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.
