It depends whether you are reporting the size of the OA literature to readers, or the number of OA venues to authors. Both are useful metrics, although in OA advocacy, it is the latter that is traditionally more valuable.
---
les
On 5 Aug 2012, at 09:58, "Jan Velterop" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
You're missing the point, Stevan (and sorry, daddy Oppenheim, to go on about it :-)). It is not about speculation, it is about data hygiene. I take you on your word that 60% of JOURNALS do not object to self-archiving. (By the way, that 60% includes, by definition, the 'gold' journals, most of which actively encourage archiving in as many open repositories as appropriate, immediately, without embargoes, and in the case of all the serious 'gold' journals I know of also without any re-use restrictions).
But — and this is the mistake that is being made surprisingly often and persistently — an x percentage of journals cannot be equated to an x percentage of articles. To illustrate this: PLOS ONE represents 1/28,000th of the number of journals, but published some 14,000 articles (2011), representing (assuming the total is 2 million) 1/143th of the number of articles.
I can't imagine you or any other discussant on this list making such a mistake in a scientific article, and it also doesn't belong in any discussion about scientific publishing. It leads to misleading "conclusions" such as "half of 'gold' OA journals don't charge APCs, so only half the articles are paid for in that way" and the like (whereas it is far more likely that the half of 'gold' journals without APCs represent no more than 10% of 'gold' articles without APCs). Or in the case you're making, "60% of JOURNALS allow 'green', so 60% of ARTICLES can be made 'green' OA."
So my comments have nothing whatsoever to do with speculation, Stevan, and it would behove you to present just the data that you have, and your interpretations, but not your inferences as if they were data (a mistake you, somewhat incredibly, repeat in your response). Even though I don't think readers of this list are so easily mislead.
Jan
On 5 Aug 2012, at 09:03, CHARLES OPPENHEIM wrote:
.....please stop arguing along the lines of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad", "No he's not, my Dad is bigger than your one", and please act like grown ups.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
--- On Sat, 4/8/12, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Corrected Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 28,094 in August 2012
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, 4 August, 2012, 22:33
On 2012-08-04, at 4:37 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
Sorry, Stevan, I hate to be so, well, scientific about it, but 60%
of journals does NOT mean 60% of articles. It could be more,
it could be less. The reason is that not all journals publish the
same number of articles.
You are absolutely right Jan!
The data-chips could fall either way. It could be that the 60% of
journals that are Green on OA are the lean journals and the
40% of journals that embargo OA are the plump journals.
Or it could be that it's the other way round, or that they both
average the same article count per journal.
But what is dead-obvious from the data I presented is something
else:
No matter how plump the 13% of journals (or 8% of ISI
journals) that are Gold may be, there is no way that their
total number of articles could come anywhere near the 60%
that are Green -- not even with PLoS ONE being the omnivorous
mega-journal that it is ;>)
But if you think otherwise, please do gather the data, rather than
just speculating as if it were equiprobable either way.
The null hypothesis (ceteris paribus) is certainly that
60% >> 40% and 60% >>>> 13% (let alone 8%), until
we have evidence to the contrary.
(That's not even science; it's just elementary probability.)
Stevan Harnad
Jan Velterop
Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos.
On 4 Aug 2012, at 22:02, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Ulrichs' current correct estimate of the total number of active
peer-reviewed academic/scholarly journals is 28,094.
So the ball-park figure of 25K we've been using for years
was not far from the truth.
Many thanks to Sally Morris and Serials Solutions.
I got a very slightly different figure -- 28,135 -- using the Ulrichs access from
McGill University, but re-doing the sub-totals and percentages as indicated
by Serials Solutions, I got:
Of these 28,135 active peer reviewed journals
TOTAL PEER-REVIEWED:
28,135
ISI-INDEXED:
9,268 (33%) of the 28,135 are indexed in Thomson-Reuters-ISI's
Journal Citation reports
GOLD OA:
4,365 (13%) of the 28,135 are open access journals (freely
available online) (Gold OA, presumably not including Hybrid Gold)
(DOAJ lists 8005 journals, but many may be either peer reviewed
or "exercise editorial quality control")
ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA:
741 (8%) of the 9,268 Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals
are Gold OA journals
ENDORSE GREEN OA:
By way of comparison, according to the last estimate of journals
indexed by SHERPA/ROMEO (which does not include all the journals
indexed by Ulrichs, but does include most of the top journals indexed
by Thomson-Reuters-ISI):
60% of journals recognize the author's right to provide immediate,
un-embargoed open access upon self-archiving their final drafts
in their institutional repositories.
That means 60% of all journal articles can be made Green OA
immediately (no embargo) if all institutions mandate it.
I did come up with one anomaly, however. De-duping along the lines
recommended by Serials Solutions, the result was:
AVAILABLE ONLINE:
only 3,659 (14%) of the 28,135 are available online
(that strikes me as suspiciously low)
Stevan Harnad
On 2012-08-04, at 2:45 PM, Sally Morris wrote:
Here's a response from Serials Solutions which should clarify the matter once and for all
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Diven, Yvette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 August 2012 22:01
To: Sally Morris
Subject: RE: [GOAL] Update on Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311
From Serials Solutions…
Dear Colleagues,
As of 3 August 2012, the number of active peer-reviewed journals listed in Ulrichsweb is 28,094 titles. This figure represents a count of all Primary editions (most of which are print editions, but some are also electronic) of those titles.
The figure of 55,311 active peer-reviewed journals reflects the count of the number of all related format editions of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals. (For example, one of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals may have a primary print edition, an online edition, and also a CD-ROM edition for a total of 3 format editions.)
Dr. Harnad’s search results reflect the current count across all journal format editions. It is possible to isolate (remove) the related editions from those search results by applying the Edition Type filter from the Search Results screen and selecting that filter’s ‘Primary’ option.
We hope that this information is helpful.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
|