We did a scientific empirical study of APCs of journals listed in DOAJ as Open Access peer reviewed journals. We did not attempt to out screen journals not fulfilling certain quality norms. If somebody wishes to replicate the study and exclude certain publishers, that's obviously doable. Another way would be for DOAJ to start excluding journals but that could become very complicated and resource demanding.
Best Bo-Christer On 12/13/12 1:36 PM, Richard Poynder wrote: > Point taken, but was there a particular reason for including the "Beall" > journals in your study? What purpose did it serve? > > The criticism of some of these journals, by the way, goes some way beyond > the fact that they are guilty of spamming researchers. > > Richard Poynder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bj...@hanken.fi [mailto:bj...@hanken.fi] > Sent: 13 December 2012 11:24 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Richard Poynder > Cc: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' > Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber > > In our study with David Solomon we weighted the APCs of different journals > with the number of articles they had published to arrive at the average APC > of around 900 USD. For instance the impact of PloS One alone is bigger than > all the 200+ journals of Bentham together. So although we didn't calculate > any share for "Beall" journals their overall impact is not that big. More > disturbing is the bad press they create by spamming. > > Bo-Christer > > > > Quoting Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk>: > >> Hi Ross, >> >> >> >> Absolutely, I see no problem at all with a publisher being based in the >> developing world and, as you point out, Hindawi is a good example of a >> respected publisher based in a developing country. >> >> >> >> But that does not mean that one should avoid any criticism of publishers >> because they are based in a certain geographical location. >> >> >> >> What I am saying is that if you put together the fact that the study >> included quite a few publishers on Jeffrey Beall's list with the fact that >> these publishers seem invariably to be based in the developing world (even >> though some claim to be based in the US) then you might wonder whether the >> average APC figure arrived at in the study could have been subject to some >> bias. >> >> >> >> My point is less about the developing world than it is about predatory >> publishers, and whether they ought to be included in a study aimed at >> establishing the average cost of publishing in an OA journal. >> >> >> >> I do understand that Beall's list is a controversial one, but I have > looked >> at a number of these publishers myself and I have reached my own >> conclusions. >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> >> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf >> Of Ross Mounce >> Sent: 13 December 2012 09:59 >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber >> >> >> >> On 13 December 2012 09:32, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk >> <mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> > wrote: >> >> I believe this latter study included a number of publishers based in the >> developing world >> >> >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> >> >> >> >> I hope you see nothing wrong in a number of publishers being based in the >> 'developing world' ? >> >> Hindawi are perhaps one such publisher, if one classes Egypt as a >> 'developing world' country. You've even written yourself that there tends > to >> be perhaps an unjust bias against 'developing world' publishers >> > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-oa-interviews-ahmed-hindawi-founde >> r.html >> >> >> >> Can you please make clear what you mean by what you said? >> >> I don't want to encourage assessments of quality purely based upon >> geographic location. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Ross >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
