According to DOAJ, 67.6% of journals listed (6,283 journals), while 32.3% (2,999 journals) do not have article processing charges. This information is historical - about a year old, from before the DOAJ upgrade.
Based on our APC survey data (2014, 2015 in progress), I suspect the number of APC-charging may be over -stated. The number of journals with conditional charges appears to have been added to the total. Also, based on our in-depth look at a large sample of these journals, it appears that some of the "APCs" may actually be old-fashioned print-based page charges for journals still publishing in print as well as online. For example, some journals refer to costs for colour printing. We haven't looked in-depth at the journals that were identified as conditional charges, however one example of a type of common conditional cost that is clearly not an APC is when an author wishes to take advantage of an optional purchase of off-prints. I believe there is some evidence that there are more articles published in APC-charging journals than non-APC charging journals. This does not impact the percentage of journals with and without APCs. References DOAJ historical data: https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/historical-apc-data-from-before-the-april-upgrade/ 2014 survey: http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/1/1 Partial 2015 results and analysis from: sustainingknowledgecommons.org<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org> best, Heather Morrison On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:02 PM, "Beall, Jeffrey" <jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu<mailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu>> wrote: Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite the 2012 SOAP study, and I apologize for this error. Here is what I really should have included: "The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs. Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by funders (59%) or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260"; This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here: https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9 I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012. Dr. Suber's blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013. Jeffrey Beall From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues Hi all, Well, I don’t know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall’s post Dana Roth agrees with, but I’m wondering about that part of the same post: > "most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from it. > I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted. Marc Couture De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Dana Roth Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded! 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<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues 1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository) 2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee) 3. Gratis OA means free online access. 4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be confused with "gratis"]) After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it... Stevan Harnad, Erstwhile Archivangelist On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey <jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu<mailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu>> wrote: For the record, some also use the term "platinum open access," which refers to open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using "gold" to refer both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding. Some have abused the term "gold open access" to promote open access, proclaiming, for example, that "most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from it. Jeffrey Beall [1]. http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues Thanks Helene, Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the terms in a different order. Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade this impression. Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is placed in a repository - institutional or subject. I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR). Regards, Danny > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9 > 4cdff/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200 > From: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr<mailto:hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr>> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" > <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> > Message-ID: <8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names! > But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been > adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European > reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati > on > > Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But > the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide. > > Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre" instead of > "Open Access"! > > Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and > "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get > Libre"... ;-) > > BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what > means Gold in your proposition! > > We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the > aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 > and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of > important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have > understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more > details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA. > > To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or > Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog and forum, as > Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now. > > H?l?ne Bosc > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Danny Kingsley > To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > Hi all, > > There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the moment. > In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following: > > a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of > items in repositories available for comment - > https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/ > b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly > complex topic 'Open Scholarship' - > http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/ > c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to > facilitate sharing of information' http:// > http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report > My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely > arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and it > implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either. > > If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA as > 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more > understandable to the external audience. > > Danny > > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
