At least one of the three numbered terms below is the name of a physics subject repository. At least one is not.
Can you tell which is which?
Comments open for a few days.
(A note: the terms appear as a screen capture from Word…because WordPress’ visual editor literally will not let me retain the proper glyph; it autotranslates it to X, no matter how I enter it. Cute.)
As noted in the current Cites & Insights, I’ve moved 580 DOAJ journals from Grade B to Grade A$ because the only reason to regard them as possibly requiring investigation is that they have APCs of $1,000 or more. That’s something to be aware of, and the justifications for high APCs still need discussion, but if an author has the money and finds the APC reasonable, there’s nothing else about these journals to raise concerns.
The Library Technology Reports issue this summer will reflect that change, but none of the existing C&I coverage does.
Here’s a table (that probably won’t appear in this form in the report) that shows the number of journals and 2013 articles in each grade, as revised.
| Grade | Desc. | Journals | %J | Articles | %A |
| A | Apparently good |
3,976 |
54.5% |
177,077 |
48.4% |
| A$ | Apparently good with high APC |
580 |
7.9% |
113,574 |
31.0% |
| B | May need investigation |
567 |
7.8% |
40,273 |
11.0% |
| C | Highly questionable |
294 |
4.0% |
25,284 |
6.9% |
| DC | Ceased |
263 |
3.6% |
1,362 |
0.4% |
| DD | Dying |
93 |
1.3% |
533 |
0.1% |
| DE | Erratic |
182 |
2.5% |
1,554 |
0.4% |
| DH | Hiatus? |
145 |
2.0% |
5,006 |
1.4% |
| DN | New? |
16 |
0.2% |
98 |
0.0% |
| DS | Small |
374 |
5.1% |
1,449 |
0.4% |
| E | Empty |
18 |
0.2% |
||
| EC | Empty/cancelled |
53 |
0.7% |
||
| N | Not OA |
165 |
2.3% |
||
| O | Opaque |
189 |
2.6% |
||
| X | Unreachable or unworkable |
386 |
5.3% |
||
| Total |
7,301 |
366,210 |
If you draw the conclusion from this table that journals with high APCs publish a lot of articles, you wouldn’t be wrong.
Posted in open access | Comments Closed
Cites & Insights 15:3 (March 2015) is now available for downloading at http://citesandinsights.info/civ15i3.pdf
The issue is 24 pages long.
If you plan to view it online or need working hyperlinks (at the expense of boldface working–someday, I’ll have a new computer and new version of Word’s PDF conversion and Acrobat), the single-column 6×9″ version, 46 pages long, is available at http://citesandinsights.info/civ15i3on.pdf
This issue includes the following:
Because there will be a published concise version of all this stuff–out this summer from ALA’s Library Technology Reports, working title “Idealism and Opportunism: The State of Open Access Journals”–I went through 2,200-odd additional DOAJ journals with English as one of the language options (but not the first one), and was able to add 1,507 more entries to my DOAJ master spreadsheet, which now includes 6,490 journals qualifying for full analysis and 811 that don’t. This essay offers some summary information on the 1,507 added journals and some overall notes on the full DOAJ set–including some new and replacement tables (there may be errors in tables 2.66 b and c and 2.67 b and c in earlier issues).
The essay also offers some details on “N” (not OA) journals, notes on very small journals, a few comments on opportunism, idealism and initiative–and the URLs for two spreadsheets offering anonymized versions of the DOAJ and Beall data. (Note that the DOAJ spreadsheet has just been changed to shift 580 “B” journals there because of $1,000-or-more APCs to a new “A$” subgrade, since the high APC was the only issue with them. The summary text in this issue has NOT been changed to reflect this refinement; the Library Technology Reports issue will reflect the change.)
The two spreadsheeets are on figshare and licensed with the Creative Commons “BY” license, making them available for any use as long as attribution is provided. Each spreadsheet includes a data key as a second page.
Bringing discussions of ebooks vs. (or and) pbooks up to date from the January 2014 essay. In most cases, “and” is now the prevailing attitude as ebook sales appear to have plateaued–although of course there are still those who say print books will die Because Digital and now, oddly, a few who say ebooks will die or are dead (which I regard as equally unlikely).
Posted in Cites & Insights | Comments Closed
You are currently browsing the Walt at Random blog archives for February, 2015.
Walt at Random is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
