Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices

13 references·1 citing·44 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2015The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era1,239 cited
2018The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles1,217 cited
2011The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009753 cited
2012Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009224 cited
2013Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed133 cited
2019Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland77 cited
2019“Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve41 cited
2020Plan S in Latin America: A Precautionary Note39 cited
2018Exploring possibilities to use bibliometric data to monitor gold open access publishing at the national level23 cited
2020Plan S, self‐publishing, and addressing unreasonable risks of society publishing13 cited
2019The use of gold open access in four European countries : an analysis at the level of articles12 cited
2019Plan S for publishing science in an open access way: not everyone is likely to be happy9 cited
2020Open access, open data and peer review9 cited

Cited by

2022How scientific research incorporates policy: an examination using the case of China’s science and technology evaluation system

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

8 cited