Archive for the ‘open access’ Category

GOA5: June 2020 report

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

The first report on readership for GOA5, plus continuing reporting on GOA4–and the final report on GOAJ3. (Work on Gold Open Access by Country 2014-2019 continues; it should be out in late July or early August.)

All links available from the project home page, as always.

GOA5: 2014-2019

  • The dataset: 55 views, 12 downloads.
  • GOA5: 123 PDF ebooks. One paperback (full color, highly recommended).
  • Countries 5: in progress.

GOA4: 2013-2018

  • The dataset: 695 views, 245 downloads.
  • GOA4: 3,237 PDF ebooks
  • Countries 4: 486 PDF ebooks
  • Subjects and Publishers: 383 PDF ebooks

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 2,042 views, 375 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 4,022 PDF ebooks
  • Countries: 1,232 PDF ebooks

These will continue to be available, but this is the last report.

Gold Open Access 2014-2019 (GOA5) available

Monday, June 22nd, 2020

The fifth edition of the GOA series is now available–as a free PDF ebook, a full-color trade paperback (color for the graphs is new, and raises the price to $11 or the near equivalent in other Lulu-accepted currencies), and a Figshare dataset.

All forms are, as always, linked from the project page at https://www.waltcrawford.name/goaj,html

[The www, should be optional.]

This edition includes 13,938 fully-analyzed journals with 854,018 articles in 2019, up from 774,427 in 2018; 697,390 in 2017; 631,977 in 2016; 571,627 in 2015; and 512,930 in 2014. Of the 13,938 journals, 12,901 published articles in 2019.

Once again, although most gold OA journals (70% of those active in 2019) do not charge fees, most articles (61% in 2019) do involve fees. The average cost per article was no more than $1,023 in 2019 and probably less, but that’s up considerably from 2018. Potential revenue for the year was a little over $863 million.

In addition to broader inclusion, changes this year include:

  • Because the pandemic made it less likely that files could be corrected, I did include journals with malware as long as a full set of figures was available.
  • The Growth and Shrinkage tables have been simplified (and will probably disappear altogether if there’s a GOA6, since they don’t seem useful).
  • Subject profiles are complete in this book, adding about 56 pages; there will not be a separate Subjects and Publishers book.
  • The trade paperback includes color graphs, printed in color, for the first time. That means a modest increase in the price, still rounded up from actual production costs, this time $11.00.

GOA4: May 2020 post (and GOA5 update)

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020


Readership for the new edition and GOAJ3.

All links available from the project home page, as always.

GOA4: 2013-2018

  • The dataset: 653 views, 223 downloads.
  • GOA4: 3,049 PDF ebooks
  • Countries 4: 468 PDF ebooks
  • Subjects and Publishers: 355 PDF ebooks

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 1,971 views, 364 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 3,906 PDF ebooks
  • Countries: 1,215 PDF ebooks

GOA5 Progress

The data gathering is done. Normalization is done. I’m off to a good start on the main book (when it’s done, the dataset will also be uploaded).

My best guess is that I need 13 to 18 solid work days to finish it. But:

  • I’m having cataract surgery on June 4 and June 18. It’s not clear whether this and side-effects will keep me away from the computer two days, four days, or more.
  • Covid-19 and its effects are somewhat debilitating.
  • Flat-out murder and a so-called leader fanning the flames is a lot more debilitating. I used to live in a great country.

Anyway, given all that, I’d guess July is likely–when in July, well, depends on all of those. Perhaps mostly on the last, which is discouraging.

GOA5: Status and Questions

Monday, May 11th, 2020

As of today, I’ve completed the initial scan of 14,128 DOAJ-listed gold OA journals, the second scan (starting April 14) to pick up additional articles and do some follow-up, and a “pre-third” scan (starting April 29) to clear up as many problematic journals as possible. The final third scan will begin Friday, May 15, a deadline shared earlier, to see whether more malware and problematic cases have been cleared up. (There are 786 journals in that final scan, including around 140 malware cases where I was able to gather the data needed but am hoping that the malware will be cleared up.

Once that final scan is complete–around a week to ten days, barring other issues–I’ll start adding calculated data (e.g., 2019 journal revenue), then start in on the books. I’m still saying “July or maybe August” for completion, especially given the state of things (and some known causes of likely delay), but it’s possible that it could be done in late June. MODIFIED May 14: Things have opened up enough that I will be having cataract surgery during June, both eyes, two weeks apart. It’s likely that I’ll get either no work or very little work done on the project while resting my eyes…so don’t expect the books and dataset until late July or some time in August.

Oh, and if you’re wondering: almost certainly not more than 14,000 fully-analyzed journals (with articles later than 2013), but also certainly more than 800,000 articles for 2019, probably quite a bit more than 800,000.

Meanwhile, I’m looking at changes in the books/reports and would be delighted to get feedback (definitely before May 22, preferably by May 14) on a couple of issus. To wit:

  • Should I reduce the growth/shrinkage tables from seven rows to three? I did this for the Subject and Publisher book last year (which won’t be repeated due to lack of interest), using Grew 25% +, Even +/- 24.99%, and Shrank 25% + instead of the finer categories in the main book and Country book. My inclination is to make this change, but I’d love feedback.
  • Should I change the format to the Country style? Which is to say: drop the captions for tables and figures but add third-level headings with the same information. The differences are that headings appear above the tables and figures rather than below, that the tables and figures don’t have numbered captions (no “Table 10.43); that there’s some space savings; and that you don’t get commentary for one table appearing immediately above the next table. (A book designer would say that I’d also be violating a classic tenet, as many heading3 cases would appear without prior heading2 cases.) I can still create an index of the tables and figures, since the only heading3 instances would be these labels. [Page 57 of GOA4, the paragraph beginning “Table 7.11.,” is one case where the paragraph seems “attached” to the next table.] My inclination is also to make this change.
  • Should I move subject coverage to follow region coverage? Here, I don’t think there’s much choice, Since there is no Cites & Insights in which to provide expanded subject coverage, and since I believe it’s not enough to just provide three tables for each subject, and since ginormously long and complicated subject-group chapters seem absurd, I think the solution is to have what was Chapters 12-18 in GOA4 appear as Chapters 9-15 and have 31 subject chapters (three groups and 28 subjects) follow. Objections? Other suggestions?

I believe that’s it. There may be other tweaks, but for consistency the fee price ranges and article count ranges will be the same as in previous years.

Oh: if you’re wondering: no-fee journals are still right around 70% of all the journals, but the percentage of articles with fees seems to have gone up a bit, maybe crossing the 60% mark. In other words, on average fee-based journals have about twice as many articles as no-fee journals.

Responses welcome as comments here or as email to waltcrawford@gmail.com. Preferably by May 14, absolutely by May 22.

GOA: April 2020 update

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020


Readership for the new edition and GOAJ3.

All links available from the project home page, as always.

GOA4: 2013-2018

  • The dataset: 584 views, 106 downloads.
  • GOA4: 2,599 PDF ebooks
  • Countries 4: 461 PDF ebooks
  • Subjects and Publishers: 349 PDF ebooks [Note: based on an almost total lack of interest–two responses to repeated feedback requests, and only one of the two positive–there won’t be another subjects/publishers book.]

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 1,916 views, 358 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 3,843 PDF ebooks
  • Countries: 1,201 PDF ebooks



GOA5: All problematic journals

Monday, April 13th, 2020

I’ve completed the first pass, and posted a Google Sheet with 1,290 problematic journals–22 xn (apparently not gold OA), 622 xm (malware or certificate problems), and 646 xx (unreachable or unworkable). Here’s the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qEkowH_-tUkmoeYcwou6AqNZOfG5hMD2PqDtPxUovYY/edit?usp=sharing

If you’re in a position to help get these fixed, with special emphasis on the malware cases, note that the FINAL PASS will begin on May 15, 2020–a pass of those that haven’t been fixed earlier. (At that point, I’ll distinguish between malware inclusions that can be blocked but leave the journals reachable–usually bad “free service” modules like counters or contact mappers–and journals that can’t be reached.)

DOAJ is working on these as well. Last year, their efforts reduced hundreds and hundreds of malware cases to a mere 17 (and three more with malware inclusions). Can we do as well this year?

If you’re wondering where the trouble hotspots are, they’re actually on the “Sheet 1” worksheet. The most difficult cases:

Indonesia443
Brazil215
Iran72
Poland55
Spain51
Ukraine46
Romania45
Colombia33
Turkey33
Argentina27
United States18
Malaysia17
Russia15
Cuba12
India12
Pakistan12
Chile11
Portugal11
United Kingdom11
Venezuela11

43 other countries have 9 or fewer each.

Incidentally, of my two “aspirational goals” for this year’s GOA project, one is a clear success, the other possible but not likely:

  • Clear success: There were definitely more than 800,000 articles in serious gold OA journals (that is, those in DOAJ) in 2019.
  • Possible but not likely: 14,000 fully-analyzed journals. Of the 14,128 scanned, 96 are “xd” journals–ones with no articles more recent than 2013, usually because a renamed or merged journal replaced them. With no articles in the 2014-2019 period, those aren’t fully analyzed–and that leaves only 32 to spare, including 22 that appear not to be OA. I think it unlikely that the xm+xx count can be reduced to nine or less, but one can always hope.

Otherwise? I won’t know the overall fee/nofee percentage until all the retesting is done, but so far the fee percentage seems to be right around 30%, which is what I’d expect: very few existing no-fee journals switch to fees (APCs and otherwise) and most newly-added journals are also no-fee.

GOA: Brief notes on journals 12,001-13,000

Friday, April 3rd, 2020


  • Of the 869 journals for which data has been recorded (131 are either unavailable or have malware or other issues), 58 (7%) have fees. (These are almost all university-based.)
  • Of that 58, I find that one is a membership fee, two are questionable (internal disagreement in the site or some other problem) and 13 consist of both submission and processing/publishing charges.
  • For 115 of the no-fee journals, I wasn’t certain of the no-fee status until I checked DOAJ.
  • Problematic cases include 55 malware cases, one that isn’t an OA journal, and 73 that couldn’t be reached or were unworkable. There was also one “xd” (renamed/ceased duplicate).
  • This is the last “thousand” note. Once I finish the last 1,128 in the first pass, I’ll send DOAJ a final group of problematic journals and post a new Google Sheet with the full set of problems–WAY too many of them.
  • I’ll recheck journals that seemed likely to have additional 2019 articles and most “xx” journals, and do a final pass for problematic journals beginning May 15.
  • Yes, of course I’m slowing down. If you’re at full productivity during the current situation, I’d wonder why.



GOA: March 2020 update

Thursday, April 2nd, 2020


Readership for the new edition and GOAJ3.

All links available from the project home page, as always.

GOA4: 2013-2018

  • The dataset: 528 views, 179 downloads.
  • GOA4: 2,197 PDF ebooks
  • Countries 4: 432 PDF ebooks
  • Subjects and Publishers: 331 PDF ebooks [Note: based on an almost total lack of interest–two responses to repeated feedback requests, and only one of the two positive–there won’t be another subjects/publishers book.]

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 1,865 views, 346 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 3,791 PDF ebooks
  • Countries: 1,182 PDF ebooks

Not directly related, but I’m also checking total Cites & Insights visits–since I’ve promised to keep the site, now static, up at least through December 2021 but possibly no longer.

February 2020: 1,219 visits (as reported by AWStats and excluding visits with no actual reads or downloads).

March 2020: 2,493 visits.

GOA: Problematic journals from first 12,000

Thursday, March 26th, 2020

Here’s the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vkLNuaVfk6WPqW3ulzu-Azzw0kokPdLqMN6lRZdoKUU/edit?usp=sharing

This spreadsheet includes all problematic (XM/malware or XX/unavailable or unworkable) from the first 12,000 journals scanned. Your help in encouraging journal owners to fix these (or for XX, in many cases, update their DOAJ metadata) is appreciated. For more notes, see this earlier post.

A final version will appear after I scan the remaining 2,128 journals.

While I will start a second pass of testing in mid-April, I will not begin a final scan of XX/XM journals until May 15, 2020.

GOA5: Journals 11,001-12,000 brief notes

Wednesday, March 25th, 2020


  • Of the 864 journals for which data has been recorded (136 are either unavailable or have malware or other issues), 15 (2%) have fees. (These are almost all university-based.)
  • Of that 15, I find that two have fees that vary based on article length or author count.
  • For 133 of the no-fee journals, I wasn’t certain of the no-fee status until I checked DOAJ.
  • Problematic cases include 39 malware cases, one that isn’t an OA journal, and 87 that couldn’t be reached or were unworkable. There were also six “xd” (renamed/ceased duplicate).
  • I’ll do a separate post (probably Thursday March 26) with a new spreadsheet of problematic journals (and send DOAJ a seperate list for 10,001-12,000, since they already have 1-10,000).