Missing those lists? Never fear…

January 17th, 2017

It appears that the content in Beall’s blog disappeared a few days ago, including the notorious lists of ppppredatory publishers and journals.

I have no inside information as to what happened.

Here’s the thing, though:

In addition to the usual Internet Archive approach to finding slightly earlier versions of the lists, I can recommend the following–with the caveat that I regard the lists as useless and damaging as “blacklists” but useful as a broad directory of gray/gold OA (gold OA not in DOAJ):

  • There’s a spreadsheet including all the journals from both lists as of July 8, 2016–including publishers, journals, URLs, but also article counts for each journal for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and the first half of 2016, as well as the current APC (as of late 2016) and my status code for each journal
  • Gray OA 2012-2016: Open Access Journals Beyond DOAJ, the January 2017 Cites & Insights, provides full analysis of this universe and how it meshes with the larger DOAJ universe, and even a breakdown of the vastly inflated “predatory” numbers in one piece of published research.

Both free, both CC-BY; the first is the master dataset for the second. Neither has been seen by all that many people, which is sort of a shame.

All times are UTC

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?

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

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

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.

Cites & Insights 17:2 (February 2017) available

January 3rd, 2017

Cites & Insights 17:2 (February 2017) is now available for downloading at http://citesandinsights.info/civ17i2.pdf

The 30-page issue (6″ x 9″, single column, optimized for online/tablet reading) includes:

The Front  pp. 1-3

Announcing the 2016 Cites & Insights Annual and reduced prices for all C&I Annuals; also a change to CC BY (from CC BY-NC) and partial readership notes.

Technology  pp. 4-18

Eleven little items spotlighting older (but still relevant) items–and an update on the bandwidth of a 747: it’s now 4.7 petabits per second (New York to LA), assuming consumer media–namely a whole bunch of 4 terabyte solid state drives. (As before, the limiting factor is always weight, not space.)

The Back  pp. 18-30

The annual update to The Money of Music, and eleven other items or groups of items.

The next issue will probably be on Economics and Access. When that will be…well, I’ve started the scan for Gold Open Access Journals 2012-2016 (that might turn out to be 2011-2016 if I can figure out how to make the tables readable), and we’ll see how that goes.

Last year in books read

January 1st, 2017

Given the sheer amount of research I did in 2016–Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015 and Gray OA 2012-2016–it’s a miracle I managed to get through any books at all. But I did.

As usual, my goal was 39 books: three books for each 4-week library circulation period. As usual, I did better than that, although nowhere near as well as in 2015: Looks like I started 49 books and finished 45 of them. Abandoned, for various reasons: Reinhart & Rogoff: This Time is Different; Graydon Carter: Bohemians, Bootleggers, Flappers & Swells; Peter Carey: Amnesia.

Books I thoroughly enjoyed:

The Days of Anna Madrigal Armistead Maupin
When Christ and the Saints Slept Sharon Kay Penman
The Truth According to Us Annie Barrows
Strip Tease Carl Hiaasen
School Days Robert B. Parker
Sixkill Robert B. Parker
Walking Shadow Robert B. Parker
Ring of Fire III Eric Flint
1635: A Parcel of Rogues Erik Flint &c.
1636: The Viennese Waltz Erik Flint &c.

Books I enjoyed a lot but which weren’t quite as good:

Saint Mazie Jami Attenberg
Maybe the Moon Armistead Maupin
The Devil’s Bones Jefferson Bass
I Don’t Know How She Does It Allison Pearson
All Our Yesterdays Robert B. Parker
Lucky You Carl Hiaasen
Time and Chance Sharon Kay Penman
Sick Puppy Carl Hiaasen
Thin Air Robert B. Parker
Trouble in Paradise Robert B. Parker
Small Vices Robert B. Parker
Playmafes Robert B. Parker
Hard Drive James Wallace & Jim Erickson
Service Included Phoebe Damrosch
1635: The Dreeson Incident Erik Flint &c.
Ring of Fire II Eric Flint
1635: The Papal Stakes Erik Flint &c.
1636: The Saxon Uprising Eric Flint
1636: The Kremlin Games Erik Flint & c.

Those are the “A” and “A-” grades; another nine were also enjoyable but B+ at best.

Of course, I also wrote three books, but that’s another story.

[If you looked at this and saw two identical tables: brief problem…]

Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015: December update

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.

Cites & Insights now CC BY

December 30th, 2016

As a somewhat overdue finish to the year, I’ve changed the Cites & Insights Creative Commons license from BY-NC 1.0 to BY (that is, attribution) International 4.0.

As before, this applies to all original material in C&I–and since the license appears on the home page, you should assume (as I do) that it applies retroactively.

A few more notes on the “Big Three”

December 27th, 2016

…or…”What? Two posts within a week of one another that aren’t about C&I or OA? What is this world coming to?”

The most recent post was about the “Big Three” science fiction magazines and the fact that, as of January 2017, each one publishes six very large issues a year (to save money on postage and handling: the amount of fiction appears to about the same, the equivalent of one longish novel in each two-month issue).

I thought I’d add a few notes about the “Big Three” and my own reactions to them.

What’s so Big about the Big Three?

In 1980, Analog and Asimov’s each had about 100,000 circulation. That’s a lot for a print fiction magazine of any sort. F&SF ran about 60,000: still enough to make it one of the Big Three–especially since so few other magazines survived for very long (sigh: I do remember Galaxy and [Worlds of] If).

At this point, these three are mostly survivors of the pulp fiction era. By 2004, Analog was don to something like 40,000; Asimov’s to something like 30,000; and F&SF to something like 20,000. By 2009, those numbers were 26,000; 16,000; and 17,000 respectively.

The latest figures I can find for print circulation are lower, but not that much lower. The latest USPS form (in the Jan/Feb 2017 issues of Analog and Asimov’s, which curiously arrived on the same day) are–for the year as a whole–19,963 for Analog and 13,966 for Asimov’s; the latest-issue figures are in both cases nearly the same. The most recent figures I can find for F&SF have print circulation just under 12,000; I’ll update this post when the USPS form appears. (Unlike Analog and Asimov’s, F&SF actually publishes issues within the cover date range.) All three have electronic subscriptions as well, probably numbering in the thousands: it’s quite possible that overall circulation has stabilized. On the other hand, I wouldn’t pay more for a lifetime subscription than for a five-year subscription…

These are three distinctively different magazines, even if all three use small type on cheap paper (they’re still pulps) and the two A’s are the same length and published by the same company. Here’s my current personal take:

Analog

The one with the visible gears–this is very much the Hard Science Fiction place, also in some ways the traditionalist magazine. If you know about the Sad Puppies…well, they’re more likely to appear here than in the other two. It’s the only one where you can expect letters saying that certain stories Really Don’t Belong Here.

I’m finding more and more that the gears show in the writing as well. While some first-rate writers appear here, there’s more clunkiness here than in the other two; I’m finding a couple of authors that appear all the time where it’s liberating to give up after a few pages, something I almost never do elsewhere.

No fantasy. Humor tends to be frowned on (except in short-short “Probability Zero” pieces). Lots of science and “science” articles.

I’ll look at this one very carefully when renewal time comes around (like the others, subscriptions tend to be around $37/year or $63/two years: these mags just don’t have many ads). Maybe after decades of reading I’ve gotten too young for Analog.

Asimov’s

To my mind, the best writing tends to appear here (but F&SF is close), and there’s a broad mix of all types of science fiction, including humor and some fantasy. For a long time, you could predict that a significant percentage of Nebula and Hugo short-fiction and editorial nominees would be from Asimov’s, and as of its 40th year, the magazine notes that stories have won 53 Hugos and 28 Nebulas, with editors receiving 20 Best Editor Hugos.

[I just slapped together a little table using Wikipedia’s lists of Hugo nominees and the find function. Here’s what I find from 1978–when Asimov‘s began–to the present:

Analog Asimov’s F&SF
Novella 34 80 28
Novelette 32 78 30
Short Story 27 77 33

That suggests something about writing quality, I think. (Asimov‘s editor has apparently been nominated every year but one, and won half the time.)

Here’s a similar table for the Nebulas, chosen by writers–again since 1978:

Analog Asimov’s F&SF
Novella 23 75 42
Novelette 15 66 56
Short Story 8 55 48

Anyway: I’ve read Asimov’s from the start (kept ’em for 20 years but lost them somewhere along the way, more’s the pity: were it not for the mailing labels defacing covers, that collection would probably be worth something…) and I’m likely to keep reading it for years to come.

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction

I think the order of the title is significant: F&SF is particularly strong on fantasy and the occult, and tends not to have much hard science fiction. It uniquely runs cartoons and reader competitions, and has a healthy respect for humor.

I’ve read it for decades off and on, and am likely to keep doing so; I sometimes think I’m likely to outlast the magazine (which could, unfortunately, be true for all three). I’m not sure I have a “favorite” between Asimov’s and F&SF; both seem to have high editorial standards and publish a wide variety of good fiction.

Trying to imagine a Venn diagram of the three–that is, with overlaps for stories that could appear in more than one of them without raising the ire of the readers (that being apparently mostly an issue for Analog), I’d guess about a 20%-25% overlap between Analog and Asimov’s, about a 30%-35% overlap between Asimov’s and F&SF, and maybe a 5% overlap (if that!) between F&SF and Analog, although that overlap would have been higher before Asimov’s came along.

[When do I read these magazines? Back when I was speaking, we were vacationing, and I was attending conferences, I mostly read them during travels. Now I read them at lunch–and I’m about half a year behind, one reason that Analog may get cut.]