Cites & Insights 15:3 (March 2015) available

Cites & Insights 15:3 (March 2015) is now available for downloading at

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

This issue includes the following:

Intersections: One More Chunk of DOAJ    pp. 1-10

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.

Words: Books, E and P,  2014    pp. 10-24

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).


Comments are closed.