multiobs

Our Recent Productions

Datasets, working papers, and peer-reviewed articles produced by MultiObs researchers.

Showing 1–2 of 2

  1. Working Paper2026Open Access
    From interdependent movements to shared action: Connecting publishing and assessment reforms(opens in a new tab)

    Waltman, Ludo; de Moura Rocha Lima, Giovanna; Corker, Katherine S.; Dijkstal, Felix; Lawrence, Rebecca; Barbour, Virginia; Boulton, Geoffrey; Brasil, André; Dube, Nosisa; Gadd, Elizabeth; Hatch, Anna; Hill, Mandy; Joseph, Heather; Kiermer, Veronique; Koley, Moumita; Lynott, Dermot; Murray, Susan; Naidorf, Judith; Pölönen, Janne; Pattinson, Damian; Puebla, Iratxe; Ratan, Kristen; Rieck, Katharina; Shawrav, Mostafa Moonir

    Research assessment and scholarly publishing play interconnected roles in shaping research culture, incentives, and norms that ultimately determine what knowledge is produced, communicated, trusted, and rewarded. These two interdependent components of the research system are undergoing change, fueled by initiatives that share core principles, goals, and challenges, but act largely in parallel. Coordinated action in assessment and publishing reform holds the opportunity for more effective, fairer, and more durable change. The problems in research assessment and scholarly publishing are well documented, from overreliance on journal prestige and the dominance of selective bibliographic databases to the underrecognition of peer review and the limited visibility of research outputs beyond journal articles. Various reform initiatives have emerged to deal with these problems, both in the research assessment domain and in the scholarly publishing domain. However, these problems cannot be effectively addressed by a reform in either of these domains alone. Reform needs to be coordinated across domains. Fragmented reform efforts may not only duplicate work, but may also send inconsistent signals to researchers and institutions, which may undermine the adoption of more responsible practices. Stronger coordination creates tangible benefits across the research system. For reform initiatives, it increases collective reach, legitimacy, and influence while reducing duplication of effort and strengthening shared messages. For research performing and funding organizations, and policymakers, it provides a more coherent foundation for policy development and implementation, enabling organizations to draw on shared experience while adapting approaches to their own missions and contexts. For researchers, coordination helps ensure that emerging practices in scholarly publishing are recognized and rewarded consistently, reducing uncertainty and creating more pathways for diverse contributions to be valued. In this paper, we give an overview of how we are considering these issues and propose ways forward for coordinating the reform movements in research assessment and scholarly publishing. Importantly, this coordination is not intended to replace existing initiatives or create new layers of governance. Rather, it is a light-touch and inclusive effort to coordinate agendas, amplify existing work, and promote shared learning.

  2. Working Paper2026Open Access
    English dominance in scholarly communication: Historical roots and bibliometric evidence(opens in a new tab)

    Brasil, André

    English functions as the principal shared language of international scholarly communication, but its dominance also creates inequalities in the production, dissemination, visibility, and assessment of research. Developed as a complementary output of the CoARA Working Group on Multilingualism and Language Biases in Research Assessment, this report examines the historical development of English dominance and the contemporary mechanisms through which it is reproduced. It combines evidence from the literature with descriptive bibliometric analyses based on Web of Science, Scopus, OpenAlex, and CWTS Journal Indicators. The findings show that English is especially dominant in journals with high field normalised citation impact and in the selective segments of scholarly communication most frequently used in research evaluation. However, the extent of this dominance varies considerably across disciplines and countries, and publication in national languages remains important in the social sciences, humanities, and fields directed toward local professional and societal audiences. The report also demonstrates how database selection, metadata quality, and analytical choices affect the visibility of multilingual scholarship. Web of Science and Scopus predominantly represent English language journal literature, whereas OpenAlex reveals a much broader body of multilingual research, although incomplete language, authorship, and institutional metadata remain important limitations. The report further examines the financial, linguistic, and time burdens associated with English language publication and considers how publishing infrastructures, bibliometric indicators, rankings, and assessment practices influence which research becomes visible and valued. This report contributes to the landscape analysis conducted by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) Working Group (WG) on Multilingualism and language biases in research assessment and it complements the Implementation proposal for language-aware assessments (Annex II.3).