Archive for the ‘open access’ Category

GOAJ: March update

Friday, March 31st, 2017

It’s March 31–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 6 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ. (I might have stopped doing these, but the GOAJ download numbers are astonishing, so…):

  • Paperbacks: No change. Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others.
  • Dataset: 25 more views, 1,059 total views; 4 more downloads, 456 total downloads.
  • GOAJ: one additional Lulu,  45 total Lulu copies, 4,066(!) more (total 18,689* copies from my site: total 18,734 (actual total almost certainly over 19,000). Here’s the thing: not only does that 4,066 figure represent more than 90% of all data (by bandwidth) from waltcrawford.name–it’s mostly from spiders and other robots, not from people directly downloading. The latter appears to represent perhaps 700-800 copies, still a lot.
  • Subjects: Oneadditional Lulu, 20 total Lulu copies, 43 additional, 375* other copies, 395* total.
  • Countries: No additional Lulu, 8 total Lulu copies, 242 additional, 1,587* total other copies, 1,595 total.
  • C&I: New totals 1,352* copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 4,154* copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

*Missing downloads from 11/13-11/30/16 and, for C&I, 11/13-12/15/16.

Gray OA

Gray OA 2011-2016 (Cites & Insights 17.1) shows a total of 1,120 downloads to date, and no apparent recognition anywhere else that the Shen/Bjork “predatory articles” numbers are demonstrated to be so dramatically wrong; the dataset shows 228 views and 58 downloads.

Cites & Impasse: feedback desired

Friday, March 17th, 2017

In the most recent W.a.R. post, I said this:

In the meantime, other than various other stuff, there’s a possible Cites & Insights (if anybody cares–and based on recent readership levels, I’m not sure) and the question of following up on 3,300-odd journals that were in DOAJ on 1/1/16 but not on 1/1/17. And slowing down a bit.

I’m still unsure–and the title of this post, which started out as a typo, may be meaningful.

Here’s the numbers:

  • The January 2017 Cites & Insights, Gray OA 2012-2016: Open Access Journals Beyond DOAJ, shows 1,043 total downloads, but 975 were in 2016 and only 68 are in March 2017. I’d hoped that this study–which I wasted spent way too much time on–would get, say, one-fifth the readership of Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015 and might have some small effect on the discussions regarding “predatory” journals. (I’d really hoped that somebody might acknowledge that the “420K 2014 articles in predatory journals” figure was provably wrong–but I keep seeing that figure repeated.) [Remarkably, GOAJ  2011-2015 has another 2,099 downloads in the first half of March 2017!]
  • The February 2017 Cites & Insights, a fairly ordinary issue, has a total of 408 downloads to date, but only 82 in March: not terrible, but not impressive.

Readership is way down–and so is my motivation to write the [March? April? May? Spring?] issue–but not just because of declining readership, and partly for one reason that I think may be related to declining readership. So I’m offering up a couple of possible reasons and asking for feedback. C&I isn’t entirely going away [yet], but could become a mostly-OA-supporting-material outlet. Or not.

1. Dystopia Fatigue: 45 for the Loss

The reason that is definitely reducing my interest in writing and may be reducing others’ interest in reading C&I is that so much mental and emotional energy is spent trying to cope with the dystopian situation that could be summed up as 45–not only an administration that appears set on making America a mean-spirited, post-science, pathetic nation relying on bloated armaments to push actual great nations around, but also the newly-empowered racists and bigots who seem to feel that it’s now American to loudly proclaim the shameful feelings they once tended to keep to themselves.

It is draining to read the news. It is worse than draining to read some of the reactions. It is draining to try to determine what (other than the usual PPFA, ACLU, AU etc. checks) to do about it–and whether drastic actions are warranted.

I can only assume that others also find it draining, and may not feel like reading secondary/apolitical stuff like C&I that isn’t actually good “escapist” reading. (I’m just over halfway through The Devil’s Brood: is that escapist?)

For British readers, there s a separate-but-related dystopian present going on.

It’s hard to argue with a lack of remaining energy. I will surely agree that real action that might help preserve what’s left of America’s greatness is a whole hell of a lot more important than reading (or writing) my stuff.

Now, getting off the soapbox:

2. Old, Repetitious and Largely Irrelevant

That’s the quick way of putting it.

I’m trying to do stuff that nobody else is doing, since I gladly affirm that younger, more energetic and probably brighter people can and should be doing the kinds of things I used to do. Without mentioning my age directly, I’ll note that our taxes for 2016 are heavily impacted by being required to either take certain payments starting last year or losing half of that money to the Feds.

The GOAJ studies are good examples of stuff nobody else is doing. I’d like to think that most C&I essays also fall into that category–but they may not be worth doing. As for repetitious and irrelevant…perhaps.

So…

[A few of you will wonder whether my continued lateral-nerve problem, being reduced to six-finger typing, is also a factor. No, the nerve still hasn’t recovered, and may or may not ever do so. But I managed to write all three booklength portions of GOAJ2011-2015 despite this problem, so while my typing continues to be much slower and less accurate than before March 2016, that’s not a major factor.]

  • Should I spend most of the “pause”–the next three or four weeks, before Phase 2 of the GOAJ2011-2016 research and then all the analysis and writeup–on revisiting the 3,000-odd “departed” journals for a supplemental chapter and just let C&I lie dormant? And use leftover time to catch up on reading…
  • Should I try to split the time between that revisit [which turns out to be reasonably fast because I’m only looking at 2016 availability and article counts, not APC levels] and doing a C&I issue? [Which would probably consist of one medium-length roundup on access & economics and one relatively brief roundup on the disappearing blacklists.]
  • Other suggestions?

Comments are open. I’m interested in your feedback.


Updated March 22, 2017:
I’m still looking for feedback of all sorts. If your comment doesn’t show up, it may be awaiting moderation or possibly deleted as spam–I’ve had to change spam control (from Spam Kismet 2, which no longer seems compatible, to WP-SpamShield), and I no longer see spam-trapped comments. You can always email me your comment (waltcrawford@gmail.com), if it doesn’t show up within a day of posting…if you note “Intended as a post comment” I’ll add it here.

GOAJ16: A pause in the process

Wednesday, March 15th, 2017

Yesterday, I completed the first pass of the data-gathering process for Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2016 — I’ve now visited or attempted to visit all 9,430 journals in DOAJ as of January 1, 2017.

Around 1,400 of those need to be revisited–either because there’s likely to be additional 2016 data or because there were problems of some sort. That process will start some time in mid-April.

In the meantime, other than various other stuff, there’s a possible Cites & Insights (if anybody cares–and based on recent readership levels, I’m not sure) and the question of following up on 3,300-odd journals that were in DOAJ on 1/1/16 but not on 1/1/17. And slowing down a bit.

I have no firm idea what the final numbers will be, but “around half a million” is a ballpark estimate. Note that most of the journals added to DOAJ in 2016 are *not* brand-new journals, so counts for previous years do change.

GOAJ: February 2017 update

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

It’s February 28–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 6 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ. (I might have stopped doing these, but the GOAJ download numbers are astonishing, so…):

  • Paperbacks: No change. Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others.
  • Dataset: 30 more views, 1034 total views; 7 more downloads, 452 total downloads.
  • GOAJ: two additional Lulu,  44 total Lulu copies, 3,039(!) more (total 14,623* copies from my site: total 14,667 (actual total almost certainly over 15,000). I dunno: I find that 3,039 figure astonishing at this point.
  • Subjects: No additional Lulu, 19 total Lulu copies, 39 additional, 332* other copies, 351* total.
  • Countries: No additional Lulu, 8 total Lulu copies, 179 additional, 1,345* total other copies, 1,353 total.
  • C&I: New totals 1,298* copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 4,071* copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

*Missing downloads from 11/13-11/30/16 and, for C&I, 11/13-12/15/16.

Gray OA

Gray OA 2011-2016 (Cites & Insights 17.1) shows a total of 975 downloads to date, and no apparent recognition anywhere else that the Shen/Bjork “predatory articles” numbers are demonstrated to be so dramatically wrong; the dataset shows 189 views and 43 downloads.

 

Halfway through: a quick note on GOAJ16

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

As of a few minutes ago I’m just over halfway through the initial data gathering pass for Gold Open Access Journals 2012-2016 (that date range may turn out to be 2011-2016 if I can figure out the formatting: I’m gathering/keeping the 2011 data).

That is: I’ve done 4,740 journals, and there are 4,710 left to do. (I do them 20 at a time–which can take anywhere from half an hour to two hours or more–so the precise halfway point wasn’t a good place to pause.)

A few tidbits on the first 4,740:

  • 784 of them will be checked again no earlier than April, either because there were problems or because they seemed likely to have more 2016 articles/issues posted a bit later in 2017.
  • 685 of those checked so far are new to the list–but only 50 of those actually started publishing in 2016.
  • 4,346 so far are “good”–tagged either A or B.
  • 36 are duplicates, either cases of slight changes in titles or two language versions or…: in each case, if I catch it. only one gets counted.
  • The rest have some problem–malware, unreachable, unusable, etc. All those will be revisited.
  • 2,621 do not charge APCs; 1,919 do have stated APCs.

Nothing profound. Just a 15-minute break before heading back to the process. I may or may not be halfway through in terms of time required: note that “half hour to two hours or more” range. At least I know the first 20 of the second half will be quick (the rest of Libertas Academica, now part of Sage: predictable layout and easy to count by year of publication).

Gold Open Access Journals: January update

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

It’s January 31–the last day of the month, when I fetch usage statistics for my websites (as always, omitting about 6 hours of that last day), so here’s an update on GOAJ:

  • Paperbacks: No change. Two copies of GOAJ itself sold. So far, none of the others.
  • Dataset: 26 more views, 1004 total views; 5 more downloads, 445 total downloads.
  • GOAJ: no additional Lulu,  42 total Lulu copies, 2,422(!) more (total 11,584* copies from my site: total 11,626 (actual total almost certainly over 12,000).
  • Subjects: No additional Lulu, 19 total Lulu copies, 82 additional, 293* other copies, 312* total.
  • Countries: No additional Lulu, 8 total Lulu copies, 112 additional, 1,166* total other copies, 1,174 total.
  • C&I: New totals 1,223* copies of the excerpted GOAJ version (16.5) and 3,999* copies of “APCLand and OAWorld” (16.4.)

*Missing downloads from 11/13-11/30/16 and, for C&I, 11/13-12/15/16.

Gray OA and the state of C&I

Gray OA 2011-2016 (Cites & Insights 17.1) shows a total of 818 downloads to date, and no apparent recognition anywhere else that the Shen/Bjork “predatory articles” numbers are demonstrated to be so dramatically wrong; the dataset shows 129 views and only 19 downloads. I’d already concluded that it was crazy to consider updating the study (which probably involved more work than GOAJ); the lack of interest confirms that conclusion–and, of course, the source material’s disappeared in any case.

As for C&I and the balance between new issues of that and work on the second edition of GOAJ (2012-2016, or maybe 2011-2016) can’t help but be swayed by the figures for C&I 17.2: 166 total to date. Issue 17.3 will emerge……..eventually.

Missing those lists? Never fear…

Tuesday, 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

Friday, 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?

Tuesday, 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

Monday, 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.