IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/ucgzm_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Publishing infrastructures in the semi-periphery: How research assessment shapes the research output of Spain and Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Dagiene, Eleonora

    (Mykolas Romeris University)

  • Aibar, Eduard

Abstract

National research assessment policies, designed to boost international competitiveness, have intensified “publish or perish” pressures and reshaped the global academic publishing landscape. However, the impact of these pressures on the domestic publishing infrastructures of semi-peripheral nations remains underexplored. This paper investigates how a nation’s domestic publishing infrastructure shapes whether new, high-volume open-access publishing models function as a portfolio addition or a systemic substitute. Using a comparative mixed-methods analysis of Spain and Lithuania, we combine bibliometric data from the Web of Science (2004–2024) with 28 semi-structured interviews with researchers. The findings reveal two divergent, rational strategies. In Spain, a resilient domestic publishing infrastructure, accommodated by a flexible evaluation system, allowed researchers to adopt new publishers as a pragmatic portfolio addition to an already diverse set of options. In stark contrast, Lithuanian research assessment policies actively marginalised domestic journals, creating acute strain on the country’s publishing ecosystem. Researchers in Lithuania thus adopted these same new publishing models as a systemic substitute and a survival measure. We conclude that control over a community-managed domestic publishing infrastructure is a key factor shaping the autonomy of a national academic system. It is this infrastructure that separates a strategy of dependent displacement from one of autonomous coexistence: a crucial lesson for policymakers engaged in global research assessment reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagiene, Eleonora & Aibar, Eduard, 2025. "Publishing infrastructures in the semi-periphery: How research assessment shapes the research output of Spain and Lithuania," SocArXiv ucgzm_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:ucgzm_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ucgzm_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/68de48d1a162cb29b1fd0665/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ucgzm_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    2. Vasile Cernat, 2024. "The unprincipled principal: how Romania’s inconsistent research reform impacted scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5557-5575, September.
    3. Emanuel Kulczycki & Marek Hołowiecki & Zehra Taşkın & Franciszek Krawczyk, 2021. "Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8541-8560, October.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec, 2021. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1897-1921, March.
    6. John P. A. Ioannidis & Thomas A. Collins & Jeroen Baas, 2024. "Evolving patterns of extreme publishing behavior across science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5783-5796, September.
    7. Agnes Grudniewicz & David Moher & Kelly D. Cobey & Gregory L. Bryson & Samantha Cukier & Kristiann Allen & Clare Ardern & Lesley Balcom & Tiago Barros & Monica Berger & Jairo Buitrago Ciro & Lucia Cug, 2019. "Predatory journals: no definition, no defence," Nature, Nature, vol. 576(7786), pages 210-212, December.
    8. Vít Macháček & Martin Srholec, 2022. "Retraction Note to: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1667-1667, March.
    9. Dagiene, Eleonora & Larivière, Vincent & Dix, Guus & Waltman, Ludo, 2024. "Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: The policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania," SocArXiv 9yq38, Center for Open Science.
    10. repec:osf:socarx:9yq38_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Daniel J. Dunleavy & Mina Moradzadeh & Joshua Eykens, 2021. "A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8589-8616, October.
    2. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Onur Öztürk & Zehra Taşkın, 2024. "How metric-based performance evaluation systems fuel the growth of questionable publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2729-2748, May.
    4. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    5. repec:osf:osfxxx:xr8mv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Isidro F. Aguillo & Dag W. Aksnes & Kevin Boyack & Quentin L. Burrell & Juan Miguel Campanario & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Rodrigo Costas & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Anne-Wil Harz, 2023. "Retraction of Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences lacks justification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1459-1461, February.
    8. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    9. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    10. Petr Praus, 2025. "A note on the topic of single-author articles in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 3071-3088, May.
    11. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    12. Anna Severin & Michaela Strinzel & Matthias Egger & Tiago Barros & Alexander Sokolov & Julia Vilstrup Mouatt & Stefan Müller, 2023. "Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Julien Vastenaekels, 2023. "Degrowth and Capital: Assembling a Power-Centred Theory of Change," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/362596, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Edré Moreira & Wagner Meira & Marcos André Gonçalves & Alberto H. F. Laender, 2023. "The rise of hyperprolific authors in computer science: characterization and implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2945-2974, May.
    15. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.
    16. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2021. "The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    17. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    18. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    19. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    20. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    21. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5355-5360, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:ucgzm_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.