MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108631754 · doi:10.31274/jlsc.20194

Publications Produced and Services Offered by Library Publishing Programs in the United States and Canada: A Data-Driven Analysis

2025· article· W7108631754 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingPublishingService (business)Table (database)Order (exchange)Focus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Using the Library Publishing Coalition’s (LPC) Research Dataset, this paper focuses on the type and number of publications as well as services offered by library publishing programs at colleges, universities, and consortia in the United States and Canada from 2014 to 2022. Methods: In order to transform the data into a consistent format and write it into a single table as a CSV file, we created a program written in C# and executed it on Windows 10. We narrowed the dataset to focus on just library publishing programs from the United States and Canada, and those that responded to the survey in early and later years. We also analyzed the data by enrollment and used the findings from our previous paper on staffing of library publishing programs to add context. Results: From 2014 to 2022, the average library publishing program published mostly open access facultycreated journals, about three textbooks per year, and less than one monograph per year. On average, fewer journals were published in 2022 than in 2014. In 2022, the average library publishing program offers about one more service than it did in 2014. Discussion: The average number of publications and services both peaked in 2020, while the average number of staff peaked in 2019. As of 2022, staff, services, and the number of journals published have not rebounded since their respective peaks. Conclusion: From 2014 to 2022, the number of journals and monographs published by the average library publishing program decreased, while the number of textbooks published and services offered increased. Also, though there are certainly general conclusions or trends, there are also opportunities for additional quantitative and qualitative research to be done in this area.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
gptScholarly communicationOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0970.117
Open science0.0120.003
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it