RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open access and international coauthorship:
A longitudinal study of the United Arab
Emirates research output

Keine offenen Zugänge

Tagebuch

1Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
2Department of Management and Organisation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

Mohamed Boufarss1

and Mikael Laakso2

Zitat: Boufarss, M., & Laakso, M.
(2023). Open access and international
coauthorship: A longitudinal study of
the United Arab Emirates research
output. Quantitative Science Studies,
4(2), 372–393. https://doi.org
/10.1162/qss_a_00256

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00256

Peer Review:
https://www.webofscience.com/api
/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162
/qss_a_00256

Erhalten: 6 November 2022
Akzeptiert: 27 Marsch 2023

Korrespondierender Autor:
Mohamed Boufarss
mohamed.boufarss@tuni.fi

Handling-Editor:
Ludo Waltman

Urheberrechte ©: © 2023 Mohamed Boufarss
and Mikael Laakso. Published under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0) Lizenz.

Die MIT-Presse

Schlüsselwörter: coauthorship, international collaboration, open access, scientometrics, Scopus, UAE

ABSTRAKT

We investigate the interplay between open access (OA), coauthorship, and international
research collaboration. Although previous research has dealt with these factors separately,
there is a knowledge gap in how these interact within a single data set. The data includes all
Scopus-indexed journal articles published over 11 Jahre (2009–2019) where at least one of the
authors has an affiliation to a United Arab Emirates institution (30,400 articles in total). To
assess the OA status of articles, we utilized Unpaywall data for articles with a digital object
identifier, and manual web searches for articles without. There was consistently strong growth
in publication volume counts as well as shares of OA articles across the years. The analysis
provides statistically significant results supporting a positive relationship between a higher
number of coauthors (in particular international) and the OA status of articles. Further research
is needed to investigate potentially explaining factors for the relationship between
coauthorship and increased OA rate, such as implementation of national science policy
initiatives, varying availability of funding for OA publishing in different countries, patterns in
adoption of various OA types in different coauthorship constellations, and potentially unique
discipline-specific patterns as they relate to coauthorship and OA rate.

1.

EINFÜHRUNG

Open access (OA) publishing in journals is growing globally, both as entire journals and on the
article level, in particular through hybrid OA transformative agreements (Crawford, 2021;
Jahn, Matthias, & Laakso, 2022). Repository self-archiving by authors is also a major enabler
of OA to content that would otherwise only be accessible behind a paywall (Thibault,
MacPherson et al., 2018). Science policy and practices for OA publishing have evolved
unevenly from an international perspective, where many European countries have in recent
years been advancing rapidly compared to the rest of the world. Research funders and higher
education institutions (HEIs) in Europe are increasingly requiring that the publications pro-
duced by funded or affiliated researchers are made available OA immediately (cOalition S,
2018; ROARMAP, n.d.). Although OA policies and practices are locally anchored to specific
organizations and funding instruments, research is often conducted through international col-
laboration. Institutional requirements and possibilities for OA availability can thus also affect
coauthors, even though their own circumstances do not require or enable OA to publications.
Knowledge about how this phenomenon, coauthorship-induced OA, exists and has developed
over time is lacking.

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

.

/

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

One key aspect that has contributed to the slow progress of knowledge development
related to more intricate aspects of OA, such as the phenomenon of coauthorship-induced
OA described in the previous paragraph, is the dearth of comprehensive basic data. Sogar
though OA publishing has been growing strongly for over 20 Jahre, a comprehensive central
database for searching and retrieval of OA resources has still not been realized (Azadbakht &
Schultz, 2020). The freely accessible Unpaywall database is currently the most comprehensive
resource, but it is built around the fundamental principle that included articles have a digital
object identifier (DOI) which is not something that all journals use. In a study on DOIs in the
Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection and Scopus from 2005 Zu 2014, Gorraiz, Melero-Fuentes
et al. (2016) observed that while 90% of all citable items in the Sciences and the Social
Sciences in 2014 had a DOI, the percentage is about 50% in the Arts & Humanities. Als dies
concerns journals within these indexes, the lack of DOIs for journals outside them can be
assumed to be higher. Although the problem of lacking comprehensive data, or what Nguyen,
Luczak-Roesch et al. (2022) refer to as “fitness for use,” is something that also concerns data
availability in scholarly journal publishing overall, with the selection of what data source one
uses strongly shaping what the landscape looks like (Basson, Simard et al., 2022), for research
on OA, this problem is heightened due to often having to rely on multiple layers of incomplete
data to gain an overview of the situation. To counter these shortcomings, Xu, Yue et al. (2017)
conclude that a multisource data fusion (MSDF) is “necessary and meaningful” in scientomet-
rics. Gesamt, there is a need for more research on OA that also includes parts of the publica-
tion landscape that are omitted if only readily available data is used.

Considerable existing research is devoted to descriptive article-level growth analysis of OA
utilizing Scopus and WoS, but less attention has been paid to the connection between open-
ness and coauthorship, international collaboration, and journal host country. Using manual
data enrichment, this study provides new insight into these phenomena with United Arab
Emirates (UAE) research output providing the base data. The objective is to provide a granular
analysis of research article output in the country, level of openness, and connection to inter-
national coauthorship.

The specific research questions that we seek answers to through the use of

longi-
tudinal data concerning journal article output which involves at least one UAE-affiliated
author are

1. What are the key OA characteristics of journal articles from UAE-affiliated authors?

(A) What are the shares of different OA types?
(B) What are the disciplinary differences in OA shares?
(C) Does the journal host country have a connection to OA availability?
(D) What are the most popular repositories for self-archiving?

2. How do different aspects of coauthorship interplay with OA shares of UAE-affiliated

research output?

(A) How is coauthorship distributed globally?
(B) Does the number of coauthors have a connection to OA availability?
(C) Does the geographic region of coauthors have a connection to OA availability?

The UAE makes for an interesting case for the study of both research output and OA growth
for a number of reasons. Erste, the UAE is a very young country, established only in 1971 Und
with its oldest university established in 1976. Although it does not have an old research

Quantitative Science Studies

373

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

.

/

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

tradition or a well-established science policy, it has made giant strides in transforming its
research landscape. Al Marzouqi, Alameddine et al. (2019) revealed that UAE research pro-
ductivity has seen a 16-fold increase between 1998 Und 2017 and the UAE Commission for
Academic Accreditation (2022) currently lists 74 active higher education institutions. Zweite,
the UAE research workforce is composed of a high share of expatriates and thus is transient by
nature but they may also bring along their collaboration networks and thus boost the UAE’s
coauthored publications output. Endlich, we could not identify any mention of sources of article
processing charges (APC) funding within the UAE across all resources analyzing extramural and
intramural funding in the country. This is in stark contrast with countries that have a high OA
uptake and highlights the unique characteristics of the UAE research environment.

Alsharari (2018) states the preoccupation of UAE universities with gaining recognition
through international accreditation. He further adds that “Local and global rankings are assum-
ing greater importance ….” Research performance plays a major role in most university rank-
ings and often relies on outputs in international journals, preferably high-ranked ones. It is this
preoccupation with rankings (among other data quality aspects that are discussed in the
methods section) that supports our choice of Scopus as a source of data, as it is a main
resource of research output data for university rankings such as Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)
and Times Higher Education (THE). What is relatively unexplored is how the growth in OA
journal articles of UAE-affiliated authors has developed over recent years and how that might
be connected to changes in international coauthorship among these authors. By designing a
study around this topic, we aim to improve the current level of knowledge regarding the
influence of coauthorship on the OA status of articles. We also aim to expose the level of
compromise that reliance on readily available OA data implies when investigating phenom-
ena such as this.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Challenges to OA Analysis and Retrieval

The road to comprehensive study of OA is strewn with methodological options and associated
tradeoffs that need to be considered. Erste, current data sources often fail to provide compre-
hensive coverage data on different types of OA, leading researchers to resorting manual data
Sammlung, which has implications for how studies are skewed towards certain languages,
Länder, and disciplines. Zweite, discovery and retrieval of OA sources is shackled by the
inconsistency of the different existing OA finding tools.

Despite being the most mature branch of open science so far, the measurement of OA share
for journal articles is a complex task given the many variants of OA and the multiplicity of
approaches, as well as the data sets used. Taubert, Hobert et al. (2019) illustrate this point with
a listing of about 11 different OA types synthesized from existing OA research. Most biblio-
graphic indexes do not capture data on all these OA variants, which can overlap with each
other as multiple copies of publications are available through different channels over time,
thus introducing a methodological challenge for bibliometric analysis. As most bibliographic
databases are designed primarily for content retrieval purposes, bibliometric analysis of meta-
data can be just a secondary purpose (Hood & Wilson, 2003). Researchers often resort to
extensive manual data collection to rectify gaps in the data (see e.g., Boufarss, 2020). Ein anderer
issue with bibliometric analysis of international scope, be it including OA dimensions or not, Ist
related to the biases in the two most commonly used data sources, namely WoS and Scopus.
These two services contain biases in coverage related to disciplines, Länder, and languages
(Khanna, Ball et al., 2022; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). The bias towards English language

Quantitative Science Studies

374

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

publications also reported by Björk (2019) makes comprehensive bibliometric studies of
non-English-speaking countries like the UAE skewed, as part of their research output is often
underrepresented. In a recent comprehensive analysis of the leading sources of citation data,
Martín-Martín, Thelwall et al. (2021) reveal that sources suffer from either of the two main
Einschränkungen: limited coverage in the case of Scopus or WoS; and limited search functionalities
in the case of Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and OpenCitations COCI.
With this in mind, Scopus has the upper hand because of greater coverage than WoS and more
metadata fields, enabling deeper analysis (Thelwall & Maflahi, 2022). This last argument is
supported by Guerrero-Bote, Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al. (2021), who concluded that there
is greater coverage at the level of countries and institutions in Scopus than in Dimensions even
though the latter has overall greater data coverage than the former. Jedoch, as of writing,
there are no competing, more inclusive services than Scopus and WoS that would offer the
same level of curation for journal and article-level metadata concerning active peer-reviewed
journals that fulfill some common baseline criteria, which means that they can still be very
useful for various research purposes as long as the limitations and biases are acknowledged.

At a time when OA uptake is trending upward (Archambault, Amyot et al., 2014; Piwowar,
Priem et al., 2018; Piwowar, Priem, & Orr, 2019), discovery and retrieval of OA resources has
been an issue that many service providers have worked on improving (Azadbakht & Schultz,
2020; Dhakal, 2019; Willi Hooper, 2017). The heralded general objective of the OA move-
ment to provide access to scholarship to anyone with internet access is not achieved if people
cannot find OA versions of articles easily (Schultz, Azadbakht et al., 2019). OA discovery tools
such as Unpaywall, Kopernio, OA button, and Lazy Scholar have tried to resolve this chal-
lenge, as demonstrated by Azadbakht and Schultz (2020), Duffin (2020), Else (2018), Und
Schultz et al. (2019). Willi Hooper (2017) reviewed Unpaywall as an OA finding tool, finding
it advantageous compared with Google Scholar, which has accuracy issues and linking to
Academic Social Networks (ASNs), which can have copyright compliance issues. This finding
is shared by Dhakal (2019), who stressed Unpaywall’s focus on legally available OA articles.
Other merits of Unpaywall have also been emphasized by Dhakal (2019), such as the pro-
vided Simple Query Tool, the REST API, and the full database snapshot, which all facilitate
establishing OA status for larger amounts of articles as long as a DOI can be provided for each.

Whether it is the unequivocal focus of OA studies on journal literature, absence of com-
prehensive data sources that cater for the different OA models and are unbiased, or unreliable
discovery and retrieval tools, the challenges to OA studies abound.

2.2. Research Collaboration and OA

The research landscape has witnessed a surge in collaboration in recent years, driven by the
global proliferation of networked devices and associated web services, policies encouraging
research partnerships, and beliefs that this leads to increased scholarly productivity (Abramo,
D’Angelo, & Di Costa, 2009), increased citations (Eysenbach, 2006; Hajjem & Harnad, 2007),
increased research visibility (Glänzel & Schubert, 2004), increased knowledge sharing and
transfer, Kreativität, and intellectual companionship (Katz & Martin, 1997), and increased aca-
demic performance (Aziz & Rozing, 2013). This has also been influenced by the globalization
of science becoming a necessity for addressing major societal challenges (Macháček, 2023).
An example of support for research collaboration at the policymaker level is the European
research funders’ network ERA-NET and the European Joint Programming Initiatives ( JPI).
The correlation between collaboration and upsurge in publication quality and output is sup-
ported by Chung, Cox, and Kim (2009). This opinion is shared by Adams, Jamal et al. (2021) In

Quantitative Science Studies

375

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

.

/

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey (MENAT) Kontext, as they believe that the upsurge in
publications is largely due to international collaboration.

While coauthorship is the most common indicator of research collaboration (Nguyen et al.,
2022), drawing broad conclusions regarding the intensity and quality of research collaboration
purely based on bibliometric data should be done with caution. Katz and Martin (1997)
believe that “co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration” as inter-
institutional and international collaboration does not have to be a collaboration between indi-
viduals. A case in point is when a researcher lists two affiliations, indicating an overarching
institutional collaboration. Tatsächlich, a “collision of collaboration and authorship” (Birnholtz,
2006) can even happen when collaboration breeds mass authorship or hyperauthorship, mit
some articles in physics, Zum Beispiel, listing thousands of coauthors (Kahn, 2018). Gleichermaßen
problematic is what Moustafa (2020) refers to as “octopus affiliations,” referring to authors list-
ing multiple affiliations. This could be in exchange for financial reward by institutions seeking
to enhance their ranking or authors’ desire to boost their reputation by associating themselves
with prestigious institutions. These practices have deep implications for attribution and credit,
ownership, and reputation. Glänzel and Schubert (2004) provide a detailed fundamental over-
view of coauthorship. They note that almost 20 years ago, one could already observe an over-
all trend in terms of decrease in single-author publications. This was counterbalanced by
intensifying collaboration in all disciplines. In a study of coauthorship in different disciplines
aus 1900 Zu 2020, Thelwall and Maflahi (2022) reported a steady increase in the mean num-
ber of authors per article. Even though Glänzel and Schubert (2004) noted that this increase
was a “global law” with all countries, regardless of the size of their publication output, having
witnessed this growth, they observed that medium-sized or small countries had higher inter-
national copublications than large countries.

Benefits of coauthorship transcend the impact it can have on an individual author’s or insti-
tution’s scientific profile. Wagner, Whetsell et al. (2018) state that “the more internationally
engaged a nation is in terms of co-authorships and researcher mobility, the higher the impact
of scientific work.” If this statement is accurate and with a high incoming mobility as demon-
strated by El-Ouahi, Robinson-García, and Costas (2021) and with internationally coauthored
publications of nearly 70% In 2015 (Moed, 2016), the UAE should record high scientific work
impact. Tatsächlich, Al Marzouqi et al. (2019) reported an improvement in the percentage of
articles from the UAE that were published in the top 10th percentile (by CiteScore) ranked
journals and that this metric was higher than the average for Gulf Cooperation Council and
Arab League countries.

Very little research has been published on the relationship between the number of authors
and level of articles’ openness. Though old and exploring a different aspect of OA,
Eysenbach’s (2006) research found OA articles to have a “higher number of authors.” This
could be attributed to two factors, namely higher self-archiving probability with more authors
and increased potential of APC funding by one of the author’s affiliations. Hajjem and Harnad
(2007), in a study from around the same time frame, found that the number of authors among
other factors “contributes an independent, statistically significant increment to the citation
counts.”

Another challenge brought about by coauthorship is who bears the cost of publishing OA.
In their study on OA costs, taking into account author roles and the number of authors in
Deutschland, Bruns, Rimmert, and Taubert (2020) identified five payment models for APC pay-
gen: First author model, Reprint author model, Institutions contribute equally, Institutions
contribute, weighted by the number of authors, and Institutions contribute, weighted by

Quantitative Science Studies

376

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

author-institution-combination. They conclude that these models result in different financial
contributions and thus some are preferred by some institutions over others. Morillo (2020)
looked more closely at the relationships between OA (based on Unpaywall data), funding
types (National, International, EU funded), collaboration (National, international coauthorship),
and citations for WoS articles published in 2017 in the disciplines of Immunology and Eco-
nomics. One clear difference from the start was that the overall level of OA among the articles
differed substantially between the two disciplines: 50% for Immunology and less than 15% für
Economics. Although the studied factors are intertwined and influence each other in different
ways, the authors could conclude that the probability of an article being OA was significantly
higher in Immunology when the study was EU funded, included international collaboration,
and with a positive connection to accrued citations. The factors were positive towards the
probability of an article being OA independently but particularly so when multiple of them
were present for the same article. The trend was also similar for the same factors for Economics
articles, but the overall strength was weaker due to the substantially lower OA update overall.

Based on research on the initial years of transformative agreements in Germany, Haucap,
Moshgbar, and Schmal (2021) found a significant change in publication patterns among
authors, where they more frequently select journals that are part of such agreements than jour-
nals that are outside of their coverage. Similar results were also recently found by Wenaas
(2022) for articles from authors affiliated with Norwegian institutions. What does this mean
for studies that relate to coauthorship and openness? OA grows by two mechanisms: directly
as a consequence of outlets making articles open that would otherwise have been closed, Und
by stimulating authors to select journals that enable OA at no extra cost.

2.3. The UAE Landscape

Article output from Arab countries was slow in catching up but is quickly compensating for
this latency as part of a global trend ending the dominance of the transatlantic research axis,
which had a share of 75–80% of all academic research output (Adams et al., 2021). Adams
et al. (2021) further state that the number of papers output from the MENAT region saw a
20-fold growth between 1981 Und 2019. This translates into a move from 2% Zu 8% of global
share. They also share the findings of Cavacini (2016) that research output from the region is
dominated by Israel, Iran, Truthahn, Saudi-Arabien, und Ägypten, which means that other countries,
including the UAE, still play a marginal role in scientific production. In 2019, the UAE con-
tributed only 15% of the Gulf Cooperation Council research productivity against 63% für
Saudi-Arabien (Ajayan, Balasubramanian, & Ramachandran, 2022).

The UAE research landscape presents some unique characteristics, einschließlich, but not
limited to, the country being only around 50 Jahre alt, a high transient research community
with temporary residency status (the oldest university being only around 46 Jahre alt), und ein
nonhomogeneous multilingual population. All these factors have a direct impact on research
output. Jedoch, the situation is set to change in the UAE as the national science policy is
being geared towards increased scientific output (Boufarss & Laakso, 2020). This direction
started with the launch of UAE Vision 2021, followed by the release of the UAE Innovation
Strategy, the National Strategy for Higher Education 2030, the announcement of the National
Advanced Sciences Agenda 2031, the Research and Development (R&D) Governance Policy,
and finally by the recently launched Golden Visa scheme, aiming to attract and retain out-
standing researchers. Außerdem, initiatives that aim to provide funding for research were
launched recently and include, among many others, the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
Knowledge Foundation, the National Research Foundation, the Abu Dhabi Research and

Quantitative Science Studies

377

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

Development Authority, the Advanced Technology Research Council, and the Abu Dhabi
Ghadan 21 Research and Development funds. The Research and Development Governance
Policy lists among its aims to “foster an agile, robust national ecosystem for research and
development in the UAE” and “set standards to improve research, elevate the performance
of the national R&D activities.” These policies and initiatives are likely to have had a visible
impact on scientific research output. A Clarivate Analytics (2019) report estimated that UAE
research articles indexed in the WoS Core Collection increased by 450% zwischen 2008 Und
2018. The same Clarivate report states that the UAE is part of the OA growth trend, with a
gradual increase in the percentage of OA articles published in recent years.

3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA

Some of the most recent and comprehensive studies on national-level OA dimensions have
been based on nationally collected and curated Current Research Information System (CRIS)
Daten, welche, when a country has such available, still provide breadth at the expense of stan-
dardized detail when it comes to, Zum Beispiel, affiliation metadata for all involved coauthors
and OA type categorization (Pölönen, Laakso et al., 2020; Wenaas, 2022). In the absence of
comprehensive local or regional indexes of journal articles with the required author-affiliation
metadata for each article, we utilized Scopus as a source of data. Boufarss (2020) states that
“regional indexes such as ARCIF and Arab Impact Factor are limited in their coverage of
locally published journals.” In fact, these two products are Journal Impact Factor indexes.
Ähnlich, according to Ouahi (2021), the share of UAE journals in Clarivate’s Arabic Citation
Index is a mere 2%. This index is also highly biased with nearly 79% of records in Arts &
Humanities, and Social Sciences categories and nearly 93% in Arabic language (Ouahi,
2021). The choice of Scopus is also supported by the perceived focus among UAE institutions
on publications indexed mainly in Scopus and WoS services, as Boufarss and Laakso (2020)
found that the greatest majority of HEIs consider their researchers’ publishing in Scopus and
WoS essential and a high priority.

The key steps of the data collection methodology are presented in Figure 1. We initially
extracted a list of articles published during a period of 11 Jahre (2009 Zu 2019) and authored
by researchers affiliated with UAE institutions from Scopus and imported the data into
Microsoft Excel. Scopus data were extracted using Scival in February 2020 and data for the
Jahr 2019 were appended in October 2021. A query for publications limited by country to the
“United Arab Emirates” was performed. For the sake of focus on primarily peer-reviewed

Figur 1. Data collection methodology.

Quantitative Science Studies

378

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

content, and comparability with other studies such as Piwowar et al. (2019), the query was
further limited to articles, articles in the press, business articles, and data papers. Our choice
of this time frame initially emanated from a desire to analyze a decade of data, but was later
expanded to 11 Jahre. Our choice of 2009 was motivated by data in Ajayan et al. (2022) Und
Al Marzouqi et al. (2019) which indicated a big jump in UAE research articles output in that
Jahr, and also by the general momentum for OA journal publishing globally that was more
seriously building up involving several OA types around that time frame (Piwowar et al.,
2018). Articles published in 2020 were excluded, as metrics were still at risk of being “incom-
plete” for that year at the time of data collection, particularly regarding self-archived materials,
which are often under an embargo before they can be distributed on the web. Conference
Verfahren, books, and book chapters were excluded in an endeavor to have a consistent
data set that could be analyzed for journal OA status. To enable the analysis of journal choice
and possible relationship concerning language and geographical bias, we also enriched the
data with the journal country using the ISSN Portal.

For the records without a DOI (2,133 articles), we matched these to DOIs in Crossref
Metadata using their Link References feature or manually researched and appended a DOI
whenever found through manual checking through journal websites. A DOI could not be
found for the remaining 297 articles. All records with a DOI were batch run through the
Unpaywall Simple Query Tool and the resulting data were appended to those records. Für
the remaining articles that were published without DOIs, we manually collected OA status
information for them, following the basic principles of classification that Unpaywall also uses
to have a uniform data set. To remain in line with Unpaywall data harvesting principles, OA
resources in services such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu were excluded.

The data were then enriched with a coauthor affiliation region based on Scopus affiliation
country data. The affiliation countries were grouped into six regions, namely Africa, Asien, Aus-
tralasia, Europa, Nordamerika, and South America. It bears noting that one author might be
affiliated to more than one institution or country through one article. From the perspective of
this study this has been seen as an expression of international collaboration and aligned with
the aims of the study and can be included as such rather than something that had to be frac-
tionalized or cleaned out from the data. To give some scope for this data property, we calcu-
lated that 7,724 articles (25%) included more affiliations than the count of total authors in the
Metadaten. Journal topic clusters were grouped into the five main Scopus subject areas (Multi-
disciplinary, Life Sciences, Health Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and
Humanities) by mapping the All Science Journal Classification Codes (ASJC) field against
the Scopus subject areas.

For the sake of clarity and disambiguation, the following basic definitions from Piwowar

et al. (2018) are used for the classification of OA type:

(cid:129) Gold OA: articles published in an OA journal where all articles are open directly on the

journal website.

(cid:129) Green OA: articles published in a subscription journal, but self-archived in, for exam-
Bitte, an institutional or disciplinary OA archive. These articles vary in what version they
Sind, ranging from publisher versions to article manuscripts prior to peer review.
(cid:129) Hybrid OA: articles published in a toll-access journal but are immediately made open

(cid:129)

under an open license, often in exchange for payment of an APC.
Bronze OA: articles provided and made available to read from the publishers’ website
but without a license, thus limiting their reuse rights to reading.

(cid:129) Closed: an OA version of the article has not been found, also referred to as non-OA.

Quantitative Science Studies

379

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

The Unpaywall data used in this study contain one OA type recorded per publication, Und
in cases where there were multiple versions available preference was given to recording the
gold OA option. Als solche, the green OA share can be lower than actual availability because
many articles available through that mechanism might also be available as a gold OA type.

For statistical analysis, we utilized IBM SPSS 28.0. Dichotomous variables and presence of
article attributes (article OA status, journal discipline categories, journal world region, Artikel
affiliation world region group) were dummy coded as 0 oder 1 to enable analysis. For analysis
involving absolute author counts or author affiliation distribution, outliers were excluded from
the analysis to make the analysis more representative of the majority of articles in the popu-
lation. Articles with author counts outside of one standard deviation of the arithmetic mean of
authors (14.76) were excluded in this case, which meant that articles with an excess of 159
authors were not considered (183 articles in total). Where this exclusion applies is mentioned
in the results section; otherwise in all other cases, all articles are included in the analysis.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This part of the study presents and discusses the results of the analysis conducted on the data-
set described in the methods and data section.

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

4.1. What Are the Key OA Characteristics of Journal Articles from UAE-Affiliated Authors?

4.1.1. What are the shares of different OA types?

Figur 2 und Tisch 1 show that scientific article output of the UAE has been strong in the past
11 Jahre, especially since 2014, coinciding with the UAE’s Innovation Strategy, which aims to
“promote research and development across universities” (UAE PMO, 2015). The percentage of
OA articles for the period from 2009 Zu 2019 amounts to nearly 41%, growing from only 28%
In 2009 Zu 50% In 2019. Außerdem, year-on-year analysis of OA percentage during the
same period reveals an average 2.2% increase in OA annually. These figures are surprising
in a country with no national-level OA policies, mandates, or clear guidelines (Boufarss &

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 2. OA status and type by publication year.

Quantitative Science Studies

380

Open access and international coauthorship

Tisch 1. OA type and status by publication year

OA Type
Closed

2009
886

2010
960

2011
1,060

2012
1,067

2013
1,270

2014
1,360

2015
1,717

2016
1,881

2017
2,193

2018
2,641

2019
2,990

Total
18,015

Gold

Grün

Bronze

Hybrid

156

102

53

37

199

123

65

23

214

179

76

51

286

185

93

64

322

220

84

69

Total OA

348

410

520

628

695

420

220

105

100

845

524

294

140

109

696

355

171

148

868

390

173

147

1,083

1,916

6,684

452

193

172

619

256

233

3,139

1,409

1,153

1,067

1,370

1,578

1,900

3,024

12,385

Total

% OA

1,231

1,367

1,576

1,695

1,965

2,205

2,784

3,251

3,771

4,541

6,014

30,400

28

30

33

37

35

38

38

42

42

42

50

41

Laakso, 2020). Tatsächlich, the UAE OA rate for 2019 is much higher than Piwowar et al.’s (2019)
findings that showed the world share of OA standing at about 31%. Ähnlich, these are well
ahead of the 24% OA for papers published between 2015 Und 2019 in the Arab countries and
indexed in the Arabic Citation Index (ARCI) as reported by Ouahi (2021). Jedoch, Sie
remain subpar with the OA shares achieved by Finland (73%), das Vereinigte Königreich (70%),
Schweden (66%), and France (65%) In 2019 (Curtin University, 2022).

Figur 2 also shows that 54% (6,684) of all OA articles are provided as gold OA directly
through journals. This is followed by green OA with 3,139 (25%). Bronze OA and hybrid OA
account for 11% (1409) Und 9% (1,153) of OA articles respectively. This trend corroborates the
conclusions of Piwowar et al. (2019) that gold OA spearheads the OA movement. When inter-
preting these numbers, it is important to reiterate that the Unpaywall data used here only pro-
vides one OA type recorded per publication, and in cases where there are multiple versions
available preference is given to recording the gold OA option. Als solche, the green OA share is
lower than actual availability because many articles available through that mechanism are
also available as a gold OA type. In any case, it can be argued that this will not have much
effect on the decreasing trend of green OA, which could be attributed to an increasing number
of authors who publish gold OA articles not choosing to self-archive these already open
articles.

4.1.2. What are the disciplinary differences in OA shares?

As Table 2 presents, articles involving UAE-affiliated authors were dominated by Physical Sci-
zen, which accounts for 47% of all articles. This is probably driven by the research and
development of the oil and gas industry. Jedoch, the highest percentage of OA was achieved
by journals in multidisciplinary fields at 90% (z.B., including megajournals such as PLOS ONE
and Scientific Reports). Health Sciences and Life Sciences achieved the next highest OA per-
centages, mit 55% Und 51% jeweils. It also bears remembering in this context that the
study only includes journal articles and does not include, Zum Beispiel, conference papers that
might follow different dynamics regarding OA shares and have seen different changes over the
11-year observation period.

To more robustly explore whether the degree of OA status differed to a statistically signif-
icant degree between discipline categories of the publishing journal, we performed a Pearson
chi-square association test. The relationship between these variables (article OA status and

Quantitative Science Studies

381

l

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

M

ich
T
.

/

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

4
2
3
7
2
2
1
3
6
3
5
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
2
5
6
P
D

/

.

F

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Open access and international coauthorship

Tisch 2. OA by Scopus subject area

Scopus subject area
Health Sciences

Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

SS&H

Multidisciplinary

OA
2,880

2,241

4,791

1,819

654

Closed
2,349

2,186

9,525

3,885

70

Total
5,225

4,419

14,314

5,695

721

% OA
55

51

33

32

90

Scopus Subject Area) was found to be significant, χ2(4, 34,000) = [1,860.574, P < .000]. Table 3 breaks down the actual counts in the data set compared with the expected counts based on the analysis: Physical Sciences and Social Sciences and Humanities had lower than expected shares of articles available OA, while Life Sciences, Health Sciences and Multidis- ciplinary had a higher than expected share of OA articles. 4.1.3. Does the journal host country have a connection to OA availability? As the results in Table 4 demonstrate, authors continue heading north, with the majority of articles published in journals from Europe and North America. Journals published in Europe alone account for about 56% of all articles published by UAE authors. North American jour- nals published another 29% of the articles. This could be attributed to the big publishers being based in these countries (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016) and to the authors’ pursuit of high impact and prestige or to the increasing globalization of research communication trend (Macháček, 2023). MENAT journals account for only 926 (3%) publications, of which 724 (78%) are OA and 202 (22%) are paywalled. South American journals lead in the OA percentage of articles, with 84% of all articles being OA. This is followed by MENAT (78%), International organization (75%), Australasian (67%), Asian (66%), and African (64%) journals. European and North American journals are both at the bottom of the list with 36% and 37%. “International organization,” in this context, represents journals published by an international organization and listed as such by the ISSN International Centre because those organizations do not have a national ISSN center. We conducted a Pearson chi-square association test to establish whether the distribution of article OA status differs across journal host country categories. The relationship between these variables (article OA status and journal host country) was found to be significant, χ2(6, 34,000) = [1,461.186, p < .000]. The results of the analysis showed that articles published by journals in Table 3. Output of Pearson chi-square association test for OA status differences for articles published in journals within different Scopus subject areas Article OA status No Count Physical Sciences 9,525 Life Sciences 2,186 Health Sciences 2,349 Social Sciences and Humanities 3,885 Multidisciplinary 70 Expected count Yes Count Expected count 8,484 4,791 5,832 2,623 2,241 1,804 3,099 2,880 2,130 3,380 1,819 2,324 Quantitative Science Studies 429 654 295 382 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d / . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship Asia Europe North America Australasia Africa South America International Table 4. Journal region and OA shares OA 2,094 6,217 3,300 264 173 124 213 Closed 1,083 10,971 5,638 130 99 24 70 % OA 65.9 36.2 36.9 67.0 63.6 83.8 75.3 Total 3,177 17,188 8,938 394 272 148 283 the journal host country categories of Africa, Asia, Australasia, South America and Interna- tional had higher than the expected distribution of articles available OA, while Europe and North America were lower than expected. Table 5 presents the output of the analysis. 4.1.4. What are the most popular repositories for self-archiving? Performing document version and web location analysis for any other type than green OA would not be meaningful, as the copies should in those cases always be available from the publisher’s website in their final peer-reviewed and copyedited form, but for green OA, access can be provided through various document versions and can come from different types of web services around the world. With data being based on how Unpaywall has harvested different article versions, Table 6 shows that the submitted version of the manuscript accounts for almost half of all self-archived articles. Combined with the accepted version rate, this reaches around two-thirds of self-archived articles. This result of around a third of self-archived copies being the published version is surprising, as, in general, journal publishers do not allow post- ing of the published version (Laakso, 2014) unless the article has been published in an OA journal with a Creative Commons license so that open distribution is explicitly permitted. institutional repositories (IRs) Studies have reported a limited number of in the UAE (Boufarss, 2011; Boufarss & Laakso, 2020), and this study provides further evidence that the actual use of the existing repositories is also low when looked through the observation of this data set. Although IRs were the most common location of self-archived/green OA articles as demonstrated in Table 7, the vast majority of were at institutions outside the UAE, as OA copies located at UAE-based academic IR amounted to a mere 36 articles of the 1,077 found at such locations. IRs were followed by subject-based repositories, namely arXiv and PMC, in Table 5. Output of Pearson chi-square association test for OA status differences for articles published in journals from different continents Article OA status No Count Expected count Yes Count Expected count Africa 99 161 173 111 Asia 1,083 1,883 2,094 1,294 Australasia 130 234 264 161 Europe 10,971 10,186 6,217 7002 Quantitative Science Studies International 70 North America 5,638 South America 24 168 213 115 5,297 3,300 3,641 88 124 60 383 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship Version Published Accepted Submitted Table 6. Green OA self-archived versions # of articles 859 729 1,549 frequency of use for self-archiving articles. These findings are quite surprising in contrast with the findings of Boufarss and Laakso (2020) that the majority of UAE HEIs mandate or encour- age self-archiving in an IR, something which does not happen at least in the UAE-operated IRs based on these results. 4.2. How Do Different Aspects of Coauthorship Interplay with OA Shares of UAE-Affiliated Research Output? To start unraveling the relationships between the coauthorship, international collaboration, and OA status of articles a summarizing longitudinal analysis was made over how the average number of world regions covered by affiliations per article and the share of articles with at least one international affiliation have developed for articles with at least one UAE-affiliated author over the 11 years covered by the study. Table 8 presents the results of this analysis, showing consistent growth for both indicators over the years, the average number of world regions cov- ered by the affiliations in the articles growing from 0.75 to 1.12 and the inclusion of at least one international affiliation from 59% to 72%. 4.2.1. How is coauthorship distributed globally? To get a global summarizing perspective on coauthorship distribution we grouped the affilia- tion data into world regions rather than individual countries, with the UAE separated out as the only individual country in order to enable inspection of national-only coauthorships. Figure 3 indicates that about 19% of all coauthored UAE articles were with other UAE authors. However, UAE authors also have a diversified collaboration portfolio with coauthors from all continents, with around 80% of coauthored publications with authors from other countries surpassing the 70% reported by Moed (2016). With the exception of internal UAE coauthor- ship, the numbers shown on the map are nonexclusive per continent but rather capture all instances of at least one coauthor from that continent. The highest instances of collaboration were recorded with Asia (26%), North America (20%), and Europe (19%) respectively. Similar intercontinental collaboration trends have been reported by Kozma and Calero-Medina (2019) Table 7. Top five sources of self-archived articles Source Academic institutional repositories # of articles 1,077 Articles with UAE authors only 208 arXiv Via Semantic Scholar lookup Via Europe PMC lookup PubMed Central (NIH) 463 449 348 184 92 160 92 56 Quantitative Science Studies 384 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship Table 8. Longitudinal development of internationalization of authorship of articles with at least one UAE-affiliated author Average number of world regions covered by affiliations (articles with UAE-only affiliations counted as 0) 2009 0.75 2010 0.75 2011 0.80 2012 0.83 2013 0.86 2014 0.94 2015 0.96 2016 1.01 2017 1.03 2018 1.10 2019 1.12 % of articles with at least one 59% 57% 59% 62% 65% 68% 68% 70% 71% 73% 72% international affiliation among South African authors. This could be attributed to a range of factors, such as neocolo- nial ties and language impact, with English being the language of teaching and business in the UAE and workforce dynamics with immigrants from Asia being dominant (De Bel-Air, 2015) representing about half of the population. UAE university faculty by nationality statistics reported in Karabchuk, Shomotova, and Chmel (2022) indicate that about 89% of academics are expatriates in the year 2016/2017. A similar report by Bayanat.ae (s.d.) shows that only 12% of academics at Zayed University are UAE nationals. According to the same report, faculty hail from 62 different countries: 37% are from Asian countries, 25% are from the United States and Canada, and 22% are from European countries. These findings indicate that the UAE is part of the increasing international copublications trend reported by Glänzel and Schubert (2004). 4.2.2. Does the number of coauthors have a connection to OA availability? To start with, we divided the articles into three groups based on the number of authors involved in each: one, two, or three or more. As Figure 4 shows, we found general prevalence for higher OA share for articles authored by more than three authors throughout the years covered. It can be seen also that there has been a constant increase in OA percentage across different coauthorship levels and over the 11 years captured. In addition to the fact that the number of coauthored publications has been significantly higher than single-author articles throughout the last 11 years, the output of publications with multiple authors has seen strong growth during the same period across both OA and closed articles. It can also be observed that Figure 3. Coauthorship by continent. Quantitative Science Studies 385 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d / . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 4. Single vs. multiauthor articles over time. the OA rate is higher among multiauthor publications in recent years, with, for example, 52% OA for articles with three or more authors against 43% for single-author articles in 2019, 45% against 29% for the 2018, and 45% versus 34% in 2017. Digging a bit deeper into this research question, a binominal logistic regression was per- formed to ascertain the effect of author count on the likelihood of an article being available OA. This analysis included two independent variables (count of authors per article) and year (publication year), and one independent variable for OA status (yes/no). We included the pub- lication year in the model to account for the growth in general OA that can be seen over the observation years. As described in Section 3, outliers were removed to improve analysis that involves absolute author counts. Author counts outside of one standard deviation of the arithmetic mean of authors (14.76) were excluded in this case, which meant that articles with an excess of 159 authors were not considered (183 articles in total). The logistic regression model was statistically significant χ2(2) = 1,431.995, p < .001. The two predictor variables were both statistically significant: number of authors and publication year. An increase in authors as well as later publication years were associated with an increased likelihood of an article being available OA. The finding of more authors per paper being associated with higher likelihood of being OA is in line with the results of Morillo (2020) and Eysenbach (2006) for the disciplines they researched. The output of the analysis is pre- sented in Table 9. Quantitative Science Studies 386 Open access and international coauthorship Table 9. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of open access status of published articles based on number of authors and publication year Number of authors Publication year B .094 .070 S.E. .004 .004 Wald 673.357 293.676 Constant −143.895 8.224 297.136 df 1 1 1 p < .001 < .001 < .001 Odds ratio 1.099 1.072 .000 95% CI.for odds ratio Upper Lower 1.106 1.091 1.064 1.081 However, the degree to which the included variables could explain all the variation in the OA status for articles was relatively low. The model explained 6.3% (Nagelkerke R2) of the var- iance in OA status and correctly classified 62.4% of cases. Sensitivity was 17.4% and specificity was 92.9%. Negative predictive value was 62.4% and positive predictive value 37.5%. As a follow-up we performed a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) plotting of the discrimina- tory effects of the variables with the results of “Number of Authors” having an area of .593 and “Publication Year” having .566, which according to Hosmer, Lemeshow, and Sturdivant (2013) in general suggests poor discrimination that is not much better than a random classification. So, although the test and its variables were significant, there are a lot of other factors also in play that should be explored in future studies. Based on this finding we argue that one explaining factor is the increased likelihood of one author being covered by an OA mandate that either caters for OA APC expenses or ensures self-archival for published research on behalf of all authors of the article. As these mandates and funding possibilities have become more common over time, we think that also explains the relationship for more recent articles being more likely to be OA. 4.2.3. Does the geographic region of coauthors have a connection to OA availability? Table 10 shows a comparison between OA rate and intercontinental collaboration. It shows that Europe is a key player in the top 10 collaboration combinations with the highest OA rate. For this analysis we included two categories for articles that contain no international affiliations (one for single-authored articles with a UAE affiliation, and one for articles with multiple authors where there are only UAE affiliations) as a point of comparison to all the other categories, which contain different combinations of international affiliations. The OA percentage among articles with only UAE affiliations the was 32% for single-authored and 38% for multiauthor articles, thus not falling far behind the average of 41% for all articles over the period of the study. The results seem to indicate that higher intercontinental collaboration is related to higher OA rate. To further explore the relationship between different coauthor affiliation world regions and the OA status of articles we opted for a nonparametric Pearson chi-square test for association, here also using the modified data set that excluded the 183 articles with over 159 authors per article (N = 30,217). Because we are dealing with two dichotomous variables (OA status and presence of specific author affiliation continent), and the same articles can include several of the affiliation variables at any one time, a nonparametric test was decided as the most optimal way to explore this dimension of the data. The result of the Pearson chi-square test of association found a statistically significant rela- tionship between all affiliation categories and OA status outside of articles with an affiliation to Africa, where the results were not statistically significant. For articles with only national affil- iations (only UAE affiliations) the share of articles with OA status was lower than expected. For articles that included affiliations to Europe, South America, Asia, Australasia, and North Quantitative Science Studies 387 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d / . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship Table 10. Coauthor affiliation continent and OA rate, showing combinations with over 50 articles only Continent Asia – Europe – North America – Australasia – Africa – South America # Articles 206 # OA 181 Asia – Europe – North America – Africa – South America Asia – Europe – North America – Australasia Europe – North America – Australasia Asia – Europe – North America – Africa Asia – Europe – Australasia Asia – Europe – North America Europe – North America Europe – Australasia Asia – North America – Africa Asia – Europe – Africa North America – Australasia Asia – Europe South America Europe – Africa Europe Europe – South America Asia – Africa Asia Asia – North America – Australasia Asia – North America Asia – Australasia Europe – North America – Africa North America Africa North America – Africa Australasia North America – South America UAE only (Multi-author) UAE only (Single-author) 62 77 85 65 67 385 854 164 98 146 95 1,046 92 312 47 56 57 43 41 229 436 81 47 69 44 474 41 138 # Closed 25 15 21 28 22 26 156 418 83 51 77 51 572 51 174 3,366 1,436 1,930 74 510 5,216 51 1,163 224 57 3,803 1167 268 637 72 6,824 3,313 31 209 2,115 20 456 83 21 43 301 3,101 31 7070 141 36 1,342 2,461 408 90 211 23 2,591 1,057 759 178 426 49 4,233 2,256 % OA 88 76 73 67 66 61 59 51 49 48 47 46 45 45 44 43 42 41 41 39 39 37 37 35 35 33 33 32 38 32 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d / . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Quantitative Science Studies 388 Open access and international coauthorship Table 11. Pearson chi-square test of association between coauthor affiliation world regions and OA status of articles Asia affiliation Europe affiliation North America affiliation OA status distribution of articles with affiliation Higher than expected (expected 3,797, actual 4,061) Higher than expected (expected 2,848, actual 3,346) Higher than expected (expected 2,979, actual count 3,058) Pearson chi-square value 44.845 Asymptotic significance (2-sided) < .001 Cramer’s V .039 Approximate significance < .001 190.854 < .001 .079 < .001 4.610 .032 .012 .032 Australasia affiliation Higher than expected 26.656 < .001 .030 < .001 Africa affiliation (expected 676, actual count 777) Higher than expected (expected 1,174, actual count 1,209) 1.896 .168 .007 .168 South America affiliation Higher than expected 48.397 < .001 .040 < .001 Only UAE affiliation (expected 336, actual count 252) Lower than expected (expected 3,563, actual count 3,316) 40.598 < .001 .037 < .001 America (listed in descending order of effect size between the variables) the actual count of OA articles exceeded the expected distribution. Because Cramer(cid:1)s V indication of the relative effect size ranges between 0 and 1, much like traditional correlation analysis, we can deduce that while the results are statistically significant the actual relative effect size is low, ranging between .037 and .079. The output of the analysis is provided in Table 11. These results sup- port the notion that internationally coauthored articles in the data set are available OA to a higher degree, where the strongest effect was for articles which included a coauthor with an affiliation address in Europe. 5. CONCLUSIONS For scientometric research, this study is able to contribute to integrative method development for supporting research on diverse data dimensions of bibliometric data sets on a national and longitudinal scale. Drawing together central methodological elements from OA research, coauthorship research, and research on national-level output, this study also provides novel research results related to how the national and international intertwine when it comes to the journal article publishing space. For this data set, we could establish that having more authors is related to a higher probability of an article being available OA, as well as more recent articles also more likely being available OA. The findings also show support for broad, multicontinent research being available OA to a higher degree than research only involving national authors. Though the explanatory power of the statistical model for identifying the most influential coauthor continent for relationship to an article being OA was weak overall, the highest effect Quantitative Science Studies 389 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship size was given to coauthors with a European affiliation. One explanation for this could be the push that many European HEIs and research funders have had during the last decade for making journal articles available OA, thus affecting coauthored research as well. With regard to the national perspective and what the study contributes towards better under- standing of the development of research in the UAE specifically, this study shows that UAE- affiliated journal research output saw strong increases in volume, international collaboration, and OA during the 11 years captured as part of this study. This has happened at the same time as the country took steps to establish a stronger science policy that emphasizes these aspects as central elements. How much of this change can be attributed to the impact of national science policy and how much to the global trends of growth, collaboration, and OA is hard to pin down and would require different data and methods to establish. However, distinguishable upsurges in the number of documents can be seen around the release times of the UAE Vision 2021 in 2010, the UAE Innovation Strategy in 2014, and the National Advanced Sciences Agenda 2031 in 2018. Worthy of mention in this context also are the UAE federal government open data guidelines and the transformative “read and publish” agreements with major publishers, such as Cambridge and the American Chemical Society, signed by the two major research-leading public universities, Khalifa University and United Arab Emirates University. It is still relatively rare to see these agreements outside European institutions and library consortia, where they have become quite common, and this is a substantially strong step from the direction of the UAE to facilitating immediate OA publication of research outputs. As is expected from a country whose economy is primarily dependent on oil, our findings suggest that the highest number of articles were in the Physical Sciences. However, this subject area achieved the second lowest OA rate of 33% after Social Sciences and Humanities. Apart from the articles in multidisciplinary journals, which recorded a significant OA rate of 90%, Health Sciences and Life Sciences achieved shares of 55% and 51% respectively. In terms of green OA publications, IRs and subject-based repositories are the main host locations of green OA articles despite the mediocre number of repositories in the UAE. This would indicate a low level of use for such repositories in the UAE for self-archiving of journal article manuscripts; however, such repositories might be populated with other types of content. We found that the UAE aligns with the global trend of coauthored articles being on the rise and that the share of OA among coauthored publications is higher. This suggests that either awareness of OA increases as the number of authors increases or the cost of publishing OA is shared, such that research projects with larger teams have access to more funds to pay APCs or are required to by funders, especially those with Plan S-aligned OA policies. We also found that the rate of OA is connected to the size of intercontinental collaboration, with European coauthors especially being part of the top 10 collaboration combinations with the highest OA rate, even though the highest collaborations were with Asia and North America. This European coauthorship-associated higher OA rate is likely to be attributed to the high subscription to Plan-S and Horizon Europe principles in Europe. Further investigations need to be carried out on the factors contributing to the connection between collaboration and OA rate. The study also included an element where the continent of the journal publisher was included as a variable, with results showing that North American and European journals have recruited the majority of articles published by UAE-affiliated researchers during the observa- tion period. However, South American journals have published the highest percentage of OA articles. What bears remembering is that these results in particular are likely influenced by the Western-skewness of the Scopus index in terms of journal inclusion (Khanna et al., 2022; Rodrigues & Abadal, 2014; Tennant, 2020). Quantitative Science Studies 390 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship OA overall has changed a lot since 2009, and this is one thing that we consider this study also captured quite well from our own perspective of looking at the world through the window of the UAE. However, it is not without limitations. Through this study we observed the complexity of dealing with a rich bibliometric data set augmented with both OA status information and author- ship world region categories. One can only inspect so many variables at a time and everything cannot be included in one study. Future studies could zoom in even further: for example, only on the development of specific OA types with similar national data sets, and at the same time iden- tifying particular research funders from article-level metadata, thus being able to also include financial considerations of various models and science policy strategies into the mix. Because of the widespread acceptance of Scopus indexing as a measure of acceptance of research among UAE HEIs, as well as the strict requirements for detailed author affiliation metadata, this study used a data set extracted from Scopus. However, it would be beneficial to do a similar study on a larger scale with articles in other indexes, local journals, and other languages. Further studies could also be expanded to compare the situation in the UAE with other countries, as well as identifying who has funded OA for coauthored publications. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Prof. J. Tuomas Harviainen for his insightful comments and feedback during the different stages of this paper. They also thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Mohamed Boufarss: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. Mikael Laakso: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review & editing. COMPETING INTERESTS The authors have no competing interests. FUNDING INFORMATION This research was not funded. DATA AVAILABILITY The complete data set is available in Zenodo (Boufarss & Laakso, 2023). REFERENCES Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9139-z Adams, J., Jamal, E. O., David, P., & Martin, S. (2021). The chang- ing research landscape of the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey. Global Research Report. ISI. https://clarivate.com /webofsciencegroup/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/dlm_uploads /2021/04/ WS647760757-ISIGRR-Changing-Research-Landscape -of-MENAT-DIGITAL.pdf (accessed October 19, 2021). Ajayan, S., Balasubramanian, S., & Ramachandran, S. (2022). Benchmarking the research performance of United Arab Emirates with gulf cooperation council countries—A bibliometric study. Frontiers in Education, 7, 792548. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc .2022.792548 Al Marzouqi, A. H., Alameddine, M., Sharif, A., & Alsheikh-Ali, A. A. (2019). Research productivity in the United Arab Emirates: A 20-year bibliometric analysis. Heliyon, 5(12), e02819. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02819, PubMed: 31872101 Alsharari, N. M. (2018). Internationalization of the higher educa- tion system: An interpretive analysis. International Journal of Edu- cational Management, 32(3), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1108 /IJEM-04-2017-0082 Archambault, É., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A. F., Provencher, F., … Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of open access Quantitative Science Studies 391 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship papers published in peer-reviewed journals at the European and world levels—1996–2013. European Commission. https://science -metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8 _sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf (accessed October 19, 2021). Azadbakht, E., & Schultz, T. (2020). At the click of a button: Asses- sing the user experience of open access finding tools. Informa- tion Technology and Libraries, 39(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10 .6017/ital.v39i2.12041 Aziz, N. A., & Rozing, M. P. (2013). Profit (p)-index: The degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLOS ONE, 8(4), e59814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059814, PubMed: 23573211 Basson, I., Simard, M., Ouangré, Z. A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2022). The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of dimensions and the web of science. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0265545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal .pone.0265545, PubMed: 35358227 Bayanat.ae. (s.d.). Number of faculty members according to the nationality. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://opendata.fcsc .gov.ae/@zayed-university/faculty-members-country-nationality. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech- nology, 57(13), 1758–1770. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20380 Björk, B.-C. (2019), Open access journal publishing in the Nordic countries. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10 .1002/leap.1231 Boufarss, M. (2011). If we build it, will they come? A survey of attitudes toward institutional repositories among faculty at the Petroleum Institute. Journal of Library Science, 3(J11). International Boufarss, M. (2020). Charting the Open Access scholarly journals landscape in the UAE. Scientometrics, 122, 1707–1725. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03349-0 Boufarss, M., & Laakso, M. (2020). Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates. Scientometrics, 124, 1553–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03529-y Boufarss, M., & Laakso, M. (2023). Open access and international co-authorship: A longitudinal study of the United Arab Emirates research output [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281 /zenodo.7776055 Bruns, A., Rimmert, C., & Taubert, N. (2020). Who pays? Compar- ing cost sharing models for a Gold Open Access publication environment. Journal of Library Administration, 60(8), 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1820275 Cavacini, A. (2016). Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific pro- duction. Scientometrics, 109, 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11192-016-1932-3 Chung, K. H., Cox, R. A. K., & Kim, K. A. (2009). On the relation between intellectual collaboration and intellectual output: Evidence from the finance academe. Quarterly Review of Eco- nomics and Finance, 49(3), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .qref.2008.08.001 Clarivate Analytics. (2019). UAE’s place in Web of Science research ecosystem report. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp -content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/ WS371049217_ACVR_UAE _USLetter_CMYK_v8_DIGITAL_SMALL.pdf (accessed March 22, 2022). cOAlition S. (2018) Plan S: Making full and immediate Open Access a reality. Strasbourg: cOAlition S. https://www.coalition -s.org (accessed April 28, 2022). Crawford, W. (2021). Gold Open Access 2015–2020: Articles in journals (GOA6). Livermore, CA: Cites & Insights Books. https://waltcrawford.name/goa6.pdf (accessed May 2, 2022). Curtin University. (2022). COKI open access dashboard. https:// openknowledge.community/dashboards/coki-open-access -dashboard/ (accessed March 10, 2022). De Bel-Air, F. (2015). Demography, migration, and the labour market in the UAE. Gulf Labour Markets, No. 7, 2015. https:// gulfmigration.grc.net/media/pubs/exno/GLMM_EN_2018_01.pdf (accessed April 15, 2022). Dhakal, K. (2019). Unpaywall. Journal of the Medical Library Associ- ation, 107(2), 286–288. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.650 Duffin, K. I. (2020). Comparing open access search tools to improve interlibrary loan fulfillment efficiency. Technical Services Quar- terly, 37(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2020 .1810442 El-Ouahi, J., Robinson-García, N., & Costas, R. (2021). Analyzing scientific mobility and collaboration in the Middle East and North Africa. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(3), 1023–1047. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00149 Else, H. (2018). How Unpaywall is transforming open science. Nature, 560(7718), 290–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 -018-05968-3, PubMed: 30111793 Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLOS Biology, 4(5), e157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio .0040157, PubMed: 16683865 Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama- Zurián, J.-C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008 Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.) Handbook of quantitative science and technol- ogy research (pp. 227–276). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi .org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12 Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Mendoza, A., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2021). Comparative analysis of the biblio- graphic data sources Dimensions and Scopus: An approach at the country and institutional levels. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 593494. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020 .593494, PubMed: 33870055 Hajjem, C., & Harnad, S. (2007). Citation advantage for OA self-archiving is independent of journal impact factor, article age, and number of co-authors. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org /abs/cs/0701136 Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2003). Informetric studies using databases: Opportunities and challenges. Scientometrics, 58, 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000006882.47115.c6 Haucap, J., Moshgbar, N., & Schmal, W. B. (2021). The impact of the German ‘DEAL’ on competition in the academic publishing market. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(8), 2027–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3493 Hosmer, D. W., Jr., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387 Jahn, N., Matthias, L., & Laakso, M. (2022). Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher provided metadata: An article-level study of Elsevier. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 73(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24549 Kahn, M. (2018). Co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration: A cau- tionary tale. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 117–123. https:// doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx052 Quantitative Science Studies 392 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d / . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Open access and international coauthorship Karabchuk, T., Shomotova, A., & Chmel, K. (2022). Paradox of research productivity of higher education institutions in Arab Gulf countries: The case of the UAE. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(4), 759–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12347 Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048 -7333(96)00917-1 Khanna, S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrat- ing the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization process. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(4), 912–930. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228 Kozma, C., & Calero-Medina, C. (2019). The role of South African researchers in intercontinental collaboration. Scientometrics, 121, 1293–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03230-9 Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99, 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11192-013-1205-3 Macháček, V. (2023). Globalization of scientific communication: Evidence from authors in academic journals by country of origin. Research Evaluation, 32(1), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1093 /reseval/rvac033 Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Sciento- metrics, 126(1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020 -03690-4, PubMed: 32981987 Moed, H. F. (2016). Iran’s scientific dominance and the emergence of South-East Asian countries as scientific collaborators in the Persian Gulf Region. Scientometrics, 108(1), 305–314. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1946-x Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 Morillo, F. (2020). Is open access publication useful for all research fields? Presence of funding, collaboration and impact. Scientomet- rics, 125, 689–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03652-w Moustafa, K. (2020). Octopus affiliations. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2733–2735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03600-8 Nguyen, B. X., Luczak-Roesch, M., Dinneen, J. D., & Larivière, V. (2022). Assessing the quality of bibliographic data sources for mea- suring international research collaboration. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 529–559. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00211 Ouahi, J. E. (2021). Early insights into the Arabic citation index. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12177 Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., … Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375, PubMed: 29456894 Piwowar, H., Priem, J., & Orr, R. (2019). The future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/795310 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 ROARMAP. (n.d.). ROARMAP: Registry of open access repository of mandates and policies. https://roarmap.eprints.org/ (accessed October 19, 2021). Rodrigues, R. S., & Abadal, E. (2014). Ibero-American journals in Scopus and Web of Science. Learned Publishing, 27(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140109 Schultz, T. A., Azadbakht, E., Bull, J., Bucy, R., & Floyd, J. (2019). Assessing the Effectiveness of open access finding tools. Informa- tion Technology and Libraries, 38(3), 82–90. https://doi.org/10 .6017/ital.v38i3.11009 Taubert, N., Hobert, A., Fraser, N., Jahn, N., & Iravani, E. (2019). Open Access: Towards a non-normative and systematic under- standing. arXiv, arXiv:1910.11568. https://doi.org/10.48550 /arXiv.1910.11568 Tennant, J. (2020). Web of Science and Scopus are not global data- bases of knowledge. European Science Editing, 46, e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2022). Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10 .1162/qss_a_00188 Thibault, R. T., MacPherson, A., Harnad, S., & Raz, A. (2018). The rent’s too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1090&context=scholcom (accessed August 24, 2022). UAE Commission for Academic Accreditation. (2022). Higher edu- cation institutions. https://www.caa.ae/Pages/Institutes/All.aspx (accessed August 24, 2022). UAE PMO. (2015). UAE national innovation strategy. https://www . m o e i . g o v. a e / a s s e t s / d o w n l o a d / 1 d 2 d 6 4 6 0 / N a t i o n a l %20Innovation%20Strategy.pdf.aspx (accessed August 24, 2022). Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T., Baas, J., & Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018 .00010 Wenaas, L. (2022). Choices of immediate open access and the rela- tionship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 943932. https://doi.org/10 .3389/frma.2022.943932, PubMed: 36339745 Willi Hooper, M. D. (2017). Product review: Unpaywall [Chrome & Firefox browser extension]. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 5(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309 .2190 Xu, H. Y., Yue, Z. H., Wang, C., Dong, K., Pang, H. S., & Han, Z. (2017). Multi-source data fusion study in scientometrics. Scien- tometrics, 111, 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017 -2290-5 Quantitative Science Studies 393 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u q s s / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 4 2 3 7 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 2 5 6 p d . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3

PDF Herunterladen