7.4.6Bibliography

de Rijcke, S., & Penders, B. (2018). Resist calls for replicability in the humanities. Nature, 560(7716), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05845-z

Demeter, M., Jele, A., & Major, Z. B. (2021). The International Development of Open Access Publishing: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Over Seven World Regions and Nine Academic Disciplines. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37(3), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09814-9

Engzell, P., & Rohrer, J. M. (2021). Improving Social Science: Lessons from the Open Science Movement. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000967

Eve, M. P. (2015). Open Access publishing and scholarly communications in non-scientific disciplines. Online Information Review, 39(5), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0103

Eykens, J., Guns, R., Rahman, A. J., & Engels, T. C. (2019). Identifying publications in questionable journals in the context of performance-based research funding. PloS One, 14(11), Article 11.

Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing (pp. 17–47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2

Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline (arXiv:1206.3664). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1206.3664

Giglia, E. (2019). OPERAS: Bringing the long tail of Social Sciences and Humanities into Open Science. Jlis.It, 10(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12523

Klebel, T., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00245

Knöchelmann, M. (2019). Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities? Publications, 7(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Longley Arthur, P., & Hearn, L. (2021). Toward Open Research: A Narrative Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for Open Humanities. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 827–853. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab028

McLaughlin, J. L. (2017). A New Open Humanities: Introduction. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 43(5), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bul2.2017.1720430504

Peels, R., & Bouter, L. (2018). Humanities need a replication drive too. Nature, 558(7710), 372–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05454-w

Pölönen, J., Laakso, M., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). Open access at the national level: A comprehensive analysis of publications by Finnish researchers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(4), 1396–1428. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00084

Robinson-Garcia, N., Leeuwen, T. N. van, & Torres-Salinas, D. (2020). Measuring Open Access Uptake: Data Sources, Expectations, and Misconceptions (No. 1). 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.23

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Sanford, H. (2022, September 7). The State of Unpaywall: Analyzing the Consistency of Open Access Data. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6975430

Severin, A., Egger, M., Eve, M. P., & Hürlimann, D. (2020). Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: An evidence-based review (7:1925). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2

Suber, P. (2017, June 8). Why Is Open Access Moving So Slowly In The Humanities? Blog of the APA. https://blog.apaonline.org/2017/06/08/open-access-in-the-humanities-part-2/

Vandewalle, E., Zhou, H., Guns, R., Arhiliuc, C., & Eykens, J. (2022). Types of open peer review and their relation to VABB-SHW : report to the Authoritative Panel. ECOOM. https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1892070151162165141