GOAJ3: February 2019 update

February 28th, 2019

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 2/28, 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: 959 views, 141 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,840 PDF ebooks + 237 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 873 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 296 downloads
  • No paperbacks

GOAJ2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 695 views, 129 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,459 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,390 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 1,064 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 2,047 copies

Gray OA



OA and Malware: A halfway post

February 8th, 2019

You might think of this as a really tiny issue of Cites & Insights–and it’s the only one you’ll see in February or, almost certainly, March.

I’m roughly halfway through the initial scan of DOAJ journals for GOAJ4: Gold Open Access Journals 2013-2018 (“roughly”: I’ve done 6,000 and have 6,415 left to do). Seemed like a good point to pause, save off the first 6,000 (so I can save the “done” spreadsheet faster–in a second instead of two or three) and comment on a few things.

Malware So Far, Everybody Else

See this post: nearly all malware cases, including all from Indonesia and Malaysia, have been fixed.

Still Avoiding PlanS

In the October 2018 Cites & Insights, one of a group of small essays was titled “One I Do Not Plan to Cover,” explaining why I was ignoring PlanS (at least for the moment)–not even tagging items for later discussion.

Briefly, the reasons were that too much was being written for me to follow; that it’s European and I’m not; that I don’t know that I understand all the issues; that I’ve never published in APC-based OA journals (or in any peer-reviewed journals in quite a while); that I was seeing growing honesty from scholars of a sort I found disheartening; and that there was stuff about “academic freedom”that struck me as remarkable.

All those reasons are still valid, especially the penultimate one–and there’s another one that I predicted to myself and wanted to avoid.

That last one: I suspected the long knives would come out in force, attempting in various ways to undermine serious OA or any attempts to upset the current regime. That was a pretty safe prediction, to be sure…

As to the penultimate one: We’re seeing a lot of the Yabbuts come out: That is, “Oh, I’m all for OA, but...” Pretty much like “Some of my best friends are X, but…”

I suspect that around 705-80% of scholars-who-publish just don’t care (or in some cases know) about OA as something that affects them. They have their access, coming out of the library’s budget (aka Somebody Else’s Problem) and they don’t much care about wider distribution for their scholarship–as long as it gets cited and/or helps them get promoted.

I don’t think there’s anything new about the Yabbuts. I do think they’ve been made aware that something serious might actually happen, making the BUT more important.

There’s also another reason I’m staying away: I haven’t read PlanS, and from what I’ve been unable to avoid hearing about it, I suspect I wouldn’t be wholly in favor (e.g., provisions that effectively make it unfeasible for the thousands of very small academic and society journals with no formal funding) to keep going. And since I haven’t read the thing, I may be wrong…

So I’m staying away.

Really Unfortunate, If True

One final and somewhat blind note. I tagged an article that, if I didn’t misunderstand it in a brief skim, seemed to be seriously suggesting that one retired librarian should determine what articles should be included in review articles, and specifically biomed articles. Oh, not in those words, but arguing that articles in “predatory” journals–defined only by reference to The Lists–shouldn’t be included in review articles.

If I read it correctly, this is appalling. Here’s a counter proposal: no articles in any journal published by a publisher with an article that’s probably caused more lost lives (and recurrence of supposedly-obliterated diseases!) than all articles in Listed journals put together should be considered for reviews. Whoops: There goes 10% of the literature.

And, of course, I don’t really believe all Elsevier journals should be tarred because of one article that The Lancet took a long time–twelve years–to fully retract. That would be like smearing thousands of articles and hundreds of journals because one person thinks one of the journals looks bad, without providing any reason. Which is, of course, the whole thing with The Lists. [You can read a pretty good summation of the killer-article history in Wikipedia.)

Now I see that the Master of the Lists is writing for THE (Tabloid on Higher Education? I may have that wrong). And far too many people still treat the lists as significant.

Sigh.

Enough of this. Back to the journal scan: 9,415 left to go.



GOAJ: January 2019 figures

January 31st, 2019


eadership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 12/31, 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: 918 views, 129 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,699 PDF ebooks + 221 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 848 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 281 downloads
  • No paperbacks

GOAJ2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 678 views, 127 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,433 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,384 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 1,060 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 2,037 copies

Gray OA



Malware in Gold Open Access Journals, 2018–Part 4: Brazil

January 29th, 2019

See this post: nearly all malware cases have been fixed, including all but four from Brazil.

Malware in Gold Open Access Journals 2018: Part 3, Romania

January 21st, 2019

See this post: All remaining Romania malware cases have been fixed.

Malware in Gold Open Access Journals 2018: Part 2, Malaysia

January 20th, 2019

This one’s all good news. That’s why I’m reporting it separately, instead of grouping it with Romania (which I haven’t processed yet).

To wit: in last year’s study, Malaysia had nine instances of malware along with 32 journals reported fully.

This year, with quite a few more journals–63 in all–I encountered no (zero) cases of malware. That isn’t because last year’s infected journals disappeared: they were all there, but none had malware.

So these things can be fixed. Malaysia’s gold OA publishers show that.

Malware in Gold Open Access Journals 2018: Part 1, Indonesia

January 18th, 2019

See this post: EVERY malware problem from Indonesia has been fixed.

GOAJ4: Starting the Deep Dive

January 4th, 2019

Just a quick note that I’ve completed downloading, crosschecking, and normalization for GOAJ4: Gold Open Access Journals 2013-2018 and have begun the months-long process of gathering data.

The Good News

The starting count is 12,415 journals. That will certainly not be the final count of fully-analyzed journals, given duplicates and other issues. (Will there be more than 12,000 fully analyzable? Based on last year’s records, it may be close…)

The data is in better shape than ever before at this point in the process.

I’ve done the first 350 journals (sorted by publisher, as that allows the most efficiency).

The Bad News

Malware is still a problem, especially (so far) in Indonesia. Efforts to reach out to the mostly-academic publishers to convince them to clean up their software don’t seem to be wholly effective. (Of 11 Indonesian titles scanned so far, five had malware sufficient to block analysis.)

I will probably post a spreadsheet of some sort listing journals with malware, once I’m at least a quarter or half way through. As usual, malware-infected sites will get two more chances, one no earlier than late April 2017.

[A special one-finger salute to WordPress’s new “friendly” editor–if there are no tags on this post, it’s because I can find no way to select them, or to allow comments, once I’ve started adding comments. Bring back the “unfriendly” WYSIWYG editor–oh, and along with it, the ability to edit HTML directly. This is a TERRIBLE “upgrade.”]

C&I readership in 2018

December 31st, 2018

Since there may not be another Cites & Insights for several months, I thought I’d do a quick wrapup of C&I readership for 2018–noting, as always, that counts are typically about 3% low (because all but the first five hours of the last day of each month are missing).

It hasn’t been a great year: only two issues so far have cleared the 1,000-download mark, and only one the 2,000-download. Oddly enough, the subject supplement to GOAJ3 was not one of them–and, in fact, has done very poorly. Month-to-month trends suggest that shutting down C&I may be happening on its own, little by little–but, including the oddity that every single issue gets some downloads each month (an oddity that makes me wonder whether some of those hits are crawlers that the statistics package fails to recognize as such), there were 150,223 downloads over the course of the year.

Here are the 2018 issues sorted by downloads:

IssueCountTopic
civ18i2.pdf2,268Writing, Wikipedia
civ18i1.pdf1,716OA issues, audio prices
civ18i7.pdf427audio prices, small essays
civ18i6.pdf376Predator!
civ18i5.pdf260futurism, GOAJ commentary
civ18i4.pdf259GOAJ3 subject supplement
civ18i3.pdf201GOAJ3 ch, 1-7
civ18i9.pdf137books and media
civ18i8.pdf131ethics

Top issues by 2018 downloads

These issues had at least 1,600 downloads in 2018 (including counts for “on” versions):

IssueCountTopic
civ17i1.pdf3,233gray OA 2012-2016
civ18i2.pdf2,268
civ14i7.pdf2,239investigating the lists
civ14i4.pdf2,173the sad case of jeffrey beall
civ13i3.pdf1,985acad. Library circ/
civ16i1.pdf1,971ppppread. Article counts
civ12i4.pdf1,930futurism, public library closures
civ12i3.pdf1,872public library closures
civ13i10.pdf1,842books and library ROI
civ12i11.pdf1,670Google book settlement
civ12i5.pdf1,638fair use

Top issues, 2015-2018

These issues have had at least 7,000 downloads since 2015 (including counts for “on” versions but not individual articles):

IssueCountTopic
civ14i4.pdf21,781the sad case of jeffrey beall
civ14i7.pdf12,564investigating the lists
civ10i8.pdf10,321books and publishing
civ6i10.pdf9,596liblogs
civ12i2.pdf9,153social networks, misc.
civ12i8.pdf8,350blogging
civ8i7.pdf7,398various
civ15i9.pdf7,068gold oa 2011-2014
civ14i5.pdf7,036ethics and access: the “sting”


GOAJ3: December 2018 report

December 31st, 2018

Readership figures for GOAJ3 (unfortunately missing most of today, 12/31, 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: 862 views, 123 downloads
  • GOAJ3: 2,540 PDF ebooks + 201 copies of first few chapters (C&I 18.3)
  • Countries: 782 PDF ebooks
  • Subject supplement (C&I 18.4): 259 downloads
  • No paperbacks

GOAJ2: 2011-2016

  • The dataset: 667 views, 125 downloads.
  • GOAJ2: 2,403 PDF ebooks (and two paperbacks), plus 1,378 copies of chapters 1-7 (C&I 17.4)
  • Countries: 1,026 PDF ebooks (no paperbacks)
  • Subject supplement (C&I 17.5): 2,027 copies

Gray OA