Valid point, Les. And it's one of the great successes of the OA movement that there are now, little more than a decade after the first pioneering ones were established, so many OA journals for authors to choose as a venue for their articles, covering so many disciplines and subdisciplines.
Jan
On 5 Aug 2012, at 14:11, Leslie Carr wrote:
> 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
|