Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Peter Suber
5,320 followers
5,320 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Thanks to +Amy Uzarski Lovell for updating the +OAD list of declarations in support of #openaccess.

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Declarations_in_support_of_OA

Remember that the OAD is a wiki and depends on the community to keep it accurate, current, and comprehensive. It's crowd-sourced and distributed under a CC-BY license. To limit spam, OAD editing is limited to registered users, but registration is free and easy. Reading and reuse are free for all.
http://oad.simmons.edu

Open-access journals broken down by CC license

I just had reason to look up these numbers in the +Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and run a few calculations. As long as I've done it, I thought I'd share the results here as well.

Total number of OA journals listed today = 10,567
http://doaj.org

Here's the breakdown by CC license, in descending order from the most popular:

CC-BY = 4,633 = 43.8%
CC-BY-NC-ND = 2,361 = 22.3%
CC-BY-NC = 1,768 = 16.7%
CC-BY-NC-SA = 677 = 6.4%
CC-BY-SA = 585 = 5.5%
CC-BY-ND = 94 = 0.8%

Total with CC licenses = 10,024 = 94.8%
Total without CC licenses = 543 = 5.1%

These numbers don't add up to 100% because 385 journals (3.6%) use a homegrown non-CC license. I don't take them into account because it's impossible to tell, without case-by-case examination, whether they're equivalent to given CC licenses, more restrictive, or less restrictive. Fortunately for this quick overview, there's only a small number of them.

To check the numbers yourself or update them later, go to the DOAJ <http://doaj.org>. Click on Search (in the top navigation bar). Then click on the facet + Journals vs. Articles. Then click on Journals. Then click on the facet + Journal license.

#oa #openaccess #doaj #cc #creativecommons

Post has attachment
SPARC has started a list of big-deal cancellations.
https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/

It's a great idea. If the list doesn't include some big-deal cancellations at your institution, let SPARC know. See the update buttons at the bottom of the page.

At launch time the list didn't include Harvard's 2003 cancellation of the Elsevier big deal, and I just sent SPARC some relevant links. As long as I'm doing that, I thought I'd blog them here as well. After the official announcement by Sidney Verba, I list the pieces in chronological order:

"A Letter from Sidney Verba," (then Harvard's University Librarian), Harvard University Library, December 9, 2003.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040217152422/hul.harvard.edu/letter040101.html

"Harvard is Pursuing its Own Elsevier Deal," Library Journal, October 21, 2003.
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2003/10/ljarchives/harvard-is-pursuing-its-own-elsevier-deal/

Jeffrey C. Aguero, "Libraries to Cut Academic Journals," Harvard Crimson, November 23, 2003.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/24/libraries-to-cut-academic-journals-citing/

"Libraries take a stand: Journals present rising costs to libraries - and to scholarship," Harvard Gazette, February 5, 2004.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/02/libraries-take-a-stand/

Thanks to +Stuart Shieber.

#big_deals, #cancellations, #elsevier

Post has attachment
Thanks to +Amy Uzarski Lovell for updating the +OAD list of #openaccess advocacy organizations.

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Advocacy_organizations_for_OA

If your advocacy organization isn't on the list, or isn't adequately annotated, please jump in and add the needed details.

Remember that the OAD is a wiki and depends on the community to keep it accurate, current, and comprehensive. It's crowd-sourced and distributed under a CC-BY license. To limit spam, OAD editing is limited to registered users, but registration is free and easy. Reading and reuse are free for all.
http://oad.simmons.edu

#oa #openaccess #oad

Post has attachment
A few minutes ago in Brooksville, #Maine. Sunset over the Bagaduce River.
Photo

Oops. Years ago I thought I'd finished putting my scholarly writings in DASH, my institution's open-access repository. But just this week I found one that I'd overlooked. I'm glad to say it's now in DASH.

"The Paradox of Liberation" (1992). I discuss variations on the theme that one is not free until one freely chooses to become free. I find traces of the theme in Kant, Mill, and Dennett, and show their strategies for preventing the claim from becoming a contradiction.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/34359909

A bit earlier I found another that I'd overlooked; it too is now in DASH.

"Saving Machines From Themselves: The Ethics of Deep Self-Modification" (2001). I discuss the ethics of paternalizing creatures capable of deep and precise self-modification. I expect that intelligent machines will achieve this capability, through reprogramming, sooner than human beings, through drugs and surgery.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/32986888

Both pieces were OA from birth. All that's new here is that they're now in my IR.

#freedom, #liberation, #kant, #mill, #dennett, #ai, #paternalism, #self-modification, #selfmod

Post has attachment
Half a dozen reasons why I support the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity.

http://jussieucall.org/index.html

1. I support its call to move beyond PDFs. This is necessary to bypass publisher locks and facilitate reuse, text mining, access by the visually impaired, and access in bandwidth-poor parts of the world.

2. I applaud its recognition of no-fee or no-APC open-access journals, their existence, their value, and the fact that a significant number of authors will always depend on them.

3. I join its call for redirecting funds now spent on subscription journals to support OA alternatives.

4. I endorse its call to reform methods of research evaluation. If we want to assess quality, we must stop assuming that impact and prestige are good proxies for quality. If we want to assess impact, we must stop using metrics that measure it badly and create perverse incentives to put prestige ahead of both quality and access.

5. I support its call for infrastructures that are proof against privatization. No matter how good proprietary and closed-source platforms may initially be, they are subject to acquisition and harmful mutation beyond the control of the non-profit academic world. Even without acquisition, their commitment to OA is contingent on the market, and they carry a permanent risk of trapping rather than liberating knowledge. The research community cannot afford to entrust its research to platforms carrying that risk.

6. Finally I support what it terms bibliodiversity. While we must steer clear of closed-source infrastructure, subject to privatization and enclosure, we must also steer clear of platform monocultures, subject to rigidity, stagnation, and breakage. Again, no matter how good a monoculture platform may initially be, in the long run it cannot be better than an ecosystem of free and open-source, interoperable components, compliant with open standards, offering robustness, modularity, flexibility, freedom to create better modules without rewriting the whole system, freedom to pick modules that best meet local needs, and freedom to scale up to meet global needs without first overcoming centralized constraints or unresponsive decision-makers.

#oa #openaccess

Most of the no-fee OA journals listed in the DOAJ are published in languages other than English.

+Leo Waaijers has dug some interest facts out of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and allowed me to post the results.

From Leo: The 7240 journals in the no-fee category in DOAJ has 1911 journals with Spanish full text, 1366 with Portuguese, 753 with French, and 692 with Indonesian. In percentages: 26, 19, 10, and 10. In the 2998 journal of the fee-based category these figures were respectively: 81, 76, 23, and 212; and in percentages: 3, 3, 1, and 7.

#oa #openaccess #doaj

Post has attachment
The Bagaduce River this morning in Brooksville, #Maine, before and after the sunrise fog.
Photo
Photo
10/28/17
2 Photos - View album

Still true: 70% of peer-reviewed OA journals charge no APCs.

Every study since the first in 2005 has shown that a significant majority of peer-reviewed journals charge no APCs. Most have put that majority at about 70%.

I just looked up today's numbers at the Directory of Open Access Journals, and the number is still 70%.

Total number of journals listed in DOAJ = 10,279
No-fee = 7,193 = 69.97%
Fee-based = 2,980 = 28.99%
No info = 106 = 1.03%

To check the numbers yourself or update them later, go to the DOAJ <http://doaj.org>. Click on Search (in the top navigation bar). Then click on the facet + Journals vs. Articles. Then click on Journals. Then click on the facet + Article processing charges (APCs). You'll then see "No" (i.e. no APCs) followed by a number, "Yes" followed by a number, and "No information" followed by a number.

.....

Needless to say, many people turn this truth on its head and say that most or even all OA journals charge fees. That error is still one of the most widespread, well-entrenched, and harmful myths about OA, despite more than a decade of correction from a large number of people like me and +Walt Crawford. When you hear someone repeat the error, please correct them.

.....

Related: Gold OA is OA delivered by journals, regardless of their business model. Hence gold OA includes both fee-based and no-fee OA journals. When you hear someone repeat the error that all gold OA is fee-based OA, please correct them.

Related: When we imagine flipping subscription journals to OA, too often we only imagine flipping them to fee-based OA. That's needlessly limiting.

Related: When we investigate ways to bring financial support and sustainability to more OA journals, too often we only investigate ways to pay APCs. That's needlessly limiting.

Related: When we study what universities would pay for journal articles in a hypothetical future world in which all journals flip to OA, too often we assume that all journals flip to fee-based OA. That's needlessly limiting, not to mention a bad extrapolation from current trends.

Related: When we want to interview or survey authors about their attitudes toward OA journals, too often we start by misdefining OA journals (as if all or most charge APCs), then we misinform the interview or survey subjects, and then we ask about their attitudes. We publish the results as attitudes toward OA journals as such, not attitudes toward fee-based OA journals. That's bad research.

.....

For more background, see my 2006 article, "No-fee open-access journals."
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4552050

.....

While most peer-reviewed OA journals are no-fee, it doesn't follow that most articles published in peer-reviewed OA journals are published in the no-fee variety. It's closer to 50/50, depending on the year and measurement method.

See William Walters and Anne Linvill, "Characteristics of Open Access Journals in Six Subject Areas," College and Research Libraries, August 2010. "While just 29 percent of OA journals charge publication fees, those journals represent 50 percent of the articles in our study."
http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2010/09/14/crl-132.abstract

See Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk, "Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure," BMC Medicine, October 22, 2012: "OA journals requiring article-processing charges have become increasingly common, publishing 166,700 articles in 2011 (49% of all OA articles)."
http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-10-124

See Walt Crawford, "The Gold OA Landscape, 2011-2014," Cites & Insights, October 2015, p. 20: "[T]he 26% of journals that do charge APCs...published 57% of the OA articles (in reputable journals) in 2014, and assuming level APCs, pay journals have published a majority of OA articles since 2013."
http://citesandinsights.info/civ15i9on.pdf

#oa #openaccess #doaj #no-fee
Wait while more posts are being loaded