This short form article was originally accepted to be published in a Special Open Access Collection in the journal, Development and Change, however, was withdrawn by the authors due to unacceptable licensing conditions proposed by the publisher. Diversity is an important characteristic of any healthy ecosystem. In the field of scholarly communications, diversity in services and platforms, funding mechanisms and evaluation measures will allow the ecosystem to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs and research topics that support the needs of different research communities. Diversity also reduces the risk of vendor lock-in, which leads to monopolization and high prices. Yet this 'bibliodiversity' is undermined by the fact that researchers around the world are evaluated according to journal-based citation measures, which have become the major currency of academic research. Journals seek to maximize their bibliometric measures by adopting editorial policies that increase citation counts, resulting in the predominance of Northern/Western research priorities and perspectives in the literature, and an increasing marginalization of research topics of more narrow or local nature. This contribution examines the distinctive, non-commercial approach to open access (OA) found in Latin America and reflects on how greater diversity in OA infrastructures helps to address inequalities in global knowledge production as well as knowledge access. The authors argue that bibliodiversity, rather than adoption of standardized models of OA, is central to the development of a more equitable system of knowledge production.

We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers scientific documents from the period 2008-2017 covered by these data sources. Scopus is compared in a pairwise manner with each of the other data sources. We first analyze differences between the data sources in the coverage of documents, focusing for instance on differences over time, differences per document type, and differences per discipline. We then study differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links. Based on our analysis, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of the different data sources. We emphasize the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.

As the scale of biological data generation has increased, the bottleneck of research has shifted from data generation to analysis.

Herd immunity is expected to arise when a virus cannot spread readily. However, Manaus provides a cautionary example that herd immunity is likely not achieved even at high levels of infection and that it comes with unacceptably high costs.

This article provides broadly applicable guidance on software citation for the communities and institutions publishing academic journals and conference proceedings.

This article provides a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving.

This literature analysis provides a new definition of research impact and proposes a methodological framework to guide evaluations of the significance of impact that can be attributed to research.

Here, the authors study mentorship in scientific collaborations, and find that mentorship quality predicts the scientific impact of protégés post mentorship. Moreover, female protégés collaborating with male mentors become more impactful post mentorship than those who collaborate with female mentors.

The purpose of this review is to provide the GRANteD project with robust analytical approaches and methodological insights that take into account the state of the art, but it also acknowledges and aims to overcome the main shortcomings and point out the gaps of the existing literature.

COVID-19 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the international scientific community. In one of the largest academic surveys ever conducted, 25,307 members of our academic community participated, representing diverse countries, roles, and areas of research.

"We see a diverse, interconnected, open, professional and viable, developing OS ecosystem in Europe on solid ground; one that is worth investing in. At the same time, this developing ecosystem faces a range of issues that challenge its path to a more open and sustainable future." This is a core conclusion of this new SPARC Europe report.

Cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility.