[GOAL] Re: Corrected Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 28, 094 in August 2012
Maybe The little number of electronic journals come from The limitation to first/principal editions, when electronic edition coul ne secondary. Best regards, Andrea Marchitelli Il giorno 04/ago/2012 22:10, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk ha scritto: 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: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -- *From:* Diven, Yvette [mailto:yvette.di...@serialssolutions.com] *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 GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Update on Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311
The key to this is the ISSN-L which is a linking field in each ISSN record that provides the equivalent of a family name for the print, electronic and other formats of a serial. Over the past 5 or more years the ISSN Network has worked hard to increase the assignment of ISSNs for serials (journals, magazines etc) that are in electronic format: from On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Heather Morrison wrote: The difference in the numbers is a matter of deduplicating different formats, that is, the 55,311 includes separate records for print and electronic journals. In December 2011 I ran an Ulrich's search, did some deduplication, and came up with a total of 26,746 active, academic / scholarly peer reviewed journals. This should be considered an estimate rather than an exact figure, because my deduplication method is not perfect. My method and calculations are explained in this brief appendix to my draft thesis: http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/appendix-c-how-many-active-scholarly-peer-reviewed-journals/ In previous years, I was able to do an Ulrich's search and come up with this number without the deduplication exercise. It's too bad this function doesn't seem to be there any more. best, Heather Morrison, MLIS Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2012-08-03, at 2:51 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 2012-08-03, at 4:53 PM, Sally Morris wrote: I find this figure very surprising. What appears to be the same search, carried out this past March, came up with a (to me) much more credible figure of 27,566. I found it surprising too. That's why I'm asking others who have access to Ulrichs to repeat the search and let us know. Stevan Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 03 August 2012 20:08 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Subject: [GOAL] Update on Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311 For years now, I've just been re-using an old Ulrich's estimate of about 25,000 for the total number of active peer-reviewed journals. Prompted by a recent query from someone, I've checked again, and -- unless I've made a mistake in my search -- the number now seems to have doubled to 55,311. The parameters I used to get this figure were (1) Active, (2) Journal, (3) Academic/Scholarly, (4) Refereed/Peer-reviewed, A further breakdown shows that of these 55,311 active peer reviewed journals, 23,527 (43%) are available online 9,354 (17%) are indexed in Thomson-Reuters-ISI's Journal Citation reports 6,962 (13%) are open access journals (freely available online) (Gold OA, presumably not including Hybrid Gold). 769 (11%) of the 9,354 Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals are open access journals -- 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. -- It would be helpful if others could check and confirm these figures. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ** * *** ** * *** ** * Peter Burnhill Director, EDINA national data centre Head, Data Library Causewayside House University of Edinburgh 160 Causewayside Edinburgh EH Scotland, UK tel: +44 (0) 131 650 3301 fax: 3308 mobile: +44 (0) 774 0763 119 Email: p.burnh...@ed.ac.uk URL http://edina.ac.uk -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open Access Interview: New Testament Scholar Larry Hurtado
Open Access Interview: New Testament Scholar Larry Hurtado http://wp.me/p20y83-nw It’s been a number of years since I’ve really immersed myself in direct theological research--ever since my vocational path diverged from the start of a doctoral program and took me, first into pastoral ministry and then to my present career in academic librarianship. I did get a chance to step back into the pool a bit while working on my Information and Library Science degree at the University of Arizona in 2004. I wrote a paper on intertextuality and canon for a graduate independent study elective course in Judaic Studies. And for the research methods course in the library program, I developed a research proposal that intended to look at the adoption of the codex book form by early Christian communities from a sociological perspective, using diffusion of innovations theory developed by Everett Rogers. I continue to be intrigued by the evolution and historical adoption of codex book technology, especially as a background and possible analogy to the technological developments we are currently witnessing with e-books, e-readers, and tablet computers. As time allows, I try to connect with the literature that offers new insights into this topic. I think it was in 2007 that I read a fascinating book entitled The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (William B. Eerdmans, 2006), which includes a chapter on the early Christian preference for the codex book form. This was my first exposure to the writings and scholarship of the author, Larry W. Hurtado. I subscribe to GOAL: Global Open Access List, an international email forum moderated by Richard Poynder dedicated to discussing open access issues in scholarly communication. Imagine my delighted surprise when reading through a recent daily digest of GOAL I see a post and several subsequent replies by Larry Hurtado. It has been my contention since beginning this blog that the advancement of open access scholarly communication in Religion and Theology critically depends on the awareness, engagement, and (hopefully) the authorization from established and respected scholars regarding this issue. It is easy to assume that many scholars are either still blissfully unaware of open access; they don’t understand what the fuss is all about (the current system has worked well enough for them); or they are suspicious of the scholarly rigor and quality of research submitted to open access journals. That is why I was so excited to see Professor Hurtado’s posts. I emailed him and asked if he’d be willing to be interviewed for my blog. He graciously consented. What follows resulted from an email interchange and a face-to-face conversation online via Skype. … Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology oa.openaccess @ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess | Academia.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Planning for the Open Access Era
On 2012-08-05, Stella Dutton on LIBLICENSE wrote: ... insisting on 'green' open access before 'gold' can be considered is at the very least like opening the parachute a split second before hitting the ground. The only thing I would add is that most publishers don't believe that they will be handed the parachute! Green OA and Green OA mandates don't grow systematically. journal by journal, but anarchically, author by author, institution by institution, funder by funder. Hence the transition from today's 20% OA to 100% OA will be gradual, not all of a sudden, a split second before hitting the ground. Moreover, it is not even evident whether having the Green OA version -- the author's peer-reviewed final draft -- freely accessible to all users will be adequate enough for users' needs to induce cancelations and make subscriptions unsustainable. The only thing that is evident is that OA is beneficial to research and researchers, that mandating Green OA will provide it, and that it is already long, long overdue. So it is evident that institutions and funders should all mandate Green OA. As to Gold OA, publishers are certainly free to convert now, if they wish, but if I were a subscription publisher I would not do it while there is still a sustainable demand for subscriptions. I would just offer hybrid Gold OA and plan and prepare for the inevitable, which is that one day there may no longer be a demand for my print edition, nor for my online edition, nor for my copy-editing services, nor for any other products or services other than the management of peer review, its outcome certified by my journal title. Managing peer review is not without cost. I would budget out exactly what the true cost of managing peer review amounts to, factoring out all other costs. And I would prepare for the possibility that once global Green OA is at or near 100%, subscriptions may become unsustainable, so I may have to phase out all obsolete products and services for which there is no longer any demand, and downsize to just providing the service of peer review management. Publishing will adapt, of course, but it will be the survival of the fittest: those who planned and executed their downsizing at the right time. which will probably be gradually, with obsolescent products and services and their associated costs phased out gradually under growing cancellation pressure under pressure from the availability of Green OA. One of the benefits of having cancellation pressure lead in driving the downsizing is that it also releases the institutional subscription savings to be used to pay for Gold OA once the journal decides it's time to make the transition. And ask yourself also what the parachute argument implies: Are institutions, while they are still paying for subscriptions, also supposed to pay extra for hybrid Gold OA (out of scarce research funds) in the hope that publishers will make good on their promise to lower subscription costs in proportion to rising Gold OA revenues? That's not a realistic solution, because it puts all the risk and cost on the research community in order to protect the publishing community from risk and cost. And, worse, it keeps denying the research community the OA it wants and needs, restricting it to just the Gold OA it can afford to buy today by redirecting its scarce research funds. No, it is evident that it is not for the research community to keep denying itself OA and to dip into its dwindling research resources to buy what Gold OA can afford when their option is to mandate Green OA and provide 100% OA, now, at no extra cost. Subscriptions are the rub: While they are still being paid, either institutions do without OA or they have to pay even more, on top of subscriptions, for Gold OA. There's no quid pro quo, because institutions subscribe to entire journals, collectively, whereas authors publish individual articles, singly. So the money to pay extra for Gold OA, now, must come from elsewhere than what is already being paid for subscriptions. Some publishers have proposed that authors from subscribing institutions be given Gold OA at no added cost, but that doesn't scale. For if most of a journal's author-institutions are subscribers it amounts to converting institutional subscriptions to Gold memberships, which can (and will) soon be cancelled, once a journal is 100% or near-100% Gold. Alternatively, if many of the institutions of a journal's authors are not subscribers then the journal risks losing its authors. And this is all without mentioning that it may be that most of journals' current products and services today, as well as their associated costs, will no longer be necessary in the OA era, hence there is no reason to try to ensure that current total subscription revenues and are locked in, come what may: Green OA pressure itself will be the way to induce the requisite downsizing as well as releasing the money to pay for the essentials after
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should include it in your analysis. You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers. (As ways of funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) In fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998, whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to wait that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a reasonable limit; if the cost is over the Department has to agree to fund the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive journals in Mining, etc. The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the journal-by-journal or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the University of Tasmania to cancel many of the subscriptions that it previously held, and still come out in front. Better still, it has enabled the practical closure of the print journal accessioning system (where online versions are available), saving substantial salaries. We know for example that researchers seldom [physically] visit our [physical] libraries these days, they access articles online. If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, then a per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with that of a per-article publication fee. Of course we are never likely to go so far. But what it does show up is the key difference in where we are now: paying to read articles, as against where we want to be: paying to publish articles. The real difference is not between bundling and aggregations vs articles, but in this. I could speculate that if Finch et al had done a better analysis, they could have suggested applying the money they want to take away from researchers to University journal presses for start-up costs, on a competitive basis, and conditional on the funded journal being open access. Now that would have created a good argument. It would have created sustainable open access journals, in areas of UK strength, and the funds would have a sunset clause in them, after which the journals should be self-sustaining. One could rely on the universities being economical, because it would not be core business, though prestigious. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Dear Arthur, (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as subscription access but as subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV). (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second that any of them provides sufficient access. (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access (OA). (4) It is true that where we are now [is]paying to read articles (5) But for me it is certainly not true that where we want to be [is] paying to publish articles (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: toll-free online access to articles. (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with S/L/PPV. (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy and do just that. Stevan On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should include it in your analysis. You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers. (As ways of funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) In fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998, whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to wait that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a reasonable limit; if the cost is over the Department has to agree to fund the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive journals in Mining, etc. The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the journal-by-journal or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the University of Tasmania to cancel many of the subscriptions that it previously held, and still come out in front. Better still, it has enabled the practical closure of the print journal accessioning system (where online versions are available), saving substantial salaries. We know for example that researchers seldom [physically] visit our [physical] libraries these days, they access articles online. If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, then a per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with that of a per-article publication fee. Of course we are never likely to go so far. But what it does show up is the key difference in where we are now: paying to read articles, as against where we want to be: paying to publish articles. The real difference is not between bundling and aggregations vs articles, but in this. I could speculate that if Finch et al had done a better analysis, they could have suggested applying the money they want to take away from researchers to University journal presses for start-up costs, on a competitive basis, and conditional on the funded journal being open access. Now that would have created a good argument. It would have created sustainable open access journals, in areas of UK strength, and the funds would have a sunset clause in them, after which the journals should be self-sustaining. One could rely on the universities being economical, because it would not be core business, though prestigious. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
