Choji, Thamyres Tetsue; Mazoni, Alysson; Moral-Muñoz, José A.; Costas, Rodrigo; Cobo, Manuel J.
Nowadays bibliographic data sources are available, and their coverage is shaped by their scope and indexing criteria. Their comparison can reveal what they underrepresent or exclude, particularly in regions such as Latin America, which presents specific characteristics in knowledge production. This study compares four data sources: OpenAlex, Leiden Ranking Core Collection Open Edition, Scopus, and SciELO. We analyze document coverage and author visibility by gender, career length, and language of publication. OpenAlex was used as the baseline, and comparisons were made using DOI and persistent author identifiers. Results show that, after OpenAlex, Scopus presents the largest coverage of documents (47.7%) and authors (52.1%), but with larger gender differences than SciELO. SciELO shows higher representation of women, particularly among exclusive authors, career lengths, and more authors publishing in Spanish (30.4%) and Portuguese (46%). These findings suggest that data sources may shape gender representation and multilingual publication practices in Latin America.
Since the establishment of the Science Citation Index in the 1960s, scientific evaluation systems have favored metrics like the impact factor (IF), creating a hierarchy that privileges “mainstream” journals while marginalizing local publications. This model has driven Latin American researchers to publish in international journals, often in English and with high article processing charges (APCs), to gain academic recognition and funding. However, this dynamic has undervalued regional journals, despite initiatives like SciELO, RedALyC, and Latindex demonstrating high standards of quality, open access, and increasing internationalization. In response, an interdisciplinary team proposed the creation of a local scientific journal at the Faculty of Biochemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences of the National University of Rosario (FBIOyF, by its Spanish acronym), aiming to engage globally without neglecting local values and criteria. To assess this initiative, we conducted a survey among faculty researchers. The results reveal significant interest in a publication that promotes the dissemination of locally generated knowledge, facilitates access for non-English-speaking communities, and fosters interdisciplinary collaborations, making science more equitable and more sensitive to social context.
Kulczycki, Emanuel; Gamboa, José Octavio Alonso; Beigel, Fernanda; Digiampietri, Luciano A.; Laakso, Mikael; Pölönen, Janne; Taşkın, Zehra; Cuartas, Gabriel Vélez
Purpose This study investigates the diversity of national scholarly journal publishing ecosystems in seven countries across Europe and Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, Mexico, Poland, and Türkiye. It challenges the common perception that global scholarly publishing is dominated by international commercial publishers by examining national publishing structures beyond English speaking contexts. Design/methodology/approach Using ISSN Centre data and national sources, we analyse journal-level publishing structures rather than article- or citation-level outputs. Publishers were categorized according to their institutional and organizational characteristics. The analysis focuses on active journals, defined as those with a recorded start year and no identified termination date. Journal coverage in Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAlex was examined to assess how national publishing landscapes are represented in major bibliometric databases. Findings Educational institutions emerge as the primary publishers in most countries, representing more than 75 % of journals in Colombia and Brazil and more than 50 % in Mexico, Argentina, and Poland. Finland stands out, with scientific and professional associations leading journal publication at 62 %. Commercial publishers hold comparatively small shares, reaching their highest levels in Türkiye at 12.1 % and Poland at 8.2 %. In terms of database representation, OpenAlex indexes over half of the journals in most countries, whereas Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus cover only a small portion. Research limitations The study relies on ISSN and national datasets, which differ in completeness and standardization. Variations in national reporting practices and database indexing policies may influence coverage comparisons. As the analysis is based on currently active journals, historical trends reflect surviving journals only. Practical implications The results provide evidence for policymakers, database providers, and research evaluators to recognize the diversity of national publishing systems. They highlight the importance of improving data sources and analytical approaches to ensure more accurate assessment of scholarly communication outside heavily commercialized environments. Originality/value The study offers a comparative analysis of national journal publishing ecosystems across seven countries, revealing structural differences that challenge the assumption of a globally uniform publishing model. It underscores the need for bibliometric research frameworks that include and accurately represent national and regional publishing structures.
