PONE-D-24-47603Geographical and Disciplinary Coverage of Open Access Journals: OpenAlex, Scopus and WoSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MADDI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please, consider carefully the rich and constructive comments of both reviewers for the revision of your paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alberto Baccini, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. We note that Figure 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Geographical and Disciplinary Coverage of Open Access Journals: OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS.” I have several recommendations that may help improve the study.

1) The manuscript lacks clarity in explaining the criteria for comparison between the databases. For instance, the authors do not clarify in the methodology how they addressed classification differences between ROAD and the other databases. What is the total number of open access journals included in ROAD? How were these journals selected? What filters, or additional methods, were applied in this selection process?

2) The Results and Discussion sections mention notable exceptions, such as France and Indonesia; however, there is no in-depth analysis of the factors underlying these differences, such as publication policies or national initiatives that could contribute to these disproportions.

3) In the literature review, the authors cite several studies that discuss limitations of OpenAlex, including metadata accuracy issues, such as the precision of document types and open access status. However, there is no detailed discussion of how these limitations may have affected the results. It would be beneficial to provide more information regarding potential biases that may arise from metadata inaccuracies in OpenAlex.

Reviewer #2: This study is a useful contribution to efforts evaluating the potential effectiveness of OpenAlex as a more comprehensive source of data, and as an improvement on traditional unrepresentative data sources like Web of Science and Scopus. Studies of this kind are essential as OpenAlex experiences massive uptake globally to provide users with a critical account of its coverage and idiosyncrasies.

I praise the authors for how well-written this piece is. They provide a useful overview of the complex and evolving publishing landscape, describe their methodology clearly, and convey key findings with emphasis and helpful brevity. It was a pleasure to read. In this light, my comments are largely observational which I invite them to consider or disregard at their and the editor's discretion.

1. The abstract notes the ROAD database indexes 62,701 OA active resources, which I eventually understand to be journals. I suggest using clearer terminology and staying consistent with journals, at least in the abstract, and otherwise explaining the term in the paper if it is necessary to retain it. I at first assumed resources to include a wider range of outputs or venues.

2. In the abstract, the word “striking” is used descriptively within one sentence of each other. I suggest removing one of them to avoid repetition, and particularly the second one as it reads a bit leading and more neutral language is favourable.

3. The second sentence in the introduction it feels amiss to not acknowledge economic or philosophical factors which spur the buy-in or championship of openness.

4. In the introduction, and in the discussion, I think WoS and Scopus’ indexing criteria could be referenced- their lag in terms of coverage and inclusivity is also largely due to their indexing standards of which OA sources are excluded for various reasons.

5. Third paragraph of the introduction—typo: “OpenAlex’s agenda”.

6. The following sentence might add an Oxford comma after “OA repositories” for flow and clarity.

7. The research questions are written to be future-oriented, implying a trajectory from findings. I recommend rephrasing as I do not think this paper can answer either question: whether OpenAlex overcomes disciplinary biases to ensure a more equitable representation of research is subject to more factors than coverage. I suggest reworking to something like: “Does OpenAlex possess broader disciplinary representation than traditional databases (WoS and Scopus)?

8. 5 publications seems like a very low threshold to consider a journal active: could the authors elaborate on why this was selected? I wonder how many of these appear in the WoS ESCI? This may provide some indication if they are emerging and acceptable based on a low publication count.

9. In the literature review you reference Alperin et al.’s (2024) noted a lack of studies on OpenAlex and its limitations but you proceed to review 10 studies on OpenAlex- though all are from 2023 and 2024, it feels perhaps less relevant to note this lack of literature so perhaps just keep the sentence focused on Alperin et al.’s other findings.

10. CNRS (French national research organism) – is this supposed to read organization?

11. Did the authors consider manually classifying the 2263 journals lacking a discipline based on the ROAD classification?

12. In the abstract you note that ROAD indexes 62,701 resources as of May 2024 but your data was extracted in October 2023- to benchmark the coverage with your study data I would suggest revising if you can find a more accurate ROAD indexing estimate to October 2023.

13. The UpSet graph formula seems to have a typo in its caption note where Scopus is repeated twice and should include OpenAlex.

14. After Figure 1 it is stated “However, it is crucial to acknowledge that some journals may publish a small number of publications, as evidenced by a recent study focusing on Diamond journals (Bosman et al., 2021).” Relating back to your publication threshold, it would be interesting to compare which exclusive or cross-indexed sources have a high threshold, say, above 200 publications, and above 400 publications. This would hint at established or enduring sources vs. smaller or emerging journals like community run diamond ones.

15. More might possibly be said about Asia’s underrepresentation in OpenAlex as well- particularly in relation to the scholarly publishing landscape and mandates in China and Indonesia's high contribution.

16. Figure 2 would benefit from axis labels.

17. The findings and discussion are conflated as results are engaged with more than descriptively—I recommend either separating the two or renaming the Results section to “Results and Discussion”.

18. Figure 3 could have the indication of (neutral value = 1 in its title).

19. The research objectives or questions could state that you also look at income groups, perhaps grouped into region, this economic geographical aspect could be positioned earlier on.

20. Include the full name of the OECD when it is introduced.

21. Figure 4 would also benefit from axis labels. Overall, the figures are quite nice but could be aligned in design, positioning of legends, and labelling to make them look more coordinated/uniform.

22. In your conclusion I suggest adding a Limitations section. Your literature review finds that metadata issues are abundant in OpenAlex, as well as a prevalent feature of WoS and Scopus- comment on how this may affect your findings. Similarly, the ROAD database which lacked disciplinary classifications for over 2000 journals may have affected your Figure 4 results.

23. Figure 5 is quite busy and possibly ineffective due to the overlapping nature of the labels. I’m not sure it adds much more to the maps. Perhaps consider just keeping the map coverage or providing descriptive information about the top countries for each database.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-47603R1Geographical and Disciplinary Coverage of Open Access Journals: OpenAlex, Scopus and WoSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MADDI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The editorial check individuated some minor issues regarding statements that seem to be unsupported/sufficiently referenced. They are as follows:

Line 281: "Australia, in particular, largely benefited from the Regional Expansion of the WoS in 2006-2008." - this probably requires a reference;

Line 278 - 280: We believe this sentence may be written too strongly and and not be fully supported by the methodology/results. We suggest rewriting to something to the effect of "This imbalance may reflect a linguistic and systemic bias, where English-speaking countries with well-established research ecosystems are more prominently featured". As academic editor, I suggest to accept the suggestion of the editorial staff, or, alternatively, to add references justyfying your stronger statement.

Line 313 - 315 "These databases prioritize journals with high impact factors, often favoring quantitative research outputs and publications from well-established and high-ranked academic 314 institutions." - this statement appears unsupported and would require either a supporting reference or rephrasing. 

line 254 says "A striking observation is the presence of 25,658 OA journals exclusively in OpenAlex". However the figure 2 shows 24976.

line 256 says "Additionally, 4,104 OA journals are simultaneously indexed in all three databases". However the figure 2 shows 4094.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alberto Baccini, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have thoroughly addressed all the comments and suggestions provided in the previous review round. Their responses are clear, precise, and demonstrate a careful revision of the manuscript. The revised version meets the journal's standards, and I find no further issues or concerns to raise. I recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for their engagement with my comments. I am satisfied with the ways in which minor comments were addressed. More substantive points, particularly no.'s 8, 11, 12, 14, 22, and 23 I elaborate on below.

8. This explanation is well received. Thank you for adding it to the Limitations section.

11. Understood, and good point made about introducing an arbitrary classification. I appreciate its addition to the Limitation section.

12. I do not think it is absolutely necessary, as the dates are not so distant, but if possible to procure I think it would be an informative piece of data.

14. Noted. Adding this analysis may be a departure away from what you are working to achieve in this paper, so I do not feel it essential to add. Interesting area for future research!

22. Thank you for adding this. I believe the paper is stronger as a result of this section's addition.

23. The figures are easier to interpret now. I also compliment the authors on the other figures and the addition of Figure 1, very helpful indeed.

Thank you for your efforts. I look forward to seeing this work published.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

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

PONE-D-24-47603R2

Dear Dr. MADDI,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alberto Baccini, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Journal Comments:

re: Figure 2 - although you have stated that you have updated the text to match the figure, it appears that the line "striking observation is the presence of 25,658 OA journals exclusively in OpenAlex" is still unchanged from the earlier version, therefore we kindly request that you additionally complete this change prior to submitting the final version of your manuscript, thank you!

Reviewers' comments: