Archive for Clarivate

How to Fight Fraudulent Publishing

Posted in mathematics, Open Access with tags , , , , , , , on September 23, 2025 by telescoper

There’s a short article on arXiv with the title How to Fight Fraudulent Publishing in the Mathematical Sciences: Joint Recommendations of the IMU and the ICIAM which is well worth reading. The abstract is not useful but the prelude reads:

PreludeIn November 2023, Clarivate announced that it had excluded the entire field of mathematics from the latest edition of its influential list of ‘highly cited researchers’. This prompted the IMU and the ICIAM to conduct a more thorough investigation into the problem of fraudulent publishing in the mathematical sciences (see [1]). Understanding the problem is one thing; finding a way out and regaining control is another. With the recommendations given below, we would like to start the discussion on how, as a global community, we can achieve this. We are all concerned. It affects the very core of the science we love so much. I.A.

arXiv:2509.09877

The paper correctly identifies predatory journals and citation cartels as two consequences of the effort to quantify and rank the quality of research through scientific ‘performance indicators’, in the form of bibliometric measures and suggests some possible remedies.

Many of the recommendations are already included in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SFDORA). Many also apply beyond the mathematical sciences (which is why I dropped the Mathematical Sciences bit in the title of the paper from the title of this blog post) and it’s not a long paper so I suggest you read it.

In my view one of the most important steps to take is to ditch the reliance on such companies as Scopus and Clarivate, who have deliberately constructed a system that is so easy to game. All higher education institutes should follow the examples of the Sorbonne University in Paris and, more recently, Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The academic publishing racket is inherently fraudulent. Too many universities, and indeed researchers employed by them, are willing participants in the system.

A Master Class in Destroying Trust

Posted in Open Access with tags , on April 8, 2025 by telescoper

For (hopefully) obvious reasons, I’m taking the liberty of republishing, with permission, the following article, originally published here, about the egregious behaviour of the company Clarivate which, among other activities, is responsible for assigning Journal Impact Factors. Please read it if you want to understand why nothing Clarivate does should be trusted. The author, Sunshine Carter, is director of collection strategy and e-resource management at the University of Minnesota. The article represents the author’s personal views, not those of her employer. 

–0–

Clarivate’s “transformative subscription-based strategy” caught the library world flat-footed. How did this happen? And where do we go from here?

 

On February 18, 2025, Clarivate announced that as part of its “transformative strategy and following changes in demand from libraries” it would “phase out one-time perpetual purchases of print books” and ebooks on ProQuest’s Ebook Central platform. It would also end new perpetual archive license purchases of digital collections.

The removal of perpetual purchases from Clarivate’s sales models runs counter to library values of long-term preservation and access to information. Subscriptions might work for some libraries, but perpetual purchases are important for the preservation of the written record, especially at research institutions.

In the weeks that followed the announcement, librarians (including Siobhan Haimé and Isaac Wink) lamented the end of ownership; the loss of stable access; and the loss of a primary supplier for shelf-ready print books. They shared concerns about their ability to afford new subscriptions, the need to shift collection development strategies, and Clarivate’s fast timeline. Many pointed to Clarivate’s February 19, 2025 earnings call for 2024 Q4, which clearly articulated their goal to increase the bottom line. This was the “value creation plan (VCP)” Clarivate announced in late 2024 coming to fruition. Library and higher education consortia sent letters to Clarivate; libraries met with Clarivate, and with each other. EBSCO, a direct competitor, quickly reaffirmed its commitment to offering a variety of purchase options for libraries.

On March 4, two weeks after the initial announcement, Clarivate’s CEO, Matti Shem Tov, and president for academia and government, Bar Veinstein, issued an open letter to the library community in which they apologized that “the absence of community consultation created frustration, during already challenging times for libraries and higher education.” They also announced that Clarivate would delay the implementation date for the planned changes and guarantee perpetual access for previously purchased materials.

This response—a delay in implementation that ignores the library community’s deeper critique of the plan—rings hollow.

As we plan our next steps, we should reflect on how we got here.

Building a Community

In June 2007, I found myself in Spearfish, South Dakota at my first Ex Libris Users of North American (ELUNA) conference.

Formed in 2006 from the merger of two previous user groups, ELUNA is a not-for-profit organization representing Ex Libris customers in the Americas. Ex Libris develops and sells library software and management solutions like Alma, an integrated library management system used by over 2,500 libraries worldwide.

ELUNA members test and advocate for improvements to the Ex Libris products and have created a community of support for each other. ELUNA has a steering committee, eighteen working groups, four advisory groups, and seven communities of practice composed of staff from subscribing institutions; they interact directly with staff from Ex Libris. Over the past 20 years, through my institutions’ involvement in ELUNA, I’ve improved, conceptualized, and developed features for Ex Libris products.

At my first ELUNA conference, I was awed by how many libraries and library staff were users of and experts in Ex Libris tools and systems. I was also struck by how closely ELUNA attendees and member institutions collaborated with Ex Libris staff. Ex Libris leaders, product managers, developers, and customer support and service staff attend the ELUNA conference, where they lead trainings and give presentations.

Over the years, Ex Libris executives (including, during their tenures there, Shem Tov and Veinstein) often used the conference to announce and explain the rationale for new products or other major business decisions. During Q&A sessions, ELUNA members shared opinions—sometimes passionate—directly with Ex Libris staff and executives. There was a high level of collaboration and information-sharing between ELUNA member institutions, their staff, and Ex Libris employees.

The process of collaboration was not always smooth and didn’t always work out as ELUNA members preferred, but we worked with Ex Libris to make things happen and felt like a valued community.

A Shifting Tide

In October 2015, ProQuest, which had its own long history as a key provider of digitized primary materials and aggregator of research databases, ebooks, and streaming videos, acquired Ex Libris. This was a seismic transition for academic libraries. But despite fretting about what the acquisition would mean for both companies and their lines of products, from the outside, things seemed okay: There was some consolidation—for example, of customer support desks—but the products themselves didn’t change. Ex Libris retained its moniker, adding “A ProQuest Company” to its logo and branding. Several Ex Libris executives—including Shem Tov and Veinstein—made their way into ProQuest leadership.

And then, in late 2021, ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate.

Though Clarivate’s current leadership—including Shem Tov and Veinstein—have a strong history of collaborating with their customers, they didn’t consult with libraries or publishers before their February 18 announcement. Clarivate’s failure to involve their customers in this decision, especially those in government and academia, shows that they prioritized profit over relationships.

The exclusion of libraries was intentional, not an oversight. In a moment when university budgets are facing profound and intense technological, financial, and governmental pressures, Clarivate’s fast and furious timeline—even with a slight reprieve—is out of touch.

Vendors and publishers seek to make money. Library professionals promote the freedom to read and unfettered access to content. Of course the goals of vendors and library professionals can be in conflict. And yet, in our work with vendors, as exemplified in my experience with ELUNA—a service provided by libraries and their employees to a corporation, in the form of a nonprofit, which we described as a community—it has at times been easy to feel as if we all share a commitment to libraries and librarianship.

We do not.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Clarivate is omnipresent on academic campuses, although it is not alone. And, like other large content and information services providers, it has shifted its focus. In an article about Elsevier and its parent company, RELX, Christien Boomsma writes, “Publishing is no longer the main focus for RELX and its competitors; instead, they have become data brokers. They sell data to insurance companies for risk analysis, to banks for fraud detection, to universities to assess their performance, and, especially egregious, to the US Immigration Service to target illegal immigrants.” In addition to a new focus on data, Clarivate is investing heavily in artificial intelligence, an indicator of expected market and revenue gains.

Clarivate’s dismissal of one-time purchases is alarming, but when you consider the company’s larger strategy, it makes sense. On the Q4 earnings call, Shem Tov refers to one-time purchases as “a drain.” He also says that Clarivate has “retained financial advisers to help us in evaluating strategic alternatives to unlock value. This may include divesting business units or an entire segment.” He goes on to say, “There is no guarantee that anything actionable will arise from this process,” but considering Clarivate will no longer sell books, Clarivate’s furthering its investment in data should make us wary.

Going forward, libraries and library staff should approach vendors with absolute clarity about the values governing our respective work and the nature of our relationships. We must:

Increase bibliodiversity in the market and our collections (Haimé) by:

  • Purchasing materials directly from smaller and/or more diverse publishers
  • Investing in academy-owned open access infrastructure and publishing that is sustainable, equitable, and diverse
  • Investigating alternative software, tools, and content providers; consider developing options in-house (or in collaboration with other institutions)
  • Divesting from resources that no longer serve our needs or align with our values

Speak up by:

  • Sharing concerns with library leadership
  • Pushing vendors on issues that conflict with our values
  • Requesting meetings with vendor leadership

Use our collective voices to:

  • Discuss issues with institutional, system, regional, consortia, or association groups
  • Bring shared concerns to vendors, collectively
  • Reclaim our space; insist on being at the table (especially concerning the development of AI-integrated tools and the use of data collected about our institutions or our users)
  • Set guiding principles for interacting with publishers and vendors

Incorporate limitations into signed agreements. Make sure to:

  • Get everything in writing, via a contract
  • Limit vendors’ use of the data they collect from our users and institutions

Offer library staff training on:

  • Current vendor issues and trends with vendors
  • Ethics and conflicts of interest

We should remain open to collaboration but remember that profit drives many of the companies libraries rely on. Even in the face of great challenges and unbelievable changes, we can and should continue to advocate for our core values.

10.1146/katina031925-1

Bravo, Sorbonne University!

Posted in Education, Open Access with tags , , , on December 10, 2023 by telescoper

Here’s some good news for advocates of open research. Sorbonne University (Paris) has made an important announcement. I quote:

Sorbonne University has been deeply committed to the promotion and the development of  open science for many years. According to its commitment to open research information, it has decided to discontinue its subscription to the Web of Science publication database and Clarivate bibliometric tools in 2024. By resolutely abandoning the use of proprietary bibliometric products, it is opening the way for open, free and participative tools.

That’s the way to do it! Such a decision requires real intellectual leadership, so I’m not sure how many other universities will follow suit. Those paralyzed by managerialism probably won’t.

The Sorbonne statement goes on to explain:

This decision is in line with the University’s overall policy of openness, and it is now working to consolidate a sustainable, international alternative, in particular by using OpenAlex.

Both Web of Science and Clarivate are, of course, fronts for the academic publishing industry and are just as pointless, as they sell to subscribers a biased subset of information which is already in the public domain through services such as CrossRef.

While I’m congratulating Sorbonne for its leadership, I should do likewise (though in a different context) for Utrecht University, which refused to participate in this year’s Times Higher World Rankings. Among their reasons are

  • Rankings put too much stress on scoring and competition, while we want to focus on collaboration and open science.
  • The makers of the rankings use data and methods that are highly questionable, research shows. 

I hope more institutions join the fight back against the box-tickers in this regard too, although I’m not particularly hopeful here either.

Clarivate’s Web of Inconsistency

Posted in Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on March 13, 2023 by telescoper

I am involved in the (painfully slow) process of trying to get the Open Journal of Astrophysics listed by Clarivate, which some researchers – or rather, their funding agencies – feel to be important. One of the reasons for this seems to be that some researchers are only allowed to publish in journals with an official Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Clarivate has set itself up as the gatekeeper for those, although they can easily be calculated using data in the public domain.

Leaving Clarivate aside for a moment, I was googling around this morning and found an independent listing of the Journal Impact Factor for the Open Journal of Astrophysics for 2021, namely 7.4, and found the following description.

Nice. Not bad, considering the Open Journal of Astrophysics is run on a shoestring.

Anyway, although I have grave reservations about the JIF, wanting to make the Open Journal available to as wide a range of authors as possible, I applied for listing by Clarivate in August 2022. I waited and waited. Then, a couple of weeks ago somebody asked me on social media about it and I tagged Clarivate in my reply. No doubt by sheer coincidence I received a reply from Clarivate last week, just a matter of days after mentioning them on social media. A similar thing has happened before. It seems that if you want to ask Clarivate something you have to ask them in public.

At least they replied eventually. We’re still not listed though. Not yet anyway. Among the feedback I received was this:

The volume of scholarly works published annually is expected to be within ranges appropriate to the subject area. However, we have noticed that the publication volume is not in line with similar journals covering this subject area.

When we first started up the Open Journal of Astrophysics I expected this would be an issue as we are new and have published many fewer papers than the big hitters in the field such as MNRAS and ApJ. However, after doing a bit of research among the astronomical journals actually listed on the Web of Science, I changed my mind and thought it wouldn’t be a problem. It seems I was wrong.

Take, for example, the Serbian Astronomical Journal which is listed by Clarivate. I’m mentioning this journal not because I have anything against it: it’s a free Open Access journal and that is very laudable. I just want to use it as an examplar to demonstrate an inconsistency in the above feedback.

According to its web page, the Serbian Astronomical Journal (SerAJ) has an official impact factor of 1.1. A search on NASA/ADS reveals that since 2019 it has published 46 papers which have garnered a total of 69 citations between them. This journal has been published under its current name since 1998.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics (OJAp) is not listed by Clarivate so does not have an official journal impact factor, but I have calculated one here and it is also mentioned above. Since 2019 the Open Journal of Astrophysics has published 69 papers (actually 70, but one has not yet appeared on NASA/ADS). These papers have so far received a total of 1365 citations.

So OJAp has published 50% more papers than SerAJ, with twenty times the citation impact, and a far higher JIF, yet OJAp is not listed by Clarivate but SerAJ is. Can anyone out there explain the reason to me, or shall I assume the obvious?

A Clarivate Apology

Posted in Open Access with tags , , on July 19, 2022 by telescoper

Well, it seems that my recent post about Impact Factors has had some effect. Today I received an email from Clarivate, the salient part of which is appended below. I applied for inclusion on the Web of Science Collection in April 2021, so they have sat on this request for over a year.

Now I have to start the process  all over again. Sigh. I’m taking a wild guess here but I wonder if access to the Web of Science Publisher Portal might require the payment of a hefty subscription, so only big commercial publishers can afford it?

I suspect If I hadn’t posted about this on social media they would have ignored my submission request indefinitely.

To think so many people take this company seriously….

–0–

We are contacting you regarding the evaluation of the Open Journal of Astrophysics for the Web of Science Core Collection and following up from a recent post on social media.

Unfortunately we have not been able to evaluate your journal to this date due to the large amount of journal submissions we are continuously receiving and the implementation of new internal management systems. We are taking several actions to improve the efficiency of the editorial process, one of them is the migration of our submission platform to the Web of Science Publisher Portal. The Portal allows publishers to securely log in and submit journals for inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection and provides a way to view the status of all journals submitted.

All journals previously submitted using the Journal Submission Form on the Master Journal List that have not received a decision regarding inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection, have to be re-submitted through the Web of Science Publisher Portal; that is the case of the Open Journal of Astrophysics, which needs to be re-submitted. Please remember that only publishers can submit journals through the portal.