RECONFIGURING THE JOURNAL ECOLOGICAL CHAIN IN VIETNAM: AN OPEN SCIENCE–DRIVEN GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE

Authors

  • Tran Huu Tuyen Lac Hong University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n2.4024

Keywords:

Journal Ecosystem, Scholarly Publishing, Open Science, Governance, Vietnam, Research Evaluation, Publication Ethics

Abstract

Vietnam’s scholarly journals sit at the intersection of national research evaluation, institutional capacity constraints, and a rapidly changing global publishing environment. While “open science” is often discussed through the lenses of open access or open data, its practical consequences in Vietnam are better understood by examining how it reshapes the journal ecological chain—the interconnected actors, infrastructures, and value flows that move research outputs from production to dissemination and reuse. Building on ecological-chain thinking that conceptualizes journals as part of an end-to-end knowledge system spanning producers, consumers, and “decomposers” (e.g., indexing, archiving, and publishing platforms), this paper offers a Vietnam-focused governance analysis that goes beyond descriptive mapping. We develop a conceptual framework to (i) map the Vietnamese journal ecological chain and its value exchanges, (ii) diagnose governance bottlenecks exposed by open science practices, and (iii) propose a staged, open science–driven reconfiguration strategy compatible with Vietnam’s legal, infrastructural, and academic culture conditions. The analysis highlights four governance frictions: incentive misalignment driven by index-based evaluation, fragmented platform interoperability, uneven quality and integrity assurance, and financially fragile publishing operations. We argue that sustainable transformation requires governance by design: interoperable infrastructure (DOI/ORCID/metadata), integrity-by-default standards, incentive reform aligned with responsible metrics, and shared service models that reduce duplicated costs across journals. The proposed roadmap provides actionable pathways for journals, universities, funders, and regulators to coordinate reforms while protecting local-language scholarship and strengthening Vietnam’s international publishing visibility.

References

Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005

Chang, Z., Zhang, J., Ye, X., Liu, W., & Hou, C. (2024). Transformation and development strategy of ecological chain of scientific journals under the background of open science. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 35(11), 1523–1529. https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.202404170378

Chieu, N. V., Lich, H. T., & Nguyen, T. T. (2025). Bibliometric analysis of digital humanities research: insights from Scopus database studies (2005–2025). Veredas do Direito, 22(2), e223136. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n2.3136

Cukier, S., Lalu, M. M., Bryson, G. L., Cobey, K. D., Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., & Hedin, R. (2020). Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open, 10(2), e035561. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Giang, T. N. (2025). Conditions for the operation of higher education services: a case study in Vietnam. Veredas do Direito, 22(3), e223319. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n3.3319

Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Humphrey-Murto, S., Wood, T. J., Gonsalves, C., Mascioli, K., & Varpio, L. (2020). The Delphi method. Academic Medicine, 95(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002887

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLOS ONE, 6(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Manh, H. D. (2015). Scientific publications in Vietnam as seen from Scopus during 1996–2013. Scientometrics, 105(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1655-x

Minh, N. L., & Binh, H. T. T. (2025). Enhancing personal data protection on e-commerce platforms: a case study in Vietnam. Veredas do Direito, 22(2), e223116. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n2.3116

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Nguyen, H. T. T., Le, T.-T., Ho, M.-T., Nguyen, M.-H., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2021). Open access publishing probabilities based on gender and authorship structures in Vietnam. Publications, 9(4), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040045

Nguyen, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. T., & Pham, H.-H. (2021). The adoption of international publishing within Vietnamese academia from 1986 to 2020: A review. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1340

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Pham-Duc, B. D., Tran, T., Trinh, T., & Nguyen, T.-T. (2022). A spike in the scientific output on social sciences in Vietnam for recent three years: Evidence from bibliometric analysis in Scopus database (2000–2019). Journal of Information Science, 48(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520977447

Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Orr, R., et al. (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

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

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? BMC Medicine, 15, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., & Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

Tran, T. K., Nguyen, C. H., La, T. P., Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, H. T.-T. (2019). Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus. Science Editing, 6(2), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175

Vuong, Q.-H. (2019). Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0667-6

Vuong, Q.-H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282

Vuong, Q.-H., La, V.-P., Vuong, T.-T., Ho, M.-T., Nguyen, H.-K. T., Nguyen, V.-H., Pham, H.-H., & Ho, M.-T. (2018). An open database of productivity in Vietnam’s social sciences and humanities for public use. Scientific Data, 5, 180188. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.188

Vuong, T.-T., Ho, M.-T., Nguyen, M.-H., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2020). Adopting open access in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from a developing nation. Heliyon, 6(7), e04522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04522

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Xie, H., Huang, G., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Construction of publication ethics standards system for scientific journals in China. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 35(12), 1705–1714. https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.202406050611

Downloads

Published

2026-01-19

How to Cite

Tuyen, T. H. (2026). RECONFIGURING THE JOURNAL ECOLOGICAL CHAIN IN VIETNAM: AN OPEN SCIENCE–DRIVEN GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE. Veredas Do Direito, 23(2), e234024. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n2.4024