Consider SemanticScholar, CiteSeerX and CORE as sources.

Publisher-controlled sources should be replaced by CrossRef data, which is already collected from publishers. Only open citation data should be considered (see https://i4oc.org/ ).

As per some of the comments already, open approaches should be the preferred option here. Open Science Monitor has a unique opportunity to promote a completely different measure of scientific impact. By promoting open metrics the OS Monitor could support the move away from the "traditional" metrics of Scopus and so forth.

I agree with George - this cannot be stressed enough. Signals are incredibly important in this ecosystem at this time. Sending the wrong signal could be extremely detrimental to the critical work of past and current individuals building open science up for the benefit of research not profit margins.

Fields should not be static in an multidisciplinary research community.

Non-open sources, or especially sources that are controlled by the OSM should be removed to prevent conflict of interest.

I think, if anything, what high citations have to do with open science, which is about moving away from traditional evaluation metrics, should be justified here.

Come on! Do you really want to measure Open science with rankings and percentiles? Open Science means also alternative evaluation. Journal rankings have hugely damaged science and genereated the serial crisis which was at the start of the Open Access movement! Do you really want to measure openness with rankings? Unbelievable. It happens as your subcontractor is the vendor of a ranking-based tool. There are plenty of EU reports stating that research evaluation needs to take into account and reward open choices by authors. See https://ec.europa.eu/research/...

Measuring Open Science, which tends to be an alternative paradigm to the current scholarly communication system, by rankings and percentiles is a complete nonsense. Applying old categories and indicators to new ways of publishing might result in a distorted - and useless - picture. Moreover, the journal ranking system contributed to create the so called "serial crisis" which was at the beginning of the Open Access movement, so it would be ironical measuring Open Access with the same indicator it was born to fight. And, again, books are cut off from citation counts.