[GOAL] Re: Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check your publication years in DOAJ

[Dana Roth]

Hi Heather:  FYI ... 

Web of Science indexed 10,932 articles from World J. Gastroenterology with 
publication years 200402013 and 1260 articles with publication year 2013

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:38 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL]  Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check 
your publication years in DOAJ

In the course of looking at DOAJ content number correlations, I've come across 
what looks like quite a bit of disparity between the actual article numbers of 
journals per year and the identification of this information in DOAJ. It 
appears that recent changes in metadata harvesting at DOAJ have increased the 
disparity. Checking is recommended. Procedures and details are posted here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/06/tech-tip-for-doaj-journals-contributing-article-level-metadata/

This message has only been posted to the GOAL list. Please share with any other 
venues likely to be monitored by OA journal publishers.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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] Open access researchers: let's cooperate

[Heather Morrison]

It's great to see lots of people conducting research on open access. There is 
no lack of work to do, so the more the merrier! 

In some areas there can be a lot of tedious manual work and/or development of 
complicated formulae to bring together different datasets. For example, my team 
plans to download DOAJ metadata on May 15 with an eye to updating our May 2014 
sample of the minority of DOAJ journals charging APCs. This involves gathering 
APC-related information from at least 1,432 journals, and it would be ideal to 
include all of the journals charging APCs. If anyone else has similar plans, 
please let us know. Perhaps we could divide up the work and get more done with 
less time.

Note that my team is currently focused exclusively on the fully OA journals 
listed in DOAJ. Hybrids and the journals on Beall's list are important too, but 
beyond scope for us for workload reasons.

If a number of researchers are planning similar surveys, sharing plans and 
questions would give us all an opportunity to have more comparable data by 
using the same questions and minimizing the possibility of lowering response 
rates by sending out surveys with overlap.

The Open Access Directory has sections for Research Questions and Research in 
Progress that we can use for sharing this information:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_in_progress

I've posted an overview update of the research in progress by the Sustaining 
the Knowledge Commons team here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/07/forthcoming-research-and-an-invitation-to-cooperate/

In brief:

Interviews and focus groups with small scholar-led journals that either are, or 
would like to be, open access, to determine resource requirements (this is the 
sector I see as likely to be both the most cost-effective and the best model to 
prioritize scholarship and the public interest. Early writing forthcoming soon.

OA APCs: longitudinal studies including May 2014, May 2015, and the 2010 Bjork 
and Solomon study.
OA APCs: subject and DOAJ publication count APC correlation (hypothesis: some 
types of APC charging journals will either start charging or increase prices as 
their content increases)
OA APCs: impact factor correlation (hypothesis: some type of APC charging 
journals with increase costs disproportionately when they receive impact 
factors and/or increase in rankings. Effect may not be immediate).

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Aligning Repository Networks Communiqué

[Kathleen Shearer]

Sorry for the cross posting

Communiqué: International repository networks reinforce their aim to develop a 
global, open access knowledge commons 
May 7, 2015: For a second year in a row, major open access repository networks 
have met to develop closer ties and further align their expanding repository 
networks. The meeting, organized by the Confederation of Open Access 
Repositories (COAR), was held on April 16, 2015 in Porto, Portugal and included 
representatives from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. 
Amidst the intensifying global debate about the most sustainable ways to 
implement open access and research infrastructures, meeting participants 
reinforced their aim to foster solutions that reflect the diversity of 
approaches and capacities across different regions.
Repository networks are being developed around the world to support open access 
to research outputs. However, given the truly international and collaborative 
nature of research, these networks must be connected and aligned around issues 
such as policy, standards and services. At the meeting, delegates shared 
updates about their local networks. Many networks have evolved significantly 
over the last year and are now in a better position to collaborate more deeply. 
The group also reviewed the progress of the aligning repository networks 
activities since their meeting last year. Specific outcomes from the previous 
year’s work include the publication of a joint statement 

 against embargo periods, the launch of a technical working group seeking to 
harmonize open access elements and metadata schemas, and improved visibility of 
repository networks worldwide.
Participants also discussed priorities for further aligning their networks for 
the coming year. Activities will include closer cooperation around the 
development of guidelines and tools, and several bilateral collaborations 
between networks were suggested. In addition, it was agreed that a 
communication strategy be developed to continue to raise the visibility of 
repository networks as key infrastructure components. Support was also 
expressed for further engaging with policy makers and other stakeholders to 
ensure adoption of balanced open access policies.
COAR will work with the community to accomplish these activities in the coming 
year. A full list of participants and a report about the meeting will be 
available soon on the COAR website .
For more information, contact Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR 
(kathleen.shea...@coar-repositories.org 
)___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check your publication years in DOAJ

[Dominic Mitchell]

Hi Heather

A couple of comments to clarify your post on the SKC blog:

“Based on data gathered last year, it appears that article counts by
publication year by journal significantly under-represent the actual
journal content, and based on a more recent cursory search of DOAJ and
e-mail with DOAJ’s community manager Dom, it appears that a fairly recent
change in metadata harvesting at DOAJ has increased the disparity.”

Dom: When you say the actual journal content, I presume you mean the
journal article counts in DOAJ? In a way yes, this is under-represented but
actually what we are showing in DOAJ now is a truer picture of the data
than we were showing before. The greater disparity is because we no longer
include any noise in these figures. Where we can identify a correct Year
value, we include it in the count. When we can’t identify a Year value, we
ignore it. Unfortunately, we see publishers uploading all sorts of values
in the Year field: anything from typos (201, 2103, 2066 etc) to Roman
numerals.

“If the publication numbers by year in DOAJ do not match your journal’s
publication numbers, check the DOAJ For Publishers page for information on
what to do next.”

Dom: this URL https://doaj.org/publishers#correct

“If you have any questions, please send them to DOAJ feedback. If you have
tips for other publishers to resolve this issue, feel free to add a comment
to this post. Feel free to add questions too, just note that I won’t be
able to help.”

Dom: Absolutely, do send us your questions: feedb...@doaj.org. In most
cases, we will ask publishers to re-upload their metadata with the correct
Year of Publication. DOAJ can’t correct this metadata for you. We have no
way of manually changing metadata or of knowing what the correct values
should be. If the full-text URLs of the articles that you are correcting
have not changed then there is no need to contact us first: you can simply
upload the new metadata.
Thanks to you and the SKC Team for a great blog!

Best, Dom
Community Manager
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check your publication years in DOAJ

[Dietrich Rordorf / MDPI]

Dear Heather,

I think the count on DOAJ is pretty correct if the Publisher delivers
metadata correctly. It can always happen that a Publishers re-submits
the one or the other paper if the first submission was erroneous. I
found in the past that it is not so easy to delete an entry from DOAJ (I
had to ask the staff members). So actually the article count on DOAJ,
including those resubmissions, is usually lsightly higher than on the
Publisher website.

Examples:

International Journal of Molecular Sciences (DOAJ versus --> Publisher
website)
2014 (1469)   --> 1435, see: 
http://mdpi.com/search?journal=ijms&year_from=2014&year_to=2014 etc.
2013 (1373)   --> 1367
2012 (1124)   --> 1082
2011 (632)   --> 631
2010 (339)   --> 339
etc.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (DOAJ
versus --> Publisher website)
2014 (786)   --> 779, see: 
http://mdpi.com/search?journal=ijerph&year_from=2014&year_to=2014 etc.
2013 (454)   --> 454
2012 (307)   --> 306
2011 (277)   --> 277
2010 (268)   --> 267
etc.

About the "World Journal of Gastroenterology" mentioned in your blog
post, I have yet another article count based on CrossRef doi deposits.
You can access its article number stats based on CrossRef doi deposits
here (the CrossRef-based count is quite different from the DOAJ count,
yet seems closer to DOAJ than the number you report based on the
Publisher website): http://sciforum.net/statistics/journal/articles/13016

Journal: World Journal of Gastroenterology
Partly open access
Current Publisher: Baishideng Publishing Group Co  (doi prefix:
10.3748),  2004-2015
Year: :2004-2015
ISSN / EISSN: 10079327 / -
Total articles: ≅8'184
Indexing: SCOPUS - (1998-) PUBMED - (2001-) MEDLINE - (2001-) MEDICUS -
(2001-) PMC SCIE EBSCO
Archiving: SHERPA/ROMEO (gray)

Please also note that one of the major open access publishers, namely
PLoS, does not deliver article-level metadata to DOAJ since quite a
while. PLoS published around 36K and 35K articles in 2013 and 2014
respectively. Probably the view here is more realistic (yet, it does
only count OA papers that have a doi number registered and deposited to
CrossRef):
http://sciforum.net/statistics/open-access-papers-published-per-year

Best regards,
Dietrich




On 06.05.2015 22:38, Heather Morrison wrote:
> In the course of looking at DOAJ content number correlations, I've
> come across what looks like quite a bit of disparity between the
> actual article numbers of journals per year and the identification of
> this information in DOAJ. It appears that recent changes in metadata
> harvesting at DOAJ have increased the disparity. Checking is
> recommended. Procedures and details are posted here:
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/06/tech-tip-for-doaj-journals-contributing-article-level-metadata/
>
>
>
>
This message has only been posted to the GOAL list. Please share
> with any other venues likely to be monitored by OA journal
> publishers.
>
> best,
>

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal