Corrections for December and January Cites & Insights

I got fancy with gold OA analysis in these two issues, adding breakdowns by 27 individual subjects as well as by larger subject groups and major areas.

Unfortunately, I used the wrong column in preparing some of the tables in both issues. The error is consistent: I used the sum of articles 2011-2014 rather than the 2013 article count.

Change in correction: For most tables, this turns out to be a matter of clarification, not correction: To wit, for “Volume” in Tables 2.30 through 2.54 and all tables 2.55-2.65 that have “Volume” as a column heading, the numbers in Volume represent the total number of articles January 2011-June 2014. That’s consistent with the usage in some (not all) earlier tables, so no correction is required.

Actual errors:

  • December 2014: In tables 2.66a and 2.67a, the “Articles” counts are also the sum of 2011 through June 30, 2014; the $/article figures are simply wrong (they represent 2013 potential revenues divided by 2011-2014 article counts) and should be ignored. Clarification: For Tables 2.66b-c and 2.67b-c, the “Article” and “$/article” figures represent total article volume and potential revenue volume for 2011-2014. This means you can’t reasonably compare them to Tables 2.66a and 2.67a.
  • January 2015: Tables 3.33 and 3.34 contain the same errors–the Articles counts include 2011 through mid-2014, making the $/article figures meaningless.

The March 2013 issue will have correct tables for DOAJ (including an additional 1,500-odd journals). I’ll add corrected tables for Beall (including journals in DOAJ) and OASPA (including journals in DOAJ), to make direct comparisons feasible.

My apologies for the errors.

Comments are closed.