GOAJ3: October 2018 report

October 31st, 2018

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 10/31, and the last day of each month)–and, for now, I’ll keep reporting on GOAJ2 as well.

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

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 678 views, 84 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,348 PDF ebooks + 170 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 680 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 222 downloads
  • No paperbacks

Goaj2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 598 views, 114 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,315 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,339 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 923 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 1,979 copies

Gray OA

 

Cites & Insights 18:8 (November 2018) available

October 29th, 2018

The November 2018 Cites & Insights, volume 8, issue 8, is now available for downloading at https://citesandinsights.info/civ18i8.pdf

The 40-page issue consists of one essay:

Policy: Ethics  pp. 1-40

Starting with the “grievance” hoax, continuing with other stings and peer review, “predatory” nonsense, open access, and various other ethical issues–and ending with some thoughts on society publishers and for-profit publishers.

Will there be a December 2018 issue to close out the volume? Hard to say. One way to help: VOTE. Make sure others VOTE. Some indications that our experiment in democracy hasn’t been completely swamped would be encouraging. I’m more likely to write when I’m not despairing for the soul of the nation…

Paywall: The Movie–not a review

October 28th, 2018

I just finished watching Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, after hearing about it for a few weeks.

It’s the longest video I’ve ever watched on my notebook computer (I watch TV and movies on a proper TV).

I recommend it to others.

Yes, there’s a factual error (the description of green OA by one person).

As I say, this isn’t a review.

I thought it interesting that a so-called society publisher effectively acted as an Elsevier advocate.

I found it interesting because I could attach faces and voices to quite a few people I’ve dealt with online. (I have never been to an OA conference. That’s not likely to change.)

To my mind, only one participant came off as a tool–and it would be unkind to identify the person in question. (No, not the AAAS person.)

Overall, I thought it was a good flick and worth the time. If you haven’t seen it and can spare the 1:05, give it a watch. On my notebook, at least, expanded to full screen it was smooth and had no problems. And, of course, if you’re crazy an entrepreneur, you could legally turn it into a DVD and sell copies: it has a CC BY license. Unlike far too many articles on OA, it walks the talk,

How Open should I be?

October 26th, 2018

Here’s a question–and I’m specifically inviting answers–that may or may not be moot:

If there is a GOAJ4: Gold Open Access Journals 2013-2018, should I use LibreOffice rather than Word 2013 and Excel 2013 to produce it, thus being as Open as possible?

[I don’t know yet whether there will be a GOAJ4. I hope to hear soon…]

I’ve downloaded the most recent LibreOffice, just to experiment a bit…

The Issues

So far, the spreadsheet portion of LibreOffice seems to work just fine–for example, it handles very large pivot tables rapidly–but I haven’t tried graphs yet. Since GOAJ graphs aren’t especially fancy, I wouldn’t anticipate problems.

On the document side, however…

  • LibreOffice doesn’t seem to pick up tracking instructions when importing a .docx file–and doesn’t seem to kern by default.
  • As a result of this and possibly other issues, the country supplement shows up as 319 pages rather than 293; GOAJ3 itself shows up as 187 pages rather than 179 (in both cases ignoring front matter); and, just for interest, Cites & Insights 18.7 showed up as 73 pages rather than 70.
  • So far, I haven’t figured out how to say “always kern type,” which you can effectively do in Word by setting that in base styles.I imagine I could figure it out.
  • LibreOffice seems to offer lots more options than Word 2013 in some areas–but I must admit that I found the page views harder to read, sometimes with phantom bolding and the like.

In general, it just feels like LibreOffice 6 is typographically clumsy compared to Word–but, of course, I’m used to Word.

So: what do you think? Worth what may be some extra effort and clumsiness? (Am I missing some fundamental steps in LibreOffice?)

Comments open for two weeks, I believe.

Other Questions Still Open

I asked a series of questions at the end of the subject supplement and on Facebook. I’d still like to hear opinions. To date, there haven’t been any:

  • Would it make more sense to categorize journal sizes based on the latest year’s volume, rather than the peak article volume over the six-year period?
  • Does the split between APCLand and OAWorld (used this year in GOAJ3 and this subject supplement, but not in Gold Open Access Journals by Country 2012-2017) make sense, or is it a distraction?
  • For GOAJ3 itself, is the Visibility measure useless, or should I either retain it or even expand it to a more granular measure?
  • For subject segments, should Psychology be lumped into Medicine, and should Anthropology be treated as part of STEM?
  • Do the publisher categories provide useful information?
  • For country listings, should I continue to use names as provided in DOAJ or normalize to shorter forms used in Wikipedia and elsewhere—that is, Iran, Taiwan, Russia, Macedonia, Moldova, Bolivia and Venezuela? If so, what forms should I use for the Republic of Korea (South Korea?) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
  • Should the graph of free and pay articles by year be replaced by or supplemented with a table with the same data as numbers?
  • How about commentary? Last year’s subject supplement included my brief comments about what seemed most interesting in each subject’s tables—but the room left by removing commentary means that this subject supplement offers more complete country lists, going down to 20 articles for all subjects except Medicine.
  • Similarly, the last two country-oriented publications have eschewed commentary in order to avoid even longer/larger publications. Would you like to see commentary restored?
  • [Added at 4:40 pm] Or should I keep things as much like the 2012-2017 version as possible, to allow direct comparisons?

Comment here or by email to waltcrawford@gmail.com

 

 

Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available

October 2nd, 2018

Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) is now available for downloading at https://citesandinsights.info/civ18i7.pdf

The 24-page issue includes:

Intersections: A Few Small Essays   pp. 1-13

Half of this section is an informal commentary on a remarkable new free list of >35,000 open access journals (and other things) in the humanities and social sciences (mostly) from Jan Szczepanski. There are also commentaries on “when good scholars go bad”–why I think the new spate of articles Viewing With Alarm scholars at serious institutions with articles in “bad” journals are looking at the wrong side of the equation; the colors, and why I think two is enough; why I do not (currently) plan to cover the new Hot Topic in OA; whether you can or should be an OA observer without being an advocate [for or against] or a skeptic; why “Intersections”; and a comprehensive guide to really useful applications of blockchain in libraries. [Omitted for space and because I’m a coward: A suggestion that societies that depend on subscription revenues aren’t necessarily better than commercial publishers…]

The Back: Audiophile System Prices 2018  pp. 13-24

This time around, I’m including median systems in each category: systems composed of median-priced components. You can assemble a complete (CD and LP) audiophile system for $1,918–or you can spend $832,223 before adding power conditioners and other extras.

GOAJ3: September 2018 report

September 30th, 2018

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 9/30, and the last day of each month)–and, for now, I’ll keep reporting on GOAJ2 as well.

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

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 591 views, 67 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,259 PDF ebooks + 145 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 631 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 184 downloads
  • No paperbacks

Goaj2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 570 views, 111 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,273 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,310 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 887 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 1,936 copies

Gray OA

 

Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available

September 2nd, 2018

The September 2018 Cites & Insights (18:6) is now available for downloading at https://citesandinsights.info/civ18i6.pdf

The 70-page issue consists of one essay/roundup:

Intersections: Predator!  pp. 1-70

The lists have ended, but the malady lingers on… There seems to be a burgeoning industry of Pointing With Alarm at the (usually wildly overestimated) array of “predatory” journals (usually identified as predatory based on one librarian’s typically-unsupported claims).

This roundup began with more than 130 tagged articles, most quite recent; despite narrowing it down, it still includes more than 60–and there are many more not discussed.


Erratum: I am informed by a reader (Marc Couture–thanks!) that there is a probable error on page 15, where I say

“What I have not done, ever, is to submit an article to an outlet with being fairly comfortable with that outlet”

I meant “without being fairly comfortable,” to be sure.

Can I blame my six-fingered typing since suffering nerve damage? Nah, didn’t think so: blame sloppy proofreading. I would fire the proofreader, but that won’t work either…

I usually won’t fix an error in a published issue (unless there’s a legal or other problem, as opposed to a simple goof), but in this case, adding the three letters didn’t affect the rest of the layout at all–not even the line wrap–so I’ve updated it.

GOAJ3: August 2018 report

August 31st, 2018

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 8/31, and the last day of each month)–and, for now, I’ll keep reporting on GOAJ2 as well.

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

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 497 views, 57 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,187 PDF ebooks + 111copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 602 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 154 downloads
  • No paperbacks

Goaj2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 550 views, 105 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,238 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,300 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 856 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 1,911 copies

Gray OA

Note the big increase in Gray OA 2012-2016 PDF ebooks. If there was a plausible way to do a 2013-2018 report on non-DOAJ gold OA, and financial support to do it, I’d be tempted…

Articles more precious than gold?

August 7th, 2018

A discussion has taken place on Twitter (and on a more private site) regarding the idea that some gold OA seems to be “more precious than gold,” based on the idea that a typical article costs more for the APC than the paper to print it on would cost if it was solid gold.

The discussion involved Elsevier and only Elsevier. While I thought it was a neat discussion, it was a bit–well. more than a bit–misleading, because it took the median of Elsevier journal APCs (including the absurdly high “hybrid” APCs) rather than the average cost per article.

Aaron Tay noted that this wasn’t just about Elsevier–and it certainly isn’t. In fact, going back to the 2017 figures for journals in DOAJ (and, of course, ignoring “hybrid” journals, which appear to represent no more than 5%-10% of serious gold OA articles), it looks like Elsevier has the 22nd highest average APC per article, for publishers with at least 1,000 2017 articles in gold OA journals.

Highest? Frontiers.

Here’s the full list–noting that publisher names are exactly as in DOAJ, not normalized at all. (So, for example, Springer and Nature appear as two separate publishers, and at least one Elsevier journal isn’t included because it uses a Spanish publisher name.)

“$/article” is a weighted average, based on reported APCs when I checked websites in early 2018 multiplied by the number of articles in each journal. This is not at all the same figure you’d get by just looking at APCs on a journal basis, as one journal may have ten times (or 100 times) as many articles as another.

APCs stated in other currencies were converted to US Dollars at the time checks were done; while APCs were rounded to the nearest dollar, the $/article figures (again, weighted averages) may include cents. The table is sorted by average APC per article, highest to lowest; non-APC gold OA journals are included in the calculations.

Publisher $/article
Frontiers Media S.A. $2,724.78
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd $2,500.00
Nature Publishing Group $2,365.40
Wiley $2,254.51
JMIR Publications $2,210.21
Dove Medical Press $2,158.11
BioMed Central $2,139.08
Oxford University Press $2,118.45
Wolters Kluwer $2,045.54
BMJ Publishing Group $1,927.32
IOP Publishing $1,920.00
IEEE $1,750.00
Public Library of Science (PLoS) $1,612.87
Hindawi Publishing Corporation $1,549.61
AIP Publishing LLC $1,439.54
MDPI AG $1,402.06
Cogent OA $1,350.00
SAGE Publishing $1,292.62
Taylor & Francis Group $1,160.53
PeerJ Inc. $1,089.30
Karger Publishers $1,043.12
Elsevier $861.77
Copernicus Publications $707.30
Springer $677.84
AOSIS $675.03
American Chemical Society $617.95
Pensoft Publishers $580.06
PAGEPress Publications $393.49
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited $275.00
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais $236.63
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications $225.06
Termedia Publishing House $201.05
Universidade de São Paulo $107.83
De Gruyter Open $77.56
EDP Sciences $59.02

GOAJ3: July report

July 31st, 2018

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 7/31, and the last day of each month)–and, for now, I’ll keep reporting on GOAJ2 as well.

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

GOAJ3: 2012-2017

  • The dataset: 379 views, 41 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,002 PDF ebooks + 82 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 534 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 115 downloads
  • No paperbacks

Goaj2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 526 views, 100 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,119 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,285 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 806 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 1,867 copies

Gray OA

Note the huge one-month increases in GOAJ3 and Gray OA 2012-2016 PDF ebooks.