Archive for the ‘open access’ Category

All times are UTC

Friday, January 13th, 2017

I use Chrome as my default browser while researching journals, because it makes it so easy to use the Google language tools to translate pages. Almost always, I can use the translation–and occasionally, as with Italian author guides, the translation has the feel of free verse.

Then there’s this–just encountered when checking
Herakleion : Revista Interdisciplinar de Historia y Arqueología del Mediterráneo, a Spanish journal.

One of the tabs is
Normas de Publicación
(which I already recognize as “publication norms” or author guidelines).
Translating the page yielded this:
All times are UTC
which is an…interesting…translation.

And no doubt true.

All of Gold OA?

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

Given the recent publication of “Hybrid open access—A longitudinal study” by Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk, I thought it might be interesting to put together all the pieces: my study of DOAJ-listed journals, my study of “others” (using Beall’s generally pernicious lists as a source directory), and this study of hybrid articles.

Here’s what I come up with, complete for 2012 and 2013, partial for 2014 and 2015. “Questionable” for DOAJ includes journals with unstated/hidden APCs; for the gray segment, it includes a variety of things (see Table 3.4).

2012 2013 2013% 2014 2015 2015%
DOAJ

438,644

493,475

69.8%

560,036

566,922

65.0%

Gray/norm

69,075

98,679

14.0%

135,052

148,564

17.0%

SubNorm

507,719

592,154

83.8%

695,088

715,486

82.0%

DOAJ/Ques

10,539

10,896

1.5%

10,170

8,866

1.0%

Gray/Ques

55,964

89,966

12.7%

120,131

148,399

17.0%

SubQues

66,503

100,862

14.3%

130,301

157,265

18.0%

Hybrid

10,802

13,994

2.0%

Total

585,024

707,010

825,389

872,751

 

I believe this is as complete a picture of gold OA as we’re likely to get, although it does omit a few thousand articles where journals have malware or are otherwise resistant to article counts. I’d suggest a 5% margin of error—and also suggest, as I’ve long suspected, that hybrid OA is still within that margin of error, less than 5% of gold OA.

Moved, left no forwarding address? Bentham open

Monday, January 9th, 2017

I’m doing the 2016 DOAJ scan by publisher name–a publisher will frequently use the same APC placement and issue organization for all its journals, saving me time–and just reached Bentham Open, with about 70 journals (quite a few ceased).

And could reach NONE of the first 10…either DNS errors or timeouts. All with URLs starting either www.bentham.org/open/ or bentham.org/open

Just for fun, searched for Bentham Open…and got a site at benthamopen.com

So far, of the first 10 tried, the five that had already ceased have simply disappeared, while the other five can now be reached from the parent site at benthamopen.com

In no case do I see a stub site or autoforward–neither for the publisher (or “publisher”) as a whole nor for any of the journals.

At this point, I’ll do the 60 others by using the new parent site–but isn’t one mark of an even semi-reputable publisher that when you change URLs you don’t simply shut down the old site?

Or is “semi-reputable publisher” too kind a word in this case?


Added March 31, 2017:
It has been suggested that these issues were caused by an act of sabotage–a disgruntled ex-employee deleting information on their way out the door. I have no way of knowing whether this is true; if so, it would move the blame from Bentham itself to a lower level (and suggest inadequate backup/restore/security practices). [H/t to Richard Poynder for passing along the rumor.]

In any case, most Bentham journals are still in DOAJ and included in the forthcoming 2011-2016 study, found at new addresses.

A pence for your thoughts

Friday, January 6th, 2017

As I’m starting the long slog of adding 2016 data (and adding all data for just under 1,900 journals not there on 12/31/2015) to the spreadsheet for Gold Open Access [2011 or]2012-2016, I find the need for an early shoutout:

To The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford for both the lowest Article Processing Charge I’ve seen and the best statement about the charge:

“We have introduced Author Publication Charges for all authors who consider they may be submitted to REF2020 from 1 April 2013 when the HEFCE rule comes into force. These are set at 1p sterling (£0.01), and should be paid in cash when the author bumps into one of the Editors or anyone who knows them. Why? Because on one interpretation of the guidelines only journals charging APCs are eligible.” http://www.isca.ox.ac.uk/publications/jaso/copyright-and-apcs/ 


Update, January 17, 2017: This was posted because I thought it was amusing and refreshing. But after it was picked up by better-known commentators (independently of my post or otherwise), the APC was dropped (they now interpret the guidelines differently).

Sort of a shame, that: humor in author guidelines is in perilously short supply.

Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015: December update

Saturday, December 31st, 2016

It’s December 31–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 5.5 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ–just the total numbers this time:

  • Paperbacks: Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others.
  • Dataset: 978 views (irrelevant), 440 downloads (relevant).
  • GOAJ: 42 Lulu copies, 9,162* copies from my site: total 9,202.
  • Subjects: 19 Lulu copies, 211* other copies, 230 total.
  • Countries: 8 Lulu copies, 1,054* other copies, 1,062 total.
  • C&I: 1,139* copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 3,925* copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

As a sidenote, the most downloaded issue of Cites & Insights for the period between October 2012 and December 31, 2016** is issue 14.4, with 15,936 copies, half again as many as the second most downloaded. The primary essay is The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Unfortunately, more recent and probably more important related commentaries have not reached anywhere that audience…and it’s clear that many librarians and even more scholars take Beall’s word (typically offered without a shred of evidence) as gospel. [Look to the third essay in the hyperlinked issue–the one with “Trust Me” in the title.]

**The most downloaded C&I will probably always be the Library 2,0 and “Library 2.0” essay, with nearly 34,000 downloads before I added a speed bump.

*Note added 12/12/16: These numbers do not include November 13-December 15, 2016 for C&I or November 13-30, 2016 for downloads from my site; downloads during that period, almost certainly in the high hundreds for GOAJ, are simply missing.

Hybrid OA: 2-3% of gold OA?

Friday, December 16th, 2016

Repeating what I just posted on Google+:

If this article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716301523 is even close to being right–and I have no reason to doubt it–there’s finally a good figure for how much we undercount OA by omitting hybrid: 2.8%–for 2013, 13,994 hybrid as compared to 493,475 gold (in DOAJ journals, that is, not including 188,000-odd in “gray” OA journals: include those and hybrid’s just barely over 2%: 13,994 compared to more than 682,000).

So: next time somebody says “but you’re not counting hybrid articles,” a reasonable rejoinder might be “So?”–and, of course, a link to this [fully available] article.

And a tip of the hat to Valerie Hawkins for pointing out the article…

Cites & Insights Number 200 available

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

A very special Cites & Insights, Volume 17, Issue 1, whole number 200, is now available for downloading at http://cical.info/civ17i1.pdf (or at http://citesandinsights.info/civ17i1.pdf if you prefer).

The 72-page 6″ x 9″ issue is a monograph:

Gray OA 2012-2016: Open Access Journals Beyond DOAJ

It’s the result of several months of investigation into the rest of gold OA, beyond “serious gold OA” (journals in DOAJ). I liken it to making brandy out of sour grapes, since it relies on Beall’s lists as the most complete known lists of “other” OA publishers and journals [journals that are also in DOAJ–a few hundred–aren’t included in the monograph].

This monograph is not available in paperback form; at 72 pages (actually 68 + front matter) it just didn’t make sense. It looks at — gulp — more than 18,900 journals and “journals,” of which 7,743 appear to have published at least one article between 1/1/2012 and 6/30/2016–and, if you’re familiar with a certain article claiming 420,000 “predatory” articles in 2014 [Chapter 4 of this monograph deals with that paper], the maximum number of articles for 2014 appears to be 255,183–but only 113,996 of these were in journals on the lists at the time the article was done, and only 29,947 in journals where a legitimate case against the journal or publisher had been made.

It doesn’t look like a typical issue (the first page is a book title page but with the C&I banner at the bottom of the page) and it’s distinctly not typical: more effort went into this issue than into a year’s worth of typical issues.

Gold Open Access 2011-2015: November update

Wednesday, November 30th, 2016

cntcvr6x9

It’s November 30–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 18.5 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ–just the total numbers this time:

  • Paperbacks: Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others (I recommend the one pictured here).
  • Dataset: 952  views (irrelevant), 439 downloads (relevant).
  • GOAJ: 40 Lulu copies, 8,480* copies from my site: total 8,520.
  • Subjects: 17 Lulu copies, 194* other copies, 211 total.
  • Countries: 8 Lulu copies, 1,018* other copies, 1,026 total.
  • C&I: To date, 1,139* copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 3,925* copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

As a sidenote, the most downloaded issue of Cites & Insights for the period since October 2012** is issue 14.4, with 15,680 copies, half again as many as the second most downloaded. The primary essay is The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Unfortunately, more recent and probably more important related commentaries have not reached anywhere that audience…and it’s clear that many librarians and even more scholars take Beall’s word (typically offered without a shred of evidence) as gospel. [Look to the third essay in the hyperlinked issue–the one with “Trust Me” in the title.]

**The most downloaded C&I will probably always be the Library 2,0 and “Library 2.0” essay, with nearly 34,000 downloads before I added a speed bump.

Coming soon–probably next week, possibly late this week: Gray Open Access Journals 2012-2016: Gold OA Beyond DOAJ, which will appear as Cites & Insights 17.1 and may or may not be available as a slender paperback.

*Note added 12/12/16: These numbers do not include November 13-30, 2016; downloads during that period, almost certainly in the high hundreds for GOAJ, are simply missing.

Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015: October update

Monday, October 31st, 2016

cntcvr6x9

It’s October 31–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 18.5 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ–just the total numbers this time:

  • Paperbacks: Yay! Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others (I recommend the one pictured here).
  • Dataset: 914 views, 433 downloads:.
  • GOAJ: 39 Lulu copies, 8,040 copies from my site: total 8,079. That’s more than 8,000 copies even missing around 3% (those downloaded between 5:30 a.m. and midnight on the last day of each month).
  • Subjects: 17 Lulu copies, 190 other copies, 207 total.
  • Countries: 8 Lulu copies, 999 other copies, 1,007 total.
  • C&I: To date, 1,101 copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 3,874 copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

So that’s more than nine thousand copies of the full or excerpted report…

As a sidenote, the most downloaded issue of Cites & Insights for the period since October 2012* is issue 14.4, with 15,499 copies, half again as many as the second most downloaded. The primary essay is The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall. Unfortunately, more recent and probably more important related commentaries have not reached anywhere that audience…and it’s clear that many librarians and even more scholars take Beall’s word (typically offered without a shred of evidence) as gospel. [Look to the third essay in the hyperlinked issue–the one with “Trust Me” in the title.]

*The most downloaded C&I will probably always be the Library 2,0 and “Library 2.0” essay, with nearly 34,000 downloads before I added a speed bump.

Gray OA and C&I – a quick “progress” report

Sunday, October 23rd, 2016

At about this time, I anticipated being done gathering data for the “Gray OA 2012-2016: Gold OA Beyond DOAJ” project–and taking time off to do a worthwhile November 2016 Cites & Insights, then starting in on the report itself.

I didn’t reckon with the sheer density (and frequent awfulness) of the so-called “independent” journals (many of which are actually from smaller multjournal publishers) and how long it would take to plow through them.

At this point, I’ve checked 540 and have about 365 left to do (more than 100 of the original list turn out to be duplicated within publisher listings). That could take as little as three more days or as much as six days or longer…

And I’ve now realized that, if I want to do a careful discussion of the real volume of articles in possibly-sketchy journals, I’ll have to go back and count articles in “FA” journals–those I regard as failures because they don’t specify the processing charges. And there are more than 1,100 of those…

I still believe the actual possibly-sketchy article volume for 2014 will be far below 420,000–but not as far below as all my partial studies suggested. (Since the dataset I’m using is considerably larger than the one used in the 420K study, a direct comparison may not be feasible.)

Best guess at this point is that the study won’t be done until some time in December…and it could creep out a bit into 2017.

So what about C&I?

At this point, I suspect there will be a combined November/December issue, quite possibly a fairly short one–both because I’m busy with this study (and everyday life) and because I now think it makes sense for the results, which should be Issue 200, to come out as the first 2017 issue, for reasons that will become obvious in The Front essay in the November/December issue.

[Hint: if you currently use the “online version” the proposed change won’t bother you at all…]

Anyway, that’s where things stand. Now back to yet another in a seemingly endless stream of International Journal of…s