Scholarly Publishing's Hidden Diversity: How Exclusive Databases Like WoS Sustain the Oligopoly

How do exclusive databases like Web of Science sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers? A closer look at hidden diversity in scholarly publishing—and why it matters for open access, bibliodiversity, and global equity.

When I discuss the state of academic publishing with colleagues, the conversation often turns to the "big five" publishers and their perceived stranglehold on the system. 

The story is familiar: a handful of corporate giants dominate the flow of scholarly knowledge, setting prices, controlling access, and shaping what counts as legitimate research. But is this the whole picture? A recent article in PLOS ONE challenges this narrative, revealing a hidden diversity in scholarly publishing that's masked by the very tools we use to measure it (Larivière et al., 2025).

The Database Lens: Seeing What We're Allowed to See

The crux of the problem lies in the databases we rely on, especially the Web of Science (WoS). WoS is highly selective, indexing journals based on citation impact and other opaque criteria. When we use WoS to map the publishing landscape, the big publishers are tightening their grip. 

However, redirecting our attention to more inclusive databases, such as Dimensions or OpenAlex, presents a different narrative. These databases reveal a thriving and expanding network of smaller, independent publishers, particularly since the advent of digital publishing.

This isn't a minor technical detail. The choice of database shapes our understanding of scholarly communication and, by extension, the policies and funding decisions that follow. If we only look where the spotlight shines, we miss the diversity flourishing in the shadows.

Why Does This Matter?

The implications are profound. Smaller and independent publishers—often running on open-source platforms and with a commitment to open access—are more likely to support bibliodiversity, publish in local languages, and cater to underrepresented regions and disciplines. 

The PLOS ONE study found that these publishers are especially prominent in the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, as well as in regions such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, and parts of Africa and Asia. In contrast, the oligopoly is most entrenched in English-speaking countries and the Global North.

Moreover, independent journals are more likely to offer Diamond Open Access, meaning neither authors nor readers pay fees. This model is particularly significant for researchers in lower- and middle-income countries, where funding for article processing charges is scarce.

The Prestige Trap and Institutional Complicity

Why, then, does the oligopoly persist? Partly, it's the prestige trap. Universities and funders still equate quality with publication in high-impact journals—almost all of which are owned by the big publishers. 

This self-reinforcing cycle discourages experimentation with new models. It keeps researchers tethered to the old system, even when they are aware of its flaws.

There's also a global equity issue. The dominance of major publishers in WoS skews the visibility of research from the Global South and non-English-speaking regions. Their work is often excluded from the "official" record, perpetuating a narrow, Western-centric view of knowledge.

What Can We Do?

We must reassess our understanding of 'impact' and 'quality' in research. This involves recognising the value of diverse publishing models, advocating for Diamond Open Access, and investing in community-owned infrastructure. 

It also means revising hiring and promotion criteria to acknowledge excellence beyond the traditional publishers.

For libraries, funders, and policymakers, the message is clear: stop relying solely on selective databases, such as WoS, to make decisions about research quality and impact. Broaden the lens. Support platforms that capture the full richness of global scholarship.

Key Takeaways and Questions

• The apparent dominance of a publishing oligopoly is, in part, an artefact of selective databases like WoS.
• Inclusive databases reveal a growing diversity of independent, often open-access, publishers—especially outside the Global North.
• Institutional reliance on prestige metrics sustains the oligopoly and marginalises alternative voices.

Supporting bibliodiversity is not just about fairness; it's about enriching the global scholarly conversation. It requires a collective effort from all of us who care about the future of scholarly communication.

Embracing a more diverse and inclusive vision of scholarly publishing could lead to a richer, more comprehensive global scholarly conversation. Are we ready to look beyond familiar metrics and make this vision a reality? What would it take for universities, funders, and researchers to break the prestige cycle and support genuine openness?

---

This post was inspired by the recent PLOS ONE article "Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers" (Larivière et al., 2025). It's a must-read for anyone who cares about the future of scholarly communication and wants to understand how the tools we use can shape the world we see.

Larivière, V., et al. (2025). Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers. PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0327015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327015

Additional references available on request.