitter

The role played by research scholars in the dissemination of scientific knowledge on social media has always been a central topic in social media metrics (altmetrics) research. Different approaches have been implemented to identify and characterize active scholars on social media platforms like Twitter. Some limitations of past approaches were their complexity and, most importantly, their reliance on licensed scientometric and altmetric data. The emergence of new open data sources like OpenAlex or Crossref Event Data provides opportunities to identify scholars on social media using only open data. This paper presents a novel and simple approach to match authors from OpenAlex with Twitter users identified in Crossref Event Data. The matching procedure is described and validated with ORCID data. The new approach matches nearly 500,000 matched scholars with their Twitter accounts with a level of high precision and moderate recall. The dataset of matched scholars is described and made openly available to the scientific community to empower more advanced studies of the interactions of research scholars on Twitter.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

How does undone science get funded? A bibliometric analysis linking rare diseases publications to national and European funding sources

One of the notable features of undone science debates is how formation of new interest groups becomes pivotal in mobilizing and championing emerging research on undone topics. Clearly money is one of the most important mediums through which different types of actors can support and steer scientists to work on undone topics. Yet which actors are more visible in their support for scientific research is something which has seldom been measured. This study delves into research funding in the context of rare diseases research, a topic which has evolved from the margins of medical research into a priority area articulated by many contemporary funding agencies. Rare diseases refer to conditions affecting relatively few people in a population. Given low incidences, interest groups have articulated a lack of attention within medical research compared to more common conditions. The rise to prominence of rare diseases in research funding policies is often explained in the science studies literature in terms of effective lobbying by social movements Likewise, innovative fundraising initiatives, infrastructure building, and close partnerships with research groups are other means through which interested actors have sought to build capacity for research into rare medical conditions. To date however systematic empirical evidence to compare the relative importance of different actors in funding rare disease research has not been produced. Building on interest in undone science in STS and science policy studies, our study hopes to map-out different kinds of funding actors and their influence on leading scientific research on rare diseases, by use of bibliometric tools. The approach we are developing relies on the use of Funding Acknowledgement data provided in Web of Science database.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations

This paper explores the characteristics of DataCite to determine its possibilities and potential as a new bibliometric data source to analyze the scholarly production of open data. Open science and the increasing data sharing requirements from governments, funding bodies, institutions and scientific journals has led to a pressing demand for the development of data metrics. As a very first step towards reliable data metrics, we need to better comprehend the limitations and caveats of the information provided by sources of open data. In this paper, we critically examine records downloaded from the DataCite's OAI API and elaborate a series of recommendations regarding the use of this source for bibliometric analyses of open data. We highlight issues related to metadata incompleteness, lack of standardization, and ambiguous definitions of several fields. Despite these limitations, we emphasize DataCite's value and potential to become one of the main sources for data metrics development.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

The sum of it all: revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements

Acknowledgments are one of many conventions by which researchers publicly bestow recognition towards individuals, organizations and institutions that contributed in some way to the work that led to publication. Combining data on both co-authors and acknowledged individuals, the present study analyses disciplinary differences in researchers credit attribution practices in collaborative context. Our results show that the important differences traditionally observed between disciplines in terms of team size are greatly reduced when acknowledgees are taken into account. Broadening the measurement of collaboration beyond co-authorship by including individuals credited in the acknowledgements allows for an assessment of collaboration practices and team work that might be closer to the reality of contemporary research, especially in the social sciences and humanities.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns

In most countries, basic research is supported by research councils that select, after peer review, the individuals or teams that are to receive funding. Unfortunately, the number of grants these research councils can allocate is not infinite and, in most cases, a minority of the researchers receive the majority of the funds. However, evidence as to whether this is an optimal way of distributing available funds is mixed. The purpose of this study is to measure the relation between the amount of funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Quebec over a fifteen year period (1998-2012) and their scientific output and impact from 2000 to 2013. Our results show that both in terms of the quantity of papers produced and of their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of a so-called "elite" of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns. Also, we find that the most funded researchers do not stand out in terms of output and scientific impact.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a Comparative Analysis

Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus. This research compares the journal coverage of both databases in terms of fields, countries and languages, using Ulrich's extensive periodical directory as a base for comparison. Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduces biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2014

Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-authors' Careers

Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, while the impact is less important for middle authors.

cs.DL↗