Archive for 2014

The books of 2014

Posted in Books and publishing on December 31st, 2014

I could recount blog activity for 2014, but that would be really brief and boring. I would promise to do better in 2015, but don’t know that I will…

As for the year in general: I certainly didn’t plan to spend much of it visiting some 16,000 journal and publisher websites some 23,000+ times in all–but Beall’s fast-growing list concerned me enough to try to want to add some, y’know, facts to the discussion. As a result of spending hundreds (I’m not even thinking about how many hundreds) of hours on the single project that turned into four projects, I really didn’t make much headway on watching old movies–instead of the usual one or two per week, I think I managed one a month, maybe less.

But I did do OK on book-reading, mostly library books. My annual goal continues to be 39: three books each time I go to the library–one genre fiction alternating between mystery and science fiction/fantasy, one “non-genre” fiction, one nonfiction–and going to the library at least once every four weeks (that’s the circulation period in Livermore). Anything more than that is gravy.

This year, it looks like I read 58 books, or, rather, I started 58 books and finished 55 of them. (I gave up on three books, two of them to my considerable surprise because they’re by authors I like in general: to wit, Connie Willis’ All Clear and Gene Wolfe’s The Urth of the New Sun. The third was John Barth’s Once Upon A Time–and, you know, I’ve liked Barth a lot as well.)

The pleasant surprise is just how many books I liked enough to give A or A- grades–although that includes starting to read Robert Parker again and reading some of the Discworld books (in mass-market editions) that have been sitting on my shelf before the pages yellow completely.

Here’s the list, including an astonishing 30 books in all, in no particular order:

The Long War Terry Pratchett & S. Baxter
Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby Ace Atkins
James and the Giant Peach Roald Dahl
Jingo Terry Pratchett
Back Story: a Spenser novel Robert B. Parker
Bad Business Robert B. Parker
Chance Robert B. Parker
Telegraph Avenue Michael Chabon
The Christmas Train David Baldacci
The Science of Discworld Terry Pratchett & others
Fatal Voyage Kathy Reichs
How the Beatles Destroyed Rock ‘n’ Roll Elijah Wald
Mary Ann in Autumn Armistead Maupin
Cross Bones Kathy Reichs
Bones to Ashes Kathy Reichs
The Know-It-All A.J. Jacobs
The Last Continent Terry Pratchett
I’m Feeling Lucky Douglas Edwards
Hush Money Robert B. Parker
Fire and Rain David Browne
The History of a Hoax…Old Librarian’s Almanack Wayne A. Wiegand
Raising Steam Terry Pratchett
The Monuments Men Robert M. Edsel
Double Deuce Robert B. Parker
The Camel Club David Baldacci
Sudden Mischief Robert B. Parker
Inherent Vice Thomas Pynchon
The Human Division John Scalzi
Hundred Dollar Baby Robert B. Parker
The Fifth Elephant Terry Pratchett

Of those 30, 27 came from the library; three of the Pratchett books were among the seven on my bookshelf as the year began; and some Beta Phi Mu members (I’m not one–I don’t have an MLS–but my wife is or was) may have spotted the odd book out, Wiegand’s charming little chapbook.

Also fair to note that I’m either an easy grader (probably true for books) or I’m good at selecting library books–normally by browsing–that I’ll like. Another 18 books got B or B+ and two more got a middling B-. Only seven books that I finished got C+ or lower, most of them badly-written or seriously ahistoric nonfiction, and only one book earned a D even though I read the whole thing.

Here’s to 2015 being at least as good in books. (Looking at this list, I’m surprised I gave The Last Continent an A-; at the time, I noted that it was the least satisfying Discworld novel I’ve ever read.)

Oh, and Inherent Vice was a pleasant surprise, given that I’d basically given up on Thomas Pynchon after having been an early fan.

One note there: “Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby” is a Spenser mystery written by the writer Parker’s estate chose to continue the series. It’s very good…and is what started me reading Parker again after an absence of 20 or 30 years. I’m sure I’ll wind up rereading some books I’ve previously read. That’s fine with me. I will surely read Atkins’ other Parker books.

Those of you who look at this list and say “Sheesh. He sure doesn’t read much Serious Literature or Truly Worthwhile Nonfiction” are entirely welcome to your own opinion. You may be right.

Do we need OA megajournals in humanities & social sciences?

Posted in open access on December 29th, 2014

I can’t answer that question, of course. I can offer some factual input.

I’ve now looked at all of the journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (as of May 2014) that have enough English in their interface for me to be able to (a) determine whether the journal charges article processing fees (or submission fees or whatever) and, if so, how much those fees amount to, (b) determine that they are in fact publishing refereed scholarly articles and (c) determine how many such articles they’ve published in 2011, 2012, 2013 and the first half of 2014.

That caveat is because somewhere north of 2,000 journals in DOAJ either didn’t have English or Eng as one of the languages in their DOAJ record or, when I went there, did not have enough English for me to be able to do those things. So I’ve only looked at 7,301 DOAJ journals (plus another 6,949 “Beall journals”–most of them not actually journals–that weren’t in DOAJ at that point and another 401 OASPA-member journals that weren’t in DOAJ, in many cases because they’d ceased publishing).

Within those 7,301 journals, here’s, briefly, what I found for humanities & social sciences, omitting the few journals with unknown/unstated APCs–there are a dozen such journals in this group):

Humanities alone

(OK, so my definition of humanities may not be the same as yours, but set that aside…)

  • Journals with APCs that published some articles between 2011 and June 30, 2014: 38 journals, publishing around 1,750 articles in the first half of 2014, around 3,200 in 2013, around 2,800 in 2012 and around 2,150 in 2011. (Median APC: $300.)
  • Journals with no APCs–free on both sides–that published some articles between 2011 and June 30, 2014: 745 journals, publishing around 5,850 articles in the first half of 2014, around 12,700 in 2013, around 12,850 in 2012, and around 11,400 in 2011.
  • That adds up to around 15,900 articles in 2013 and around 15,600 in 2012; the 2014 numbers may be slightly lower, but a lot of these journals only post issues once a year, so it’s too early to say.

Humanities and social sciences (which includes all of the above)

  • Journals with APCs (as above): 270 journals, publishing around 8,200 articles in the first half of 2014, around 14,500 in 2013, around 13,500 in 2012 and around 10,200 in 2011. (Median APC $203.)
  • Journals without APCs (free on both sides): 1,930 journals, publishing around 16,100 articles in the first half of 2014, around 37,700 in 2013 and the same in 2012; around 33,650 in 2011.
  • That adds up to around 52,000 articles in 2013 and around 51,200 in 2012.

So I guess the question is: are there tens of thousands of worthwhile articles out there that aren’t getting published because there aren’t enough good OA journals in HSS? Note that the average no-fee humanities journal only publishes about 17 articles a year; if each one added four more articles–probably not an overwhelming addition to the presumably-volunteer editors’ workloads–that would take care of another 3,000-odd articles.

I’m not part of the academy or The Academy. I don’t know what’s actually needed. I am a little suspicious of grand schemes…but that’s just me.

If you’re wondering: I will have a some summary figures and notes on the completion of this absurdly large investigation in the March 2015 Cites & Insights, out some time in February 2015; a thoughtful, edited, complete, coherent view (with advice for librarians) will appear in the summer from a publisher I regard as highly reputable, but it will carry a price.

Comments are open on this post.

Yes, I’m a feminist

Posted in Language on December 29th, 2014

In the past, I always thought of myself and, when appropriate, called myself a feminist.

Which doesn’t buy me anything–gratitude, etc.–nor should it. It’s just a fact.

The last year or two, seems like there have been some who think men shouldn’t call themselves feminists because issues–essentially, that we should just shut up.

That’s their privilege. But for me to not say I’m a feminist is wrong and stupid. John Scalzi’s excellent statement reminded me of that.

So: No, it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) buy me special treatment. No, it doesn’t give me authority to explain to anybody (much less women) what women’s issues really are. But…

Yes, I’m a feminist.

Two weeks in: a quick update

Posted in Cites & Insights, open access on December 16th, 2014

Cites & Insights 15.1, January 2015, was published two weeks ago, featuring the “third half” of my vast-but-incomplete survey of gold OA in 2011-2014, along with some additional notes related to gold OA.

“Going for the gold: OA journals in 2014: any interest?”–asking whether a coherent, well-organized look at the overall state of OA journals in 2014 (or, really, 2011-2014), based on an even larger survey of the journals, done as a paperback book, would be of any interest–appeared the next day, December 3, 2014. Essentially the same text appeared as one of the shorter pieces in the “third half” essay.

As of this morning (at 5 a.m., when the daily statistics run for month-to-day happens), December 16, 2014, C&I 15.1 is doing OK in terms of readership: 1,355 downloads to date (1,168 of the print-oriented two-column version, 187 of the 6×9″ single-column version). Those are strong numbers; I’d like to think the issue’s having some mild impact.

As of this morning, total non-spam responses to the other post (and to the piece in C&I) are a little less strong. 1,355 less strong, to be exact. (Lots of spamments, but that happens any time I turn comments on.)

That’s a shame, but it’s also reality.

Meanwhile, I’m now a little more than halfway in scanning the remaining 2,200-odd journals, which are now down to 1,800-odd as I remove journals where there’s not enough English in the interface for me to determine whether they have article processing charges and how their issue archives work. That is: I have 1,010 journals that I’ve been able to record information on, with 800-odd to go, but I imagine another 100+ will disappear in that process.

A word to OA publishers who are trying to offer an English interface without actually doing any work: Having an English flag (either literally a flag or a pull-down list option) is really sort of pointless if all it does is change the OJS menu headings to English, with all the text linked from them still in the primary language of the journal. Cute, but pointless.

But at least better than the journals hosting malware…and I think I have one of you to “thank” for spending most of a day last week recovering from a nasty little Trojan disguised as a Flash update. I saw a second attempt this week, but the combination of anti-crap software I’m running flagged it immediately.

Oh, just as a sidebar, here are some year-to-November-30* figures for OA-related essays in Volume 14:

  • April 2014, 14:4 (The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall and another essay): 2,781 two-column plus 3,393 single-column (a rare case in which the single-column outdid the two-column), for a total of 6,174, a big number for C&I: by far the largest 2014 download count for any issue of C&I (that’s out of some 176,000 total downloads through November 30, although as noted in the footnote below that’s missing 11 days, the last day of each month).
  • May 2014, 14:5 (The So-Called Sting and another essay): 1,690 two-column plus 1,283 single-column, for a total of 2,973, also a very good number.
  • July 2014, 14:7 (Journals, “Journals” and Wannabes): 1,839 two-column plus 1,042 single column, for a total of 2,881, which is very good, especially noting that the window is getting smaller.
  • October/November 2014, 14:10 (Journals and “Journals”: Taking a Deeper Look): 817 two-column plus 239 single-column for a total of 1,056. Not bad for a relatively brief period.
  • December 2014, 14:11 (Journals and “Journals” Part 2): 998 two-column plus 456 single-column, for a total of 1,454, which is pretty good given that it came out on November 2, so that’s one month’s readership.

The three Journals and “Journals” issues show 96, 27, and 88 additional downloads for December 1-15, respectively.


*Technically, November 29: because of how the statistics run, I never actually see the figures for the final day of a given month.


Update December 18, 2014: Comments now turned off. The question of whether or not to write a Publish-on-Demand paperback based on all of this has been rendered moot, in a way that will serve libraries quite well, I believe.

Going for the Gold: OA Journals in 2014: any interest?

Posted in C&I Books, open access on December 3rd, 2014

[Adapted and slightly updated from the January 2015 C&I, partly so you can comment directly at the end.]

I’m toying with the idea of doing an updated, expanded, coherent version of Journals and “Journals”: A Look at Gold OA. Current working title: Going for the Gold: OA Journals in 2014.

The book would use a very large subset of DOAJ as it existed in May 2014 as the basis for examining gold OA—with sidebars for the rest of Beall (most of which is “journals” rather than journals) and the rest of OASPA (which doesn’t amount to much). It would assume a four-part model for some of the discussion (megajournals, bio/med, STEM other than biology, and HSS).

But it would also add even more DOAJ journals, drawn from around 2,200 that have English as one language but not the first one (and a few hundred that were somehow missed in the latest pass). Based on a sampling of 200-300 or so, I’d guess that this would yield 500 to 1,000 more journals (that are reachable, actually OA, and have enough English for me to verify the APC, if any, verify that it’s actually peer-reviewed scholarship, and cope with the archives), possibly fewer, possibly more.

Update: At this point, I’ve recorded information for 200—well, 199—additional journals, but in the process I see that the last row in the spreadsheet has gone from something over 2,200 to a current 2,107, as I delete journals where there isn’t enough English available for me to determine the APC or that there isn’t one, determine that the journal appears to be scholarly research articles, and navigate the archives. Since close to 30% of the 200 journals are either unreachable, aren’t OA as I’m defining it, or are set up so that I find it impossible to count the number of articles, that suggests—and suggests is the right word—that I might get something like 1,400 journals of which something like 1,000 provide useful additional information. But journals are wildly heterogeneous: the actual numbers could be anywhere from 250 to 1,900 or so. Best guess: around 800-1,200 useful additions.

There would still be a portion of DOAJ as of May 2014 not included: journals that don’t include English as one of their possible languages and those that don’t have enough English for a monolingual person to make sense of them. That group includes at least 1,800 journals.

The paperback might also include the three existing pieces of Journals and “Journals,” depending on the length and final nature of the new portion. If so, the old material would follow the new. The paperback would cost $45 (I think), and a PDF ebook would be the same price.

Update: More likely, the paperback would not include the three existing pieces but would add some additional analysis—e.g., proportion of free and APC-charging journals by country of origin.

Since curiosity hasn’t quite killed me off yet, I may do this in any case, but it would be a lot more likely if I thought that a few people (or libraries or institutions or groups involved with OA) would actually buy it. If you’re interested—without making a commitment—drop me a line at waltcrawford@gmail.com saying so (or leave a comment on this post).

Of course, if some group wanted this to be freely available in electronic form, I’d be delighted, for the price of one PLOS One accepted article without waivers: $1,350. With that funding, I’d also reduce the paperback price to Lulu production cost plus $2.

If some group was really interested in an updated look at all this—including full-year 2014 numbers for DOAJ and the rest of OASPA (but not the rest of Beall: life really is too short)—I’d be willing to consider doing that, which would be a lot more work, possibly for, say, the amount of the APC for Cell Reports: $5,000. I don’t plan to hold my breath for either offer, although the first doesn’t seem entirely out of the question.

You know where to find me.

[Updated 9:35 a.m.: Comments turned on. Oops.]


Updated December 18, 2014: Comments turned off again. This possibility–a print-on-demand self-published paperback based on all of this research–has been rendered moot by developments. There will, in fact, be a coherent overview with additional material, available some time in 2015, aimed at library needs. It will not be a Cites & Insights Book.

Cites & Insights 15:1 (January 2015) available

Posted in Cites & Insights, open access on December 2nd, 2014

The January 2015 issue of Cites & Insights (15:1) is now available for downloading at http://citesandinsights.info/civ15i1.pdf

The print-oriented two-column version is 28 pages long.

If you’re reading online or on an e-device, you may prefer the single-column 6″x9″ version, which is 57 pages long.

The issue includes:

Intersections: The Third Half    pp. 1-21

Most of this essay (pp. 7-19) is the “Third Half” of the two-part Journals and “Journals” examination in the October/November and December 2014 issues–adding another 1,200-odd bio/med journals from DOAJ and looking at overall patterns. The essay also includes four briefer discussions related to DOAJ and gold OA journals.

The Back   pp. 21-28

A baker’s dozen of sometimes-snarky mini-essays.

 

Announcing C&I Volume 14, the paperback version (with bonuses!)

Posted in C&I Books, Cites & Insights, open access on November 28th, 2014

ci14fc300The paperback annual Cites & Insights 14 (2014) is now available for purchase at http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/cites-insights-14-2014/15790436

The 344-page 8.5×11″ trade paperback (printed on 60# white paper) includes all eleven issues of Cites & Insights 14 and a table of contents. It also includes three exclusive bonuses:

  • An index (actually two indexes, one for articles quoted in the volume, the other for names, topics and the like.
  • A wraparound color cover.
  • To complete the Journals and “Journals” series, an essay that will also appear as the first 20+ pages of the January 2015 Cites & Insights (to be published some time in December 2014).

While Volume 14 includes several essays related to ebooks (and print books, libraries, textbooks), magazines, futurism (in general and as applied to libraries) and more, the obvious focus of much of the year was open access–specifically, a series on access and ethics and a major series of all original research on Journals and “Journals,” looking at the nature of gold OA journals in 2011-2014 through actual examination of the websites of more than ten thousand journals and “journals” (the latter being things called journals that have never actually published any articles).

The paperback sells for $45 (as do all C&I Annuals), and helps to support C&I.

About that partial essay…

Posted in Cites & Insights, open access on November 20th, 2014

In “The Size of the Open Access Market (and an admission)” I said that the January 2015 issue would include a cleaned-up version of that post, some stuff that was originally supposed to be part of the December 2014 issue–and a partial completion of the DOAJ set, looking at the 1,200+ biology and medicine journals.

The full completion was planned as a special edition only appearing in the bound PoD paperback C&I Annual for 2014–and possibly as part of a separate book on Journals and “Journals.”

There’s a change, as noted in the second postscript to that post: I’ve given up on the “special edition” idea and have now included the full “third half” of the Journals and “Journals” Second Look in the January 2015 issue. Which will arrive, I don’t know, sometime before January 1, 2015.

A separate book? Still up in the air.

At least one typo…

Posted in Cites & Insights on November 14th, 2014

I wonder if there’s ever been an issue of Cites & Insights that didn’t have a <should we credit that awful Bztykyws paper here?> goof or two…

There’s at least one in the December 2014 issue, in the caption of a table. It’s a pretty obvious goof, once you’re looking for it. (The tables themselves should be pretty good–they’re copied-and-pasted from Excel, and were generally automatically generated from the data. The captions, however…)

Wonder if anyone will notice it and point it out to me? waltcrawford at gmail dot com.

(There are probably others. I noticed this one because I’m starting to work on the January issue, looking back to December for guidance. I read it in paper form–twice–but that doesn’t always help.)

The Size of the Open Access Market (and an admission)

Posted in Cites & Insights, open access on November 14th, 2014

On October 29, 2014, Joseph Esposito posted “The Size of the Open Access Market” at the scholarly kitchen. In it, he discusses a Simba Information report, “Open Access Journal Publishing 2014-2017.” (I’m not copying the link because it’s just to the blurb page, not to any of the info that Esposito provides.) The 61-page Simba report costs a cool $2,500 (and up), so I can’t give you any detail on the report itself other than what Esposito passes along.

The key portion of what he passes along, quoting Esposito directly:

Simba notes that the primary form of monetization for OA journals is the article processing charge or APC. In 2013 these fees came to about $242.2 million out of a total STM journals market of $10.5 billion. I thought that latter figure was a bit high, and I’m never sure when people are quoting figures for STM alone or for all journals; but even so, if the number for the total market is high, it’s not far off.  That means that OA is approximately 2.3% of the total journals market (or is that just STM . . . ?)….

And, quoting from one of the comments (it’s a fascinating comment stream, including some comments that made me want to scream, but…):

If those numbers are roughly right, then 2.3% of the scholarly publishing revenue equates to something like 22% of all published papers.

That comment is by Mike Taylor, who’s active in this comment stream.

I had no idea whether the Simba numbers made any sense and what magic Simba performed to get numbers from the more than two thousand Gold OA publishers (my own casual estimate based on DOAJ publisher names), but hey, that’s why Simba can get $2,500 for 61 pages…

The admission

There turned out to be a mistake or, if you will, a lie in the December 2014 Cites & Insights, on the very last page, top of the second column, the parenthetical comment. When I wrote that, I fully intended to sample perhaps 10%-20% of the 1,200+ bio/biomed/medical DOAJ journals not in the OASPA or Beall sets to get a sense of what they were like…

…and in the process realized what I should already have known: the journals are far to heterogeneous for sampling to mean much of anything. And, once I’d whittled things down, 1,200+ wasn’t all that bad. Long story short: I just finished looking at those journals (in the end, 1,211 of them–of the original 1,222, a few disappeared either because they turned out to be ones already studied or, more frequently, because there was not enough English in the interface for me to look at them sensibly).

Which means that I’ve now checked–as in visited and recorded key figures from–essentially all of the DOAJ journals (as of May 7, 2014) that have English as the first language code, in addition to some thousands of Beall-set journals and hundreds of OASPA journals that weren’t in DOAJ at that point.

Which means that I could do some very rough estimates of what a very large portion of the Gold OA journal field actually looks like.

Which means I could, gasp, second-guess Simba. Sort of. For $0 rather than $2,500.

Caveats

The numbers I’m about to provide are based on my own checking of some absurdly large number of supposed Gold OA journals, yielding 9,026 journals that actually published articles between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014. The following caveats (and maybe more) apply:

  • A few thousand Gold OA journals in DOAJ that did not have English as the first language code in the downloaded database aren’t here. Neither are some number that did have English as the first language code but did not, in fact, have enough English in the interface for me to check them properly.
  • So-called “hybrid” OA journals aren’t here. Period.
  • Journals that appeared to be conference proceedings were omitted, as were journals that require readers to register in order to read papers, journals that impose embargoes, journals that don’t appear to have scholarly research papers and a few similar categories.
  • Some number of journals aren’t included because I was unable or unwilling to jump through enough hoops to actually count the number of articles. (See the October/November and December issues for more details; including the additional DOAJ bio/biomed/medical set, it comes to about 560 journals in all, most of them in the Beall set.)
  • I used a variety of shortcuts for some of the article counts, as discussed in the earlier essays.
  • Maximum potential revenue numbers are based on the assumptions that (a) all counted articles are in the original-article category, (b) there were no waivers of any sort, (c) the APC stated in the summer of 2014 is the APC in use at all times.

All of which means: while these numbers are approximate–the potential revenue figures more so than the article-count figures, I think, since quite a few fee-charging journals automatically reduce APCs for developing nations (as one example). On the other hand, some of the differences mean that I’m likely to be undercounting (the first four bullets) while the last bullet certainly means I’m overstating. Do they balance out? Who knows?

Second-guessing Simba

OK, here it goes:

Given all those caveats, I come up with the following for 2013:

  • Maximum revenue for Gold OA journals with no waivers: $249.9* million
  • Approximate number of articles published: 403* thousand

And, just for fun, here’s what I show for 2012:

  • Maximum revenue for Gold OA journals with no waivers: $200.2 million
  • Approximate number of articles published: 331 thousand

Here’s what’s remarkable: that maximum revenue of $249.9 million, which is almost certainly too high but which also leaves out “hybrid” journals and a bunch of others, is, well, all of 3.2% higher than Simba’s number.

Which I find astonishingly close, especially given the factors and number of players involved (and Simba’s presumed access to inside information, which I wholly lack).

(The 22% of all published papers? Close enough…although it should be noted that 403 thousand includes humanities and social sciences.)

Incidentally, 33 journals account for the first $100 million of that 2013 figure, including one that’s in the social sciences if you consider psychology to be a social science. Not to take away too much from what will appear elsewhere eventually, but if you sort by three major lumps, you get this:

  • Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (excluding bio/biomed/medicine): $66.0 million maximum potential revenue in 2013 for 170 thousand articles; $54.3 million maximum in 2012 for 138 thousand articles. Around 3,500 journals.
  • Biology and medicine: $174.5 million maximum potential revenue in 2013 for 180 thousand articles; $139.0 million maximum in 2012 for 150 thousand articles. Around 3,100 journals.
  • Humanities and social sciences (including psychology): $9.4 million maximum potential revenue in 2013 for 55 thousand articles; $6.9 million maximum in 2012 for 45 thousand articles. Around 2,400 journals.

Those are very raw approximate numbers, but I’d guess the overall ratios are about right. The gold rush is in bio/biomed/medicine: is anybody surprised?

What’s coming

I probably shouldn’t post this at all, since it weakens the January 2015 Cites & Insights, but what the heck…

In any case, now that I’ve looked at the 1,200+ additional journals, I will, of course, discuss those numbers.

(Credit to the late great Tom Magliozzi) The third half of the Journals and “Journals” deeper look will appear in part in the January 2015 Cites & Insights, out some time in December 2014 (Gaia willing and the creeks don’t rise).

That third half will be part of a multipart Intersections essay that also offers a few comments on the current DOAJ criteria (a handful of nits with a whole lot of praise) and considers the possibility that there’s a (dis)economy of scale in Gold OA publishing.

“In part”? Well, yes. I’ll do a discussion of the bio/med DOAJ subset that’s comparable to what I did for the other three sets of Gold OA journals, and I might include a few overall numbers. [See second postscript]

But there may be some more extended discussion of the overall numbers and how they break down (and maybe what they mean?), and that discussion might appear as a special section in the 2014 Cites & Insights Annual paperback, offering added value for the many (OK, maybe one so far) who purchase these paperbacks. It’s also possible that a complete retelling of this story will come out as a print on demand book, one that most definitely won’t be free, if I think there’s enough to add value. [See second postscript]

(Projections? I don’t do projections. I can say that, if the second half of 2014 equals the first half, there would be about 12% more Gold OA articles this year than last. I believe the Great OA Gold Rush of 2011-2013 is settling down…and that’s probably a good thing.)

Postscript, noon PST: I’ve enabled comments. I post so rarely these days that I’d forgotten that they’re now off by default.


Postscript, November 20, 2014:
After writing the abbreviated discussion (not that abbreviated: 14.5 C&I pages) and the full version, and letting it sit for a day or two, I’ve concluded that the full version doesn’t really add enough value for me to make a serious case that people should spend $45 for the paperback C&I Annual if they wouldn’t buy it otherwise. I think the Annuals are great and worth the money, but it’s pretty clear nobody else does.

So the full version–19 pages in the two-column format–will be the primary essay (or set of related essays) in the January 2015 volume, and the 2014 Annual will only add a wraparound cover and an index to the contents of the eleven 2014 issues. I’ve added strikeouts to the text above as appropriate.

As for a possible PoD book on Journals and “Journals”: still thinking about it.


*Additional postscript, December 27, 2014:

I’ve now gone through the rest of the DOAJ entries that offer English as one language possibility–another 2,200-odd, of which around 1,500 actually offered enough English for me to make sense of them. I’ve also gone through DOAJ itself for journals where I found it difficult to count articles directly (e.g., undated archives or archives consisting of whole-issue PDFs).

The bottom-line counts for articles and possible revenue for 2013 now come out to around 448,000 articles and around $261 million. Of that, around 366,000 and $231 million are from journals in DOAJ; Beall journals that aren’t in DOAJ–theoretically a larger number of journals, actually not–account for another 76,000 articles in 2013 (around 21% of DOAJ’s numbers) and around $22 million in potential revenue (around 9% of DOAJ numbers). The few hundred OASPA journals that aren’t in DOAJ account for fewer than 6,000 articles (less than 2% of DOAJ) and around $9 million (4% of DOAJ).

Some additional figures may appear in the March 2015 Cites & Insights; a coherent writeup of the whole OA journal scene (2011 through the first half of 2014)–or at least the very large portion of it I could investigate, essentially everything except 2,000-odd DOAJ journals that do not provide any form of English access–will appear next summer. More details later.


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 105839 Spams eaten and counting...