Spanish Scholarly Journals in WoS and Scopus: The Impact of Open Access
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the impact of open access on the publishing policies of Spanish scholarly journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The study sample was obtained in October 2013. After discarding those that were not published in Spain and those that were inactive, we were left with a total of 406 journals (392 in Scopus and 171 in WoS, with an overlap of 157). Seven key indicators were established: age, subject area, language, publisher, portals, type of access, and copyright. Most of the data were gathered by directly analyzing the websites of the journals. Information from the Dulcinea directory was also used. Most of the journals (63 per cent of the total) were first published after 1980. Universities and commercial publishers were the most significant publishers, accounting for 42 per cent and 31 per cent of all journals, respectively. Social sciences and health sciences were the most significant disciplines, accounting for 33 per cent each. Of the journals, 60 per cent were available free immediately after publication and 76 per cent granted permission for self-archiving a version of the manuscript. By combining the two results, we estimated that 48 per cent of all journals were open access (offering free access and permission for self-archiving).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.119 | 0.216 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it