Archive for 2014

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.

Cites & Insights 14:11 (December 2014) available

Posted in Cites & Insights on November 2nd, 2014

The December 2014 Cites & Insights (14:11) is now available for downloading at http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i11.pdf

This print-oriented two-column version is 34 pages long.

If you plan to read the issue online or on an ereader (tablet, notebook, etc.), you may prefer the single-column 6×9″ version, available at http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i11on.pdf

The single-column version is 77 pages long, because the issue includes many tables, which aren’t broken across columns or pages.

The issue consists of one essay, really the second part of a two-part essay (and you’ll want to read the first part, in the October/November 2014 C&I or its one-column equivalent, first):

Intersections: Journals and “Journals”: Taking a Deeper Look: Part 2: DOAJ Subset and Additional Notes

If you’ve been reading various commentaries about Gold OA journals–including Part 1–you may be wondering where all those supposed no-fee Gold OA journals are. This piece helps to tell that story. Specifically, of 2,843 journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 7, 2014 that have an English interface version, aren’t from either OASPA members or Beall-list publishers, and are not about aspects of medicine or biology–and that actually published one or more articles between January 2011 and June 30, 2014–more than 78% do not charge fees of any sort, and those journals published 53% of the articles published by the whole group during that period. Those percentages grow to almost 92% and more than 81%, respectively, for 1,426 journals in the humanities and social sciences.

This article looks at the “DOAJ set” in depth, including new tables that show distribution of articles (and journals publishing articles during a year) on a year-by-year basis, including the percentage of free journals and articles from those journals for each year.

But there’s more: I also look at journals by broad topic (27 of them, in 8 even broader groups and two extremely broad supergroups), showing simplified tables for each topic within the DOAJ set and overall numbers for all three sets (OASPA, Beall and DOAJ). Broader groups are compared for all three sets.

There’s a brief discussion (with two graphs) of starting dates for journals. There’s a less-brief consideration of average cost per article by topic, making some simplifying assumptions

Those expecting my comments on the new DOAJ criteria and my thoughts on diseconomies of scale for some kinds of OA journal will have to wait for the January 2015 C&I, which will also look at (at least some of the) DOAJ journals omitted this time around.

Cites & Insights 14:10 (October/November 2014) available

Posted in Cites & Insights on October 13th, 2014

The October/November 2014 issue of Cites & Insights (14:10) is now available for downloading at http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i10.pdf

This two-column print-oriented version is 24 pages long.

If you plan to read the issue online or on an ereader or tablet, you should download the 49-page single-column 6×9″ version at http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i10on.pdf  That’s especially true this time, as the 48 tables that make up much of the content of this issue are wider and mostly have larger type in the single-column version making them easier to read.

The issue consists of one essay:

Intersections:
Journals and “Journals”: Taking a Deeper Look

This essay builds on the July 2014 Cites & Insights investigation by including full article counts for the thousands of OA journals in Beall’s lists (that is, those that actually publish articles!) and those published by OASPA members, extending the article counts back to 2011, and modifying the groups of journals to be more meaningful.

It also introduces the rough numbers for the new set of Gold OA journals that will form the heart of Part 2 of this two-part essay (the December 2014 C&I), namely more than three thousand journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 7, 2014 that aren’t in one of the other two sets, that do have enough English in the interface for me to analyze them and that are not on biology-related or human medicine-related topics.

 

 

C&I and The Project: A quick update

Posted in Cites & Insights, Stuff on September 13th, 2014

Just a quick update, also marking the last blog post I’ll do before I turn another year older…

The October 2014 Cites & Insights…

…will not exist. At least not as a separate issue. Most probably, the next C&I will be an October/November 2014 issue and will appear, with luck, some time in October or early November.

The project…

…is going swimmingly, I think. As of Wednesday, I’d have said “I’m sure”–but the last 300-odd journals in the Beall spreadsheet (the “independent” journals, because I checked them in publisher order) are slow going, as I should have expected.

For a bunch of journals with the same publisher, I can expect similar layout, the same place for APCs (if they’re hidden–some publishers are up front with them), the same possible shortcuts for counting articles. And for some “publishers,” I can anticipate spending very few keystrokes confirming that the “journals” are still nothing more than names on a web page.

The most extreme case of this came very early in the week, when I hit a “publisher” with 426 “journals,” only 20 of them having any articles at all. I usually consider it a good day if I can process 150 journals in all (usually doing 10 in the new DOAJ list followed by 30 in the much longer Beall list: the OASPA list has been done for a while now), an OK day if I process 100, and a great day if I can do 200. With that “publisher”, I managed 460 journals in one day, including 60 from the DOAJ list.

Given that Wednesday’s basically a half day and the weekend counts as a half day in total, here’s where I think I am:

  • I should finish Pass One on the Beall list by the end of this coming week. (Pass Two, a little additional refinement, should only take a week or so for all three lists combined.)
  • I might finish Pass One on the DOAJ list by the end of the following week–let’s say “within September” as a hoped-for deadline.
  • I can actually start working on Part One of the article(s) before the DOAJ list is complete, since that list should only enter into Part Two.

Then come lots of data massaging, thinking about the results, and writing it all up. I have no idea how long that will all take or, for that matter, how long the results will be. I’m aiming for somewhere between two 20-page and two 30-page essays, each constituting a C&I issue. My aim is notoriously weak.

I believe the project will be interesting and revealing. I know I’ve found some journals I might want to go back to and do some reading from…

Swan song?

At the moment, this project feels a little bit like a swan song. I don’t really have any major projects or book projects in mind at the moment. Oh, there are a couple of thousand–check that, 1,500–Diigo-tagged items waiting to be turned into various essays, but that’s just seeing C&I wind down. Or not.

It’s quite possible that new ideas will arise. Or I’ll start reading more, maybe finally join the local Friends and volunteer at the store or whatever. Or…

Anyway: Back to the project. 239 journals on the Beall list and 908 on the DOAJ list left to go; I’m sure a few of the DOAJ ones will disappear in the process (and I just deleted one duplicate title on the Beall list yesterday–a journal entered with two slightly different names but the same URL).

Update as of September 30, 2014:

Pass One is complete.  I chose not to start on the first part of the report until the DOAJ set was complete.

So is Pass Two.

I’ve started in on Part One of the report, and have completed the background material (a lot of it!).

Barring various disasters, Part One should be ready (and published as the October/November 2014 Cites & Insights) before the end of October. Again with the usual caveats, Part Two should be ready in mid-November.

One thing I’ve already found, and should have realized–but note that I really didn’t prejudge likely results. I’d planned to use graphs for a few things, specifically peak articles by journal within a set of journals, APCs for journals and maximum potential one-year revenue per journal.

That won’t happen. I guessed that all three would be power-law graphs. What I didn’t guess was just how extreme those graphs would be: even with logarithmic vertical scales, the graphs were so crowded near the bottom as to be difficult to interpret. I prepared a table equivalent for the first graph attempted (peak articles by journal within the Beall set) and, after looking at both (and dealing with the complexities of full-page-width graphs within a two-column Word document, especially if you want captions for the graphs), I ripped out the first two graphs and will use tables instead. They don’t give as much detail, but they’re much easier to understand and to format.

 


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104740 Spams eaten and counting...