Document Type : Articles


1 Ph.D. in Knowledge and Information Science, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Information Science Research Department, Scientometrics and Information Analysis Research Group, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof., Knowledge and Information Science, Research Institution for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Information Science Research Department, Scientometrics and Information Analysis Research Group, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Human Science Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Yadegar Imam Khomeini (RAH) branch, Shahr-e-Rey, Tehran. Iran


This paper provides a systematic review of scientific resources to determine the components and indicators of the scholarly publication system. The research community includes 1070 documents from Scopus and the Web of Science databases. Another researcher was used to determine the degree of accuracy, reliability, and quality of the final documents, and the agreement between the two researchers was calculated with the Kappa coefficient. Finally, 331 documents were studied in full text. Possible components and indicators were identified from these documents, and their information was entered into Excel software. Based on the frequency and similarity of the contents, the conceptual framework of the scholarly publication system was designed. Research findings show that the main components of this system include infrastructure, technology, management, access, evaluation, support, language, communication, control, education, and ethics. Each of the components also has specific indicators and sub-indicators. Some issues, such as rights, laws, regulations, standards, repositories, scientific players, and centers, are not mentioned among the components because these concepts are integrated into other parts.


Main Subjects

Aaron, A., Fritsch, D. R. & Sullenger, P. (2000). Push technology: applications for scholarly communications and information management. The Serials Librarian, 38(3-4), 233-236.
Aghili, S. F., Mala, H., Shojafar, M. & Peris-Lopez, P. (2019). LACO: Lightweight three-factor authentication, access control and ownership transfer scheme for e-health systems in IoT. Future Generation Computer Systems, 96, 410-424.
Aguzzi, A. (2015). Scientific publishing in the times of open access. Swiss Medical Weekly, 145(0506), w14118. 
Al-Aufi, A. & Fulton, C. (2015). Impact of social networking tools on scholarly communication: a cross-institutional study. The Electronic Library, 33(2), 224-241.
Aliakbari, M. (2002). Writing in a foreign language: A writing problem or a language problem? Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 157-168.
Allen, B. M. (2008). All hype or real change: Has the digital revolution changed scholarly communication? Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 59-68.
 Alperin, J. P., Babini, D., Chan, L., Gray, E., Guédon, J.C., Joseph, H., Rodrigues, E. & Vessuri, H. (2015). Open Access in Latin America: A paragon for the rest of the world. Authorea.
Anglada, L. & Abadal, E. (2023). Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain. Profesional De La información, 32(1). e320113. 
Ardani, J. A., Utomo, C. & Rahmawati, Y. (2021). Model ownership and intellectual property rights for collaborative sustainability on building information modeling. Buildings, 11(8), 346. 
Arunachalam, S. and Madhan, M. (2016). Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication. The National Medical Journal of India, 29(4), 227-234.
Asamoah‐Hassan, H. (2010). Alternative scholarly communication: Management issues in a Ghanaian university. Library Management, 31(6), 420-426.
Asogwa, B. E. (2011). Digitization of archival collections in Africa for scholarly communication: Issues, strategies, and challenges. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 651.
Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Pagano, P. & Nazionale, C. (2015). Science 2.0 repositories: Time for a change in scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 21(1/2).
Baro, E. E. & Eze, M. E. (2017). Perceptions, preferences of scholarly publishing in open access routes. A survey of academic librarians in Nigeria. Information And Learning Science, 118(3/4), 152-169.
Bernius, S., Hanauske, M., König, W. & Dugall, B. (2009). Open access models and their implications for the players on the scientific publishing market. Economic Analysis & Policy, 39(1),103-116.
Besir Demir, S. (2018). A mixed-methods study of the ex post funding incentive policy for scholarly publications in Turkey. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 453-476.
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12(1), 11-45.
Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in scholarly communication seen through the lens of the sociology of technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 365-391. https://doi:10.1177/0306312704041522
Bolek, C., Marolov, D., Bolek, M. & Shopovski, J. (2020). Revealing Reviewers' Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 30(1), 1–25.
Borrero, A., Ramos, M., Arsenal, A., Lopez, K. & Hettel, G. (2007). Scholarly publishing initiatives at the International Rice Research Institute: Linking users to public goods via open access. First Monday, 12(10).
Bosah, G. and Okeji C., Clement; E. & Baro E. (2017). Perceptions, preferences of scholarly publishing in Open Access journals a survey of academic librarians in Africa. Digital Library Perspectives 33(4). 378-394.
Bosch, X. (2008). An open challenge: Open access and the challenges for scientific publishing. EMBO Reports, 9(5), 404-408.
Bowdoin, N. T. (2011). Open access, African scholarly publishing, and cultural rights: An exploratory usage and accessibility study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal), 619. Retrieved from
Brainard, J. (2020). Publishers try out alternative pathways to open access. Science (New York, N.Y.), 367(6483), 1179.
Brantley, S., Bruns, T. A. & Duffin, K. I. (2017). Librarians in transition: Scholarly communication support as a developing core competency. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(3), 137-150.
Brien, D. L., Burr, S. & Webb, J. (2010). Dispirited, often ineffectual, and in some respects corrupt?: Re-assessing 'the invisible hand' of peer review. Text: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, 14(2), 1-19.
Brown, R. C. (1990). Changing patterns of scholarly communication and the need to expand the library's role and services. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 14(4), 371-377.
Byiringiro, F. (2013). Open access, knowledge sharing and sustainable scholarly communication. Rwanda Medical Journal, 70(2), 25-26. Retrieved from
Carvalho Neto, S., Willinsky, J. & Alperin, J. P. (2016). Measuring, rating, supporting, and strengthening open access scholarly publishing in Brazil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(54).
Chicaiza, J., Piedra, N., López, J., Quituisaca, L., Montaño-Sosoranga, F., Medina, P. & Tovar-Caro, E. (2016, April). A contribution to encourage the dissemination of academic publishing: Finding diffusion media by means of a search engine based on semantic technologies. In 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 854-859). IEEE.
Chien, S. C. (2019). Writing for scholarly publication in English for Taiwanese researchers in the field of English teaching. Sage Open, 9(3). 
Cho, J. (2007). An evaluation plan for Korean university libraries to revitalize academic resource-sharing. The Journal of academic librarianship, 33(4), 515-518.
Collins, J. (2005). The future of academic publishing: what is open access? Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2(4), 321-326.
Conley, J.P. & Wooders, M. (2009). But what have you done for me lately? Commercial publishing, scholarly communication, and open-access. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 71-88.
Ramalho Correia, A. M. & Carlos Teixeira, J. (2005). Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review, 29(4), 349-364. 
Cotnoir, C. (2016). How publishers are using data to develop products and boost revenues: A case study-building an online subscription business. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(4), 286-290.
Curry, M. & Lillis, T. (2017). 1 Problematizing English as the privileged language of global academic publishing. In M. Curry & T. Lillis (Ed.), Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies (pp. 1-20). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M. & Borchardt, G. (2017). Information systems in journal management: the ugly duckling of academic publishing. European Science Editing, 43(1), 7-10.
Davies, J. E. & Greenwood, H. (2004). Scholarly communication trends—Voices from the vortex: A summary of specialist opinion. Learned publishing, 17(2), 157-167. 
Davis, H. M. & Vickery, J. N. (2007). Datasets, a shift in the currency of scholarly communication: Implications for library collections and acquisitions. Serials Review, 33(1), 26-32.
Day, M. (2008). Preserving the outputs of scholarly communication for the long-term: a review of recent developments in digital preservation for electronic journal content. In W. Jones (Ed.), E-Journals Access and Management (pp. 39-64). Routledge. 
Dluhošová, T. (2018). Censorship and publication control in early post-war Taiwan: Procedures and practices. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 47(2), 15-53.
Dobson, H. (2016). Think. Check. Submit.: the campaign helping researchers navigate the scholarly communication landscape. Insights, 29(3), 228-232.
Dubini, P. & Giglia, E. (2009). Economic sustainability during transition: The case of scholarly publishing. Rethinking electronic publishing: Innovation in communication paradigms and technologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp.  239-262). Retrieved from
Dutfield, G. & Suthersanen, U. (2020). Dutfield and suthersanen on global intellectual property law. 2nd edition. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eger, T. & Scheufen, M. (2021). Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(8), 1922-1932. 
Esposito, J. J. (2008). Open access 2.0: Access to scholarly publications moves to a new phase. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2),
Estelle, L. (2017). What researchers told us about their experiences and expectations of scholarly communications ecosystems. Insights, 30(1), 71-75.
Evgeniou, T. (2002). Information integration and information strategies for adaptive enterprises. European Management Journal, 20(5), 486-494.
Ezema, I. J. & Okafor, V. N. (2015). Open access institutional repositories in Nigeria academic libraries: Advocacy and issues in scholarly communication. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 39(3-4), 45-58.
Forgues, B. & Liarte, S. (2013). Academic publishing: Past and future. M@n@gement, 16, 739-756. 
Fox, C. W. (2021). Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1961), 20211399.
Fyffe, R. (2011). Technological change and the scholarly Communications Reform Movement. Library Resources & Technical Services, 46(2), 50-61.
Garte, S. J. (1995). Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 59-70.
Getz, M. (2005). Open-access scholarly publishing in economic perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 42(1), 1-39.
Goeke, R. J., Crowne, K. A. & Laker, D. R. (2018). The effect of education on information systems success: lessons from human resources. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 31(3), 17-33.
Greco, A. N. (2015). Academic libraries and the economics of scholarly publishing in the twenty-first century: portfolio theory, product differentiation, economic rent, perfect price discrimination, and the cost of prestige. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(1), 1-43.
Groenewegen, D. (2015). A comment on open access: The whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. 19.
Guédon, J. C., Kramer, B., Laakso, M., Schmidt, B., Šimukovič, E., Hansen, J., ... & Patterson, M. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Reza/Downloads/future%20of%20scholarly%20publishing%20and%20scholarly%20communication-KI0518070ENN.pdf
Hagenhoff, S., Ortelbach, B. & Seidenfaden, L. (2009). A Classification Scheme for Innovative Types in Scholarly Communication. In Handbook of Research on Digital Libraries: Design, Development, and Impact (pp. 216-226). IGI Global. https://doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch021
Haider, J. & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's "Sting" in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 450-467.
Halliday, L. (2001). Scholarly communication, scholarly publication and the status of emerging formats. Information Research, 6(4), 6-4. Retrieved from
Hamrahi, A., Pournaghi, R. & Matlabi, D. (2022). Qualitative analysis of the scholarly publication system dimensions in the scholarly publication databases. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management, 38(2), 95-121. [in Persian]
Hamrahi, A., Pournaghi, R. & Matlabi, D. (2023). Prioritization of indicators of the scholarly publication system in Iran. Library and Information Sciences, 24(4), 49-72.  [in Persian]
Hagner, M. (2018). Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing. Swiss Medical Weekly, 148(0708), w14600.
Harley, D. (2013). Scholarly communication: Cultural contexts, evolving models. Science, 342(6154), 80-82.
Hartgerink, C. H. & Van Zelst, M. (2018). "As-You-Go" Instead of "After-the-Fact": A network approach to scholarly communication and evaluation. Publications, 6(2), 21.
Heath, F. M. & Duffy, J. (2005). Collections of record and scholarly communications: The responsibilities of the research library in a rapidly evolving digital world. Journal of library administration, 42(2), 5-21. https://doi:10.1300/J111v42n02_02
Hedlund, T. & Rabow, I. (2009). Scholarly publishing and open access in the Nordic countries. Learned publishing, 22(3), 177-186.
Herb, U. (2017). 017). Recommendations, statements, declarations and activities of science policy actors on shaping the scholarly communication system. In P. Weingart & N. C. Taubert (Eds.), The Future of Scholarly Publishing: Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation (pp. 135-164). Capetown / South Africa: African Minds. Zenodo.
Heyl, A., Joubert, M. & Guenther, L. (2020). Churnalism and Hype in Science Communication: Comparing University Press Releases and Journalistic Articles in South Africa. Communicatio: South African Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 46(2), 126-145. 
Hidayat, D. S., Sensuse, D. I., Elisabeth, D. & Hasani, L. M. (2022). Conceptual model of knowledge management system for scholarly publication cycle in academic institution. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 
 Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T. & Page, M. J., Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
Higgs, A. (2018). The new dimension in scholarly communications: How a global scholarly community collaboration created the world's largest linked research knowledge system. Information Services & Use, 38(1-2), 85-89.
Högberg, A. (2013). Academic publishing in Sweden threatened by withdrawal of support. Current Swedish Archaeology, 21(1), 168-170.
Horstmann, W., Reimer, P. & Schirrwagen, J. (2006). Serving innovation in scholarly communication with the open platform "digital peer publishing". In B. Martens & M. Dobreva (Eds.), ELPUB2006. Digital Spectrum: Integrating Technology and Culture - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp. 359-366).
Houghton, J. W. (2001). Crisis and transition: the economics of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing, 14(3), 167-176.
Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Sage.
Hunter, P. (2018). A DEAL for open access: The negotiations between the German DEAL project and publishers have global implications for academic publishing beyond just Germany. EMBO Reports, 19(6), e46317.
Islam, M. A. & Akter, R. (2013). Institutional repositories and open access initiatives in Bangladesh: A new paradigm of scholarly communication. Liber Quarterly, 23(1), 3-24.
Jantz, R. C. & Wilson, M. C. (2008). Institutional repositories: Faculty deposits, marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication. The journal of academic librarianship, 34(3), 186-195. Retrieved from
Johannisson, J. (2015). Open Access scholarly publishing on the competitive market: university management as obstacle and enabler. Culture Unbound, 7(4), 610-617.
Jubb, M. (2011). Heading for the open road: costs and benefits of transitions in scholarly communications. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 21(1), 102-124.
Kaiser, J. (2006). Particle physicists want to expand open access. Science, (5791). 1215.
Kennedy, C. R. (2015). Bibliometric study of scholarly writing and publishing patterns concerning copyright and digital images. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 34(1), 60-70.
Kenner, A. (2014). Designing digital infrastructure: Four considerations for scholarly publishing projects. Cultural Anthropology, 29(2), 264-287.
Kindelan, P. (2009). A fresh look at Spanish scientific publishing in the framework of international standards. European Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 89-103.
Kingsley, D. A. & Kennan, M. A. (2015). Open access: The whipping boy for problems in scholarly publishing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(14), 329-350.
Kling, R., Spector, L. & McKim, G. (2002). Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: The Guild model. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 228-238.
Koler-Povh, T., Mikoš, M. & Turk, G. (2014). Institutional repository as an important part of scholarly communication. Library Hi Tech, 32(3), 423-434.
Kousha, K. (2009, July). Characteristics of open access scholarly publishing: a multidisciplinary study. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 394-406). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 
Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A. & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6, 94.   
Krishnan, V. (2013). Etiquette in scientific publishing. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 144(4), 577-582.
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T. C., Guns, R., Hołowiecki, M. & Pölönen, J. (2019). How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. Plos One, 14(3), e0214423.
Kumara, B., Sampath Kumar, B. T., & Kumbar, M. (2019). Print v/s electronic sources of information: Preferred sources for reading among faculty members and students. Knowledge Organisation in Academic Libraries (I-KOAL 2019): Building Smart Libraries: Challenges and Discovery Tools, 44-47.
Lakhotia, S. & Chaddah, P. (2019). Ethics of research. In Kambadur Muralidhar, Amit Ghosh, Ashok Kumar Singhvi (Eds.)  Ethics in Science Education, Research and Governance, (pp. 35-43). New Delhi, Indian National Science Academy. Retrieved from
Larivière, V., Haustein, S. & Mongeon, P. (2015). Big publishers, bigger profits: how the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. Media trope, V (2), 102-110. Retrieved from
Lawlor, B. (2003). Abstracting and Information Services. Serials Review, 29(3), 200-209.
Lawlor, B. (2017). An overview of the NFAIS 2017 Annual Conference: The big pivot: re-engineering scholarly communication. Information Services & Use, 37(3), 283-306. https://doi:10.3233/ISU-170854
Lawson, S. & Gray, J. & Mauri, M., (2016). Opening the black box of scholarly communication funding: a public data infrastructure for financial flows in academic publishing. Open Library of Humanities, 2(1), e10. 
Leão, D. (2015). Academic publishing in Portugal: threats and major opportunities. Insights, 28(1), 37-41.
Lee, G. (2000). Dynamic incompatibility, bundling and innovation in systems markets. The Korean Economic Association, 16, 165-177. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Reza/Downloads/KER-200006-16-1-10.PDF
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2022). Language choice and academic publishing: A social-ecological perspective on languages other than English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-15.
Lor, P. J. (2007). Bridging the North—South Divide in Scholarly Communication in Africa—a library and information systems perspective. IFLA Journal, 33(4), 303-312.
Maier, G. & Wildberger, A. (1993). Wide area computer networks and scholarly communication in regional science. Papers in Regional Science, 72(4), 425-445. 
Manchón, R. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Multilingual Matters.
Maron, N. L. & Smith, K. K. (2009). Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka strategic services for the association of research libraries. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(1).
Maxwell, B. & Schwimmer, M. (2016). Professional ethics education for future teachers: A narrative review of the scholarly writings. Journal of Moral Education, 45(3), 354-371.
McGreal, R., Chen, N. S. & McNamara, T. (2011). A comparison of an open access university press with traditional presses: Two years later. Information Services & Use, 31(3-4), 211-214.
Stamison, C. M., McKee, A. E. & Bahnmaier, S. (2014). Creation, transformation, dissemination and preservation: Advocating for scholarly communication. The Serials Librarian, 66(1-4), 189-195. https://doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.877298
McPherson, T. (2010). Scaling vectors: Thoughts on the future of scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(2).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & PRISMA Group (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery (London, England), 8(5), 336-341. 
Moore, S. A. (2020). Individuation through infrastructure: Get full text research, data extraction and the academic publishing oligopoly. Journal of Documentation, 77(1), 129-141.
Morrison, H. (2013). Economics of scholarly communication in transition. First Monday, 18(6). 
Mower, A. (2018). Sources of Evidence to Inform Scholarly Communication Librarianship. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 13(3), 69-73.
Mueller-Langer, F. & Scheufen, M. (2013). Academic publishing and open access. In Ruth Towse and Christian Handke (eds.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, chapter 32, (pp.365-377). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mukherjee, B. (2010). Scholarly communication in library and information services: The impacts of open access journals and e-journals on a changing scenario. Elsevier.
Nane, G. F., Robinson-Garcia, N., van Schalkwyk, F. & Torres-Salinas, D. (2023). COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: Growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics, 128(1), 345-362.
Nentwich, M. (2005). Cyberscience: Modelling ICT-induced changes of the scholarly communication system. Information, Community & Society, 8(4), 542-560.
Obeid, R. & Hill, D. B. (2017). An intervention designed to reduce plagiarism in a research methods classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 155-159.
Obuh, A. O. & Bozimo, D. O. (2012). Awareness and use of open access scholarly publications by LIS lecturers in Southern Nigeria. International Journal of Library Science, 1(4), 54-60. 
Ocholla, D. N. (2011). An overview of issues, challenges and opportunities of scholarly publishing in information studies in Africa. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science, 21(1).
Ogburn, J. L. (2011). Defining and achieving success in the movement to change scholarly communication. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(2), 44-53.
Okore, A. M. (2011). Demographic and socio- economic attributes as determinants of information and communication technology use for scholarly communication in Nigerian Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 611. Retrieved from
Oladokun, O. (2015). Scholarly communication in a digital environment: Populating the institutional repository of the University of Botswana. Libri, 65(1), 48-56. https://doi:10.1515/libri-2014-0117
Orlandi, L. B., Ricciardi, F., Rossignoli, C. & De Marco, M. (2019). Scholarly work in the Internet age: Co-evolving technologies, institutions and workflows. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(1), 55-61.
Pantalony, R. E. (2016). Museum scholarly communications and copyright law: A call for balanced and nuanced exceptions premised on museum mission and mandate. Museum International, 68(3-4), 110-117. 
Park, J. H. & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 76-89.
Parkosewich, J. A. (2013). An infrastructure to advance the scholarly work of staff nurses. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86(1), 63-77.
Peekhaus, W. & Proferes, N. (2016). An examination of north American library and information studies faculty perceptions of and experience with open-access scholarly publishing. Library & Information Science Research, 38(1), 18-29. https://doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2016.01.003
Picco, P., Aguirre-Ligüera, N., Maldini, J., Simón, L., Petroccelli, P., Fontans, E., ... & Gladys Ceretta, M. (2014). Scholarly communication in Uruguay: Study of publications of active researchers from the National System of Researchers (2009-2010). Transinformação, 26, 155-165.
Poniszewska-Maranda, A. (2008, October). Access control models in heterogeneous information systems: From conception to exploitation. In 2008 international multiconference on computer science and information technology (pp. 821-826). IEEE.
Ponte, D. & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: Exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149-156.
Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C. & Rennie, E. (2017). A journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing. Prometheus, 35(1), 75-92.
Potvin, S. & Sare, L. (2016). Public goods and public interests: scholarly communication and government documents in research libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(2), 417-441.
Prosser, D. C. (2008). Current (European) developments in scholarly communication. Liber Quarterly, 18(3/4), 399-412.
Qiu, J., Tian, Z., Du, C., Zuo, Q., Su, S. & Fang, B. (2020). A survey on access control in the age of internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(6), 4682-4696.
Qu, S. & Wiwanitkit, V. (2015). Response to "The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(1), 57.
Quinn, M. M. (2015). Open access in scholarly publishing: Embracing principles and avoiding pitfalls. The Serials Librarian, 69(1), 58-69.
Rahimi, B. (2015). Censorship and the Islamic Republic: Two modes of regulatory measures for media in Iran. The Middle East Journal, 69(3), 358-378.
Rathemacher, A. J. (2012). ACRL new England scholarly communication special interest group workshop: Open access and scholarly societies: A panel discussion about the opportunities and challenges. Serials Review, 38(2), 152-155.
Reagor, S. & Brown, W. S. (1978). The application of advanced technology to scholarly communication in the humanities. Computers and the Humanities, 12, 237-246.
Rieger, O. Y. (2008). Opening up institutional repositories: Social construction of innovation in scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3).
Rodriguez, J. E. (2015). Scholarly communications competencies: open access training for librarians. New Library World, 116(7/8), 397-405.
Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., Aeschliman, C. & Chase, A. M. (2017). Print versus digital texts: understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology, 25.
Rubio-Manrique, S. & Cuní, G. (2019). Dynamic control systems: Advantages and challenges. Proceedings, 17th International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems, ICALEPCS2019 (pp. 46-51).
Rubira-García, R., Baldiris-Navarro, S. M., Venet-Gutiérrez, J. & Magro-Vela, S. (2020). Theoretical aspects of scholarly publishing about the internet in spanish communication journals. Publications, 8(3), 42.
Salton, G. (1966 Editorial). Information dissemination and publication control. Communications of the ACM, 9(4), 254.
Sawant, S. (2012). Transformation of the scholarly communication cycle. Library Hi Tech News, 29(10), 21-24.
Saxena, A., Thawani, V., Chakrabarty, M. & Gharpure, K. (2013). Scientific evaluation of the scholarly publications. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 4(2), 125-129.
Schmidt, B. & Görögh, E. (2017). ​New Toolkits on the Block: Peer Review Alternatives in Scholarly Communication. In L. Chan, F. Loizides ​(Eds.), Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp.62-74). ​
Seidenfaden, L., Ortelbach, B. & Schumann, M. A (207). Peer-to-peer application system for the scholarly communication. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, (pp. 490-503). Retrieved from
Sharma, G. (2014). Transforming open access scholarly publishing and scientific delivery: challenges and opportunities in Asian regions. Research Journal of Information Technology, 6(4), 413-426.
Shearer, K. & Birdsall, W. F. (2005). A researcher's research agenda for scholarly communication in Canada. New Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 99-108.
Šilhánek, J. (2011). Revolution in scientific publishing? getting on with open access. Chemické Listy, 105(1). Retrieved from
Smit, E. & Gruttemeier, H. (2011). Are scholarly publications ready for the data era? Suggestions for best practice guidelines and common standards for the integration of data and publications. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 54-70. 
Souto, P. N. (2007). E-publishing development and changes in the scholarly communication system. Ciência da Informação, 36, 158-166.
Steele, C. (2014). Scholarly communication, scholarly publishing and university libraries. Plus Ça Change? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(4), 241-261.
Stewart, J., Procter, R., Williams, R. & Poschen, M. (2013). The role of academic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for scholarly communication. New Media & Society, 15(3), 413-432.
Sutherland, W. R. (1977). Impact of technology on scientific publishing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-20, (2), 56-58.
Swan, A. (2006). Overview of scholarly communication. In Neil Jacobs (Ed.) Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects (pp.  3-12).
Tang, R. (2012). The issues and challenges facing academic writers from ESL/EFL contexts: An overview. In Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts, 1-18. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/drghane/Downloads/dokumen.pub_academic-writing-in-a-second-or-foreign-language-issues-and-challenges-facing-esl-efl-academic-writers-in-higher-education-contexts-9781472541543-9781441112163.pdf
Tecson-Mendoza, E. M. (2015). Scientific and academic journals in the Philippines: Status and challenges. Science Editing, 2(2), 73-78.
Thi, T. T. P., Pham, H. H., Nguyen, H. L. & Nguyen, L. C. (2021). International academic publishing in Vietnam: policy efficiency and room for development. Science Editing, 8(2), 162-165.
Tošić, A. & Vičič, J. (2021). Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101163.
Tošić, A. & Vičič, J. (2021). Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101163.
Trotter, H., Kell, C., Willmers, M., Gray, E. & King, T. (2014). Seeking impact and visibility: Scholarly communication in Southern Africa (p. 262). African Minds. Retrieved from
Uysal, H. H. (2014). English language spread in academia: Macro-level state policies and micro-level practices of scholarly publishing in Turkey. Language Problems and Language Planning, 38(3), 265-291.
Van Noorden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426-429.
Veretennikova, N., Pasichnyk, V., Kunanets, N. & Gats, B. (2015, September). E-Science: New paradigms, system integration and scientific research organization. In 2015 Xth International Scientific and Technical Conference" Computer Sciences and Information Technologies"(CSIT) (pp. 76-81). IEEE.
Waithaka, M., Chilimo, W. & Onyancha, O. B. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly publishing in selected public universities in Kenya. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 88(1), 1-14. Retrieved from
Waithaka, M. W. & Onyancha, O. B. (2021). Use of open access channels for scholarly publishing in Kenyan universities. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37(2), 293-306.
Wei, W. (2013). Scholarly communication in science and engineering research in higher education. Routledge.
Widén, G. (2010). New modes of scholarly communication: Implications of Web 2.0 in the context of research dissemination. In Barbara Dewey (ed.) Transforming Research Libraries for the Global Knowledge Society (pp. 133-146). Chandos Information Professional Series.
Wiederhold, G. (1993, June). Intelligent integration of information. In Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 434-437).
Willinsky, J. (2017). Modelling a cooperative approach to open access scholarly publishing: A Demonstration in the Canadian Context. Canadian Journal of Communication, 42(5), 923-934.
Woodward, H. (2010). Dissemination models in scholarly communication. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(S1), 1-3. 
Wright, J., Avouris, A., Frost, M. & Hoffmann, S. (2022). Supporting academic freedom as a human right: challenges and solutions in academic publishing. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(10), 1741-1760.
Wu, M.M. (2005). Why Print and Electronic Resources Are Essential to the Academic Law Library. Law Library Journal, 97, 233-256. Retrieved from
Xia, J. (2017). Scholarly communication at the crossroads in China. Chandos Publishing.
Xia, J. (2006). Scholarly communication in East and Southeast Asia: traditions and challenges. IFLA Journal, 32(2), 104-112.
Yamson, G. C., Appiah, A. B. & Tsegah, M. (2018). Electronic vs. print resources: a survey of perception, usage and preferences among central university undergraduate students. European Scientific Journal, 14(7), 291-304.
Zhao, L. (2014). Riding the wave of open access: Providing library research support for scholarly publishing literacy. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(1), 3-18.
Zhu, X. & Cho, M. (2021). Ownership vs access: Consumers' digital ownership perceptions and preferences. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(6), 904-920.
Zietman, A. L. (2017). The ethics of scientific publishing: Black, white, and "fifty shades of gray". International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 99(2), 275-279.