Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal

[Arif Jinha]

Another Elsevier scandal, buying good reviews on Amazon..
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/23/elsevier
 
arif jinha
 
  - Original Message -
From: Uhlir, Paul
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal

Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't
want it to be missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my
original comment, which may have obscured its relevance to you
as well as to others on this listserv. What I meant to address
was your assertion that you think it is "a fallacy that
publishers launch new journals in order to make money". The
link I provided was to a report by Peter Suber that Elsevier in
Australia launched 6 fake biomedical journals that included "a
series of sponsored article publications". Elsevier declined to
name the sponsors, although when this story initially broke
about the first two journals, it was reported that those were
sponsored by Merck. It is quite clear, however, that all 6
journals were launched solely to make money, basically to
provide "infomercials" written by Elsevier's clients under the
guise of independent, peer-reviewed research results.
 
More important than addressing your assertion, however, was to
bring this scandal to the attention of the recipients of this
listserv, since these incidents do not appear to have been
widely reported. They strike me as a rather fundamental breach
of scientific integrity and publishing ethics in the sensitive
area of public health that should be of concern to
everyone--researchers, publishers, and the broader public.
 
Paul


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally
Morris
Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 4:48 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES

Sorry Paul, I don~Rt see the relevance of this to my general
response to a wide-ranging and, IMHO, unfounded comment

 

Sally

 

 

Sally Morris

 

South House, The Street

Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

 

Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 15 May 2009 22:38
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES

 

Sally, you may wish to reconsider your assumptions and
assertions in light of the following:

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals
-more.html 

 

Paul

 





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally
Morris
Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 10:56 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES

Tenopir and King found that the average number of articles per
journal was, in fact, increasing steadily.  I think it~Rs a
fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make
money; it is, surely, more profitable to expand an existing
journal (assuming you can increase the price accordingly)?  New
journals take years to make any money, even if they succeed ~V
and not all do

 

Sally

 

Sally Morris

 

South House, The Street

Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

 

Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 15 May 2009 15:33
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES

 

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Colin Smith at Open University

 

I've just realised I quoted the wrong day in the email I just
sent to
the forum. It should have been Mon 11 May, not Fri. If this
reaches you
in time, please correct it during moderation.


On Mon 11 May 2009 at 09:27 Sally Morris wrote:

While Andrew Adams' letter makes some valid points, I would
like to

  point out that the number of articles per author
  has not changed over

  many years (Tenopir and King have excellent data on
  this).  Thus neither

  'publish or perish' nor 'greedy publishers' have
  contributed in any way

  to the steady growth (not 'explosion') of research
  articles - it simply

  reflects growth in research funding, and thus
 

Re: Growth rate of OA mandates?

[Arif Jinha]

 Björk et al estimated for 2006, that between gold and green OA, 19.6% of
global yearly output of research could be accessed freely.

Can we devise a method of estimating/predicting the growth of the share of
OA in annual global research output, from the growth of gold OA journals and
OA mandates, both institutional and government?

Arif Jinha
- Original Message -
From: "Gavin Baker" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:32 PM
Subject: Growth rate of OA mandates?


>I was interested to see, as noted by Heather Morrison recently, that the
> number of institutional and departmental mandates registered in ROARMAP
> more than doubled in 2009:
>
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/12/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-dec-31.html
>
> Funder mandates were no slouch either, with a 40% increase.
>
> Has anyone charted the number of mandates over time? From a slow start
> in 2003 to the explosion of 2009, I'm curious what the curve would look
> like...
>
> Also, any predictions for the future? I'd wager that 2010 looks like
> 2009, give or take 25%. Even in the worst case scenario, that'd still
> mean strong growth (compared to any year other than 2009).
>
> --
> Gavin Baker
> http://www.gavinbaker.com/
> ga...@gavinbaker.com
>
> You will eat cake.
> Frank O'Hara
>

Re: Growth rate of OA mandates?

[Arif Jinha]

searchers are:

Online availability of the entire full-text refereed research corpus
Availability on every researcher's desktop, everywhere 24 hours a day
Interlinking of all papers & citations
Fully searchable, navigable, retrievable, impact-rankable research papers
For free, for all, forever

Arif Jinha
MA (can I say ABD candidate?)
Globalization and International Development
University of Ottawa

- Original Message -
From: "Heather Morrison" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Growth rate of OA mandates?


> Since 2005, I have been tracking a number of data to determine a
> reasonable estimate of the extent and rate of growth of open access,
> on a quarterly basis.  It is difficult to determine accurate macro-
> level data; this discussion and the work of other researchers is much
> appreciated.
>
> DOAJ has grown from 1,400 journals in 2005 to over 4,500 today.  This
> is an imperfect measure, but sufficient to illustrate the dramatic
> growth in number of journals. Net DOAJ growth for 2009 was 723 titles,
> approximately 2 titles per day.  About a third of DOAJ journals are
> searchable at article level; the number of articles available through
> such a search showed a 33% growth in 2009, to over 300,000 items.
>
> DOAJ does not include journals with free back issues, or gold OA
> articles in hybrid journals, so DOAJ numbers are an underestimate of
> gold OA.
>
> The number of documents available through the broadest cross-
> repository search engines grew from about 5 million in 2005 (based on
> OAIster statistics) to over 22 million in 2009 (based on BASE stats).
> These, too, are imperfect figures as not all items in repositories are
> full-text research articles, and there is likely some duplication,
> however even allowing for these imperfections the very strong growth
> rate is clear.
>
> The percentage of medical research literature published in the last 3
> years and indexed in PubMed that is freely available is 20% (very
> similar to Bjork's figure).  This is based on a search of PubMed, and
> does not distinguish between gold and green OA.
>
> For data showing 2009 growth, see:
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Apn66wofwO7adF93d1lIS1VCVHhnZ0pTemVFX1hTT0E&hl=en
>
> The full series, including links to all open data versions and
> commentary, can be found at:
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2006/08/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-series.html
>
> Heather Morrison
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
>

Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

[Arif Jinha]

nstitution that can't afford it, or a non-institutionalized author? What should
be mandated for the sake of equity and freedom of speech, is that peer-review 
is
blind to whether the author has any money.  If the article is accepted and 
there
are no funds accessible to the author, the journal should publish it anyway. 
Really, how hard is it to post an article to a website?
 
  For all these reasons, Green OA needs to come before Gold OA; and it
needs to be mandated, for free, before institutions and funders commit
their scarce funds to paying for Gold OA:
Funds are not scarce, it's a question of having a wasteful and inequitable
system. If we can afford this stupidity, how can we say funds are
scarce? uOttawa spends $7million dollars a year to access the pretty much the
exact same body of research (18,000 online titles) that uConcordia subscribes
to. Funds are scarce outside the large institutions of the West, where people
can't afford subscriptions or article fees to access research that is not OA.
So, if gold OA is supported, that's good.  If there is a green OA mandate,
that's good.  They are not mutually exclusive and the overall cost-benefit
analysis to institutions must take into account that neither gold nor green OA
has saved them much money, and both are long-term plans.  Would be wise then to
support both, since as Harnad says, we're going to need gold OA if green OA has
any success in the zero-sum game of subscription costs and library budgets. 
 

What is urgent for research and researchers today -- and immediately
attainable via Green OA self-archiving mandates -- is OA, not
publishing reform or re-use rights. (Moreover, mandating Green OA
today is the fastest and surest way to achieve OA today, but also to
achieve Gold OA and Re-Use Rights tomorrow.
 
What would be better is to affirm a universal right to access research, and have
the business model work on and around that basis.
 
It would save a lot of time if we made scholarly articles all an exception to
the copying part of copyright (everyone would be free to copy it).  Isn't all
use of scholarly articles always for personal study? 
 
I find it annoying that scholarly writing is so terribly dull, but it seems to
me that few people would read scholarship for amusement, people read it for
study, always. It's scholarship.  So the reform should be that peer-reviewed
scholarship is not alllowed to be restricted for commercial sale (for which the
authors receive no royalties and no benefit), and always allowed to be copied. 
Then use the money that is paid into subscriptions to compensate the losers in
this reform, allowing them to change the business model to Open Access 360. 

First things first. Grasp what is within your immediate reach (Green
OA). If you instead over-reach, you will miss what is already in your
grasp, and just keep delaying the optimal and inevitable even longer.
What is immediately within your grasp changes with regard to whether you are an
author, institution, government or publisher.  If you're a publisher, it's
immediately within your grasp to stop restricting content with digital 
locks in
order to charge for it and license it Creative Commons instead. 
 
If you are a team of terribly good lawyers, you could probably even achieve the
deregulation of copyright for scholarly works and put an end to both the
outdated system of subscriptions, and our current inefficient mixed system of
subscriptions, mandates and author funds. From a rational point of view, one
article is not more valuable than another, it depends who you are and what your
interest is.  One researcher is not deserving of more privileges than another.
The system ought to be completely seamless.  Without a legal reform, it will
take another hundred years to liberate the works of the Big Science period of
post-WWII and pre-OA which are typically copyright transferred.  With a change
in law, you'll get there quicker in the end.  Without a change in the law,
thought there is no difference in the value of an OA article and non-OA article,
the researcher without privileges and who cannot pay would have to break the law
to access the non-OA article.  What if it was a doctor trying to save a life?
Should they be allowed to access the article, or not?
 
As the author, you should archive it.
As the institution, you should mandate it.
As a library, you should ensure one way or another that your patron has access
to it, your patron is a doctor!
As the publisher, you should not restrict the content, lives are at stake.
As the lawmaker, you should have made it illegal to restrict access to the
article, or legal for the doctor to access it, whichever way you want to look at
it.
As the doctor, you should access it regardless of copyright and save the life.
As the taxpayer, you should pay once for the research and be able to access the
article.
As the patient, you should be

A new citation style

[Arif Jinha]

Dear friends,

we need to officially create an accepted and updated citation style.
However, print publication has a production and preservational value that
ought to be preserved.  A publisher may easily deliver their highest-quality
journals in print, while publishing the same articles online in OA.  They
just need the right business model to accomplish this.  By putting the
resources into high-quality print publication sends a message that these
articles have value, the writing, copy-editing and print presentations give
greater gravitas and impact to the content.  For print publications, I
suggest maintaining the geographical information about the publisher,
because locality is still important to culture, and thus the culture of
publishing houses in different regions.  When something is in print, people
take in the whole of the work.  When it is electronic, people tend to sift
for data or even just the bits they need to reference to back up their
analysis.  The second route is pragmatic insofar as it gets work done but
the time taken to read the whole of the work gives incentive to digest
information in a more reflective fashion.  Such considerations reflexively
affect the culture of research, and beg of the need for quality and
contemplation of the ideas - not just the bits of information that are often
grabbed and embedded in the polemics of research agendas.

A new citation style for online articles would include author-date, article
and journal title, DOI, and link to the OA version of an article if
available, and if not to the abstract.  This convention would favour OA
versions. There should be a limit on characters, this would encourage
concise titles (short versions if necessary) and disqualify the pasting of
lengthy website addresses.  Citation for printed works should be used
authentically, that is when the author is getting the information from the
hard copy, and therein should include geographical location.   In all the
citation style should appropriately and authentically reflect the research
to publication process, whilst being convenient to the reader in their
study.

many thanks for your consideration and time,

Arif Jinha, MA
Wakefield, QC
Canada

- Original Message -
From: "Andrew A. Adams" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Is a Different OA Strategy Needed for Social Sciences and
Humanities? (No)


> On 2011-11-06, at 5:58 PM, Jean-Claude Gu???don wrote:
>> most SSH journals would not accept the kind of referencing he
>> suggests. Most journals, in fact, impose their citation and quotation
>> referencing styles. As they now also accept electronic references, it
>> leads to what I said: references to repository articles are beginning
>> to appear in significant numbers. This raise a new question, that of
>> quality control of the versions in the repositories, but that can be
>> solved too. It is therefore true that the lack of reliable pagination
>> is probably a fading inconvenience.
Stevan Harnad replied:
> Yes, quote-location convention-updating is a minor and fading
> inconvenience. But not because we need (or are providing) peer review
> for already peer-reviewed author drafts, just so that quotes can have
> page numbers! There are simple ways to accomplish that. And what is
> cited is the canonical published version of record, not the specific
> document one actually accessed. (I don't cite a photocopy of an
> article, I cite the article -- journal, title, date, volume,
> page-span.) If a journal copy-editor, unsatisfied with the
> section-heading and paragraph number, insists on page numbers for the
> quotes, they can go look them up (when they look up the quote itself,
> whose wording, after all, even more important to get right than its
> pagination)


I would go even further than Stevan and say that practically (not in the
minds of editors, but as a matter of practical usage fo researchers, not
librarians, not editors, not bibliometricists) even paragrph numbering is
pointless and unncessary in the new world of OA, if we ever reach it. If one
has access to an electronic version of a paper referenced, then quotes or
keywords can be searched for in the accesible electronic version.

In computer science the concept of pages has been done away with in a number
of new journals. Articles are referenced by article number within volume
(i.e. year of publication).

We are getting caght in all these gutenberg-era traps distracting us from
providing the most important thing: access to the information. Everything
else is simply a matter of having the proper tools available to make use of
that access.

We used to worry about findability - Google Scholar pretty much solves that
one. If one has even a half-decent reference with author name(s)/title and
journal name, then Google scholar will find it if it can be crawled.

We used to worry about finding an

[GOAL] Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!

[Arif Jinha]

s,
marketers, salespeople and the rest.  They are akin to brand-name
pharmaceutical companies who typically spend less than 20% of their funds on
research, and the rest on marketing and admin.  Let them change, or let them
fall. These firms, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, Blackwell-Synergy have the
most pointless websites on the internet.  Who would visit them, when the
article is inaccessible and there is no content of any merit.  They are
doing a disservice to journals.

I have made strides toward planning a new publishing firm.  We are starting
with the creative arts, but I am open to publishing journals.  I will treat
the journals, the readers, the authors and the Access Principle with
respect. If you are interested in my thesis, or in Article 50 million,
please see --.  I could be ready to publish journals by next summer, when
I've had some space from academia, so keep me in mind. And for goodness
sake, everyone needs to take a breather from the academy and breathe in the
world.  Don't take yourselves so seriously all the time.  Don't try to
dominate one another with intellect or money, but uplift and share the world
equitably instead. It is what the global youth are saying to the boomers.
It is a question of 'tone'.  I know mine will not sound right to some, but
I'm speaking about the energy of surging towards change and transformation
in the world.  It is how it is, and young people have struggled for the
respect of their mentors.  One thing we know though, is the web.  So, we are
going to take Open Access to another level.  But don't just wait and see,
bring the message of OA to grads and undergrads who will find it natural,
normal and obvious.  They will be the profs of the future.

My humble opinions, but let us talk with confidence about the future of OA
instead of dragging each other down.  No line by line attack will hold the 
youth back.
We will register our business in 2012, with indomitable spirit, will to love 
wisdom, and 100% commitment, we will change the world

"Occupy Publishing!"

Arif Jinha
http://arif.jinhabrothers.com
Chief Creative Officer - JBP Wakefield (coming in 2012, the year of the 
beginning)
MA Globalization and International Development, uOttawa.
011-819-459-1385
a...@jinhabrothers.com





- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Carroll" 
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!


> Dear Jennifer,
>
> Thanks for the news, but I'm afraid your press release is
> misleading and should be corrected.  You say that T&F is now publishing
> " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing
> arrangements this simply is not the case.  A fully open access journal
> is one that publishes on the web without delay *and* which gives readers
> the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that
> users provide proper attribution.
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.100
> 1210
>
> T&F's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access.
> Could you please explain why T&F needs to reserve substantial reuse
> rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of
> publication?
>
> If your response is that the article processing charge does not
> represent the full cost of publication, what charge would?  Why aren't
> authors given the option to purchase full open access?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Michael W. Carroll
> Professor of Law and Director,
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University, Washington College of Law
> 4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> (202) 274-4047 (voice)
> (202) 730-4756 (fax)
> vcard: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/mcarroll/vcard.vcf
>
> Research papers: http://works.bepress.com/michael_carroll/
> http://ssrn.com/author=330326
> blog: http://www.carrollogos.org/
> See also www.creativecommons.org
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of McMillan, Jennifer
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:46 AM
> Subject: [GOAL] Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Oxford, 16th December 2011
>
> The New Year sees the launch of an exciting range of Open Access options
> from Taylor & Francis via the Taylor & Francis Open program. This new
> initiative is designed to give authors and their sponsors flexibility
> and variety when they choose to publish research with Taylor & Francis.
>
> The Taylor & Francis Open program is a suite of ful

[GOAL] Re: Titanium Killer Apps and OA

[Arif Jinha]

3 Cheers for the Titanium Road.
 
My publishing company will mandate from the journal side the authors to make
Green OA deposits for greater availabiility,  exposure to the journal name, for
preservation (copies, copies, copies). 
Open access materials such as online journals and scholarly websites are
particularly at risk of
disappearing. (Jootkandt )
 
Green OA repositories are not gauranteed against failure either, and therefore
hard copy/journal copy/archive copy/preservation archive copy would be best,
IMHO. 
 
There are 2 risks to the literary legacy of the Northern baby boom who grew up
in the big science period.  The first is that scientific development of that 
era
will be buried under copyright until 2100.  The second is that the literature
will not be read or preserved, because vast majority is 3rd party transferred
copyright to conglomerate private publishers whose economic outlook is now
threatened by OA, these companies are potential ghosts unless they convert to
OA.  A post-industrial society may well forget where it came from.  This may
haunt us. 
 
How will we liberate and preserve that literature, I wonder? I am interested in
the entire corpus from 1665 being available, a global Alexandria.  Converted OA
publishers should backdate their OA, and authors can use Titanium OA to release
their own older papers to archives.  That would be most helpful
 
Arif Jinha
- OA that is Green, Gold, Red (print production sales - CC license) and Black
(no author-fee)
JBC Wakefield - a 2012 company
  - Original Message -
From: Stevan Harnad
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:01 PM
Subject: [GOAL] Titanium Killer Apps and OA

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Arthur Sale  wrote:

  I really don’t understand how Stevan manages to call the
  Titanium Road “a technologically supercharged version of the
  Green Road”, but Stevan can explain that statement if he
  wishes.

 
The Gold Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in an OA journal
and the journal makes the paper accessible free for all online.

The Green Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in any journal
and, in addition, the author makes the paper accessible free for all
online ("author self-archiving").

The "Titanium Road" to OA consists of new user tools with which the author
can make the article accessible free for all online ("author
self-archiving").

Hence the "Titanium Road" is merely a technologically enhanced version of
the Green Road ("author self-archiving").

There are only two roads to OA (free online access): The journal does it
or the author does it.
 

   The more important issue is that I have failed to get across
  to him that the Titanium Road has nothing to do with
  researcher voluntarism.


Volunteerism means that in order to make their papers OA, researchers have
to do something that they are not currently doing, of their own accord,
not because of an institutional or funder requirement.

Using new tools, voluntarily, is volunteerism.

  The Gold Road does, because unless the researcher is funded by
  the Wellcome Trust or its like, he or she is likely to have to
  volunteer to divert money from his or her research grant to
  pay the author-side fees.


You've missed the much more fundamental volunteer step in publishing in a
Gold OA journal, Arthur: 

Choosing to publish in a Gold OA journal rather than in a non-OA journal.
 

  The Green Road also does, because the researcher has to
  volunteer to undertake unnatural extra work to deposit works
  in the institutional repository through a clunky interface.


The volunteer step in Green OA self-archiving is: Choosing to
self-archive.

The "clunkiness" of the interface is a technological matter. Not everyone
would agree that filling out a few obvious form-interface fields (login,
password, author, title, journal, date, etc.) is so "clunky" or
"unnatural" in a day when we are filling out online forms all the time.
It's just a few minutes' worth of keystrokes.

But my friend Arthur is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that the reason
why over 80% of researchers are not voluntarily self-archiving today is
because they find it too "clunky" to do the keystrokes.

I wish it were that simple. But in fact there are at least 38 reasons
researchers why do not voluntarily self-archive
-- http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries -- and their
worry that doing so might be "clunky" is just one of them (and usually
based on never even having tried it out).

(But I do think that it is his implicit assumption that the real deterrent
to OA is having to do too many keystrokes that makes Arthur think that a
new technology has come along (the "Titanium Road") that authors will find
so effortless

[GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

[Arif Jinha]

Arthur,
 
You're not going to be able to determine the exact number of researchers in the
world and you will have to make good estimates. But there are direct
relationships between the number of researchers, the number of articles
published annually and the number of active peer-reviewed journals. Good 
sources
for methodology are my thesis 
-http://arif.jinhabrothers.com/sites/arif.jinhabrothers.com/files/aj.pdf (defend
ed and submitted this fall)
- Article 50 million 
-http://www.mendeley.com/research/article-50-million-estimate-number-scholarly-a
rticles-existence-6/
Methods and data are based chiefly on:
Bjork et al's studies on OA share growth 2006 to current
Mabe and Amin, Tenopir and King - works 1990s to early 2000s
Derek De Sallo Price - 1960s - the 'father of scientometrics.
- you can get the number of article from Bjork's methods and data and mine.
- you can get the number of researchers from UN data but there is ratio of
researchers to publishing researchers, and publishing researchers publish an
average of 1 article per year, so if you can determine good estimate for that
ratio you are on your way. You have good data on growth rates of researchers,
articles and journals, but growth rates have increased dramatically since 2000
as demonstrated in my thesis.  It got a bit complex and I tried to sort it best
I could in my thesis.
 
all the best,
 
Arif
 
 
 
- Original Message -
  From: Arthur Sale
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:25 PM
Subject: [GOAL] How many researchers are there?

I am trying to get a rough estimate of the number of active researchers in
the world. Unfortunately all the estimates seem to be as rough as the
famous Drake equation for calculating the number of technological
civilizations in the universe: in other words all the factors are
extremely fuzzy.  I seek your help. My interest is that this is the number
of people who need to adopt OA for us to have 100% OA. (Actually, we will
approach that sooner, as the average publication has more than one author
and we need only one to make it OA.

 

To share some thinking, let me take Australia. In 2011 it had 35
universities and 29,226 academic staff with a PhD. Let me assume that this
is the number of research active staff. The average per institution is
835, and this spans big universities down to small ones. Australia
produces according to the OECD 2.5% of the world?s research, so let?s estimate
the number of active researchers in the world (taking Australia as ?typical?
of researchers) as 29226 / 0.025 = 1,169,040 researchers in universities.
Note that I have not counted non-university research organizations (they?ll
make a small difference) nor PhD students (there is usually a supervisor
listed in the author list of any publication they produce).

 

Let?s take another tack. I have read the number of 10,000 research
universities in the world bandied about. Let?s regard ?research university? as
equal to ?PhD-granting university?. If each of them have 1,000 research active
staff on average, then that implies 1 x 1000 = 10,000,000 researchers.

 

That narrows the estimate, rough as it is, to

         1.1M  < no of researchers < 10M

I can live with this, as it is only one power of ten (order of magnitude)
between the two bounds. The upper limit is around 0.2% of the world?s
population.

 

Another tactic is to try to estimate the number of people whose name
appeared in an author list in the last decade. Disambiguation of names
rears its ugly head. This will also include many non-researchers in big
labs, some of them will be dead, and there will be new researchers who
have just not yet published, but I am looking for ball-park figures, not
pinpoint accuracy. I haven?t done this work yet.

 

Can we do better than these estimates, in the face of different national
styles?  It is even difficult to get one number for PhD granting
universities in the US, and as for India and China @$#!

 

Arthur Sale

University of Tasmania, Australia

 

 



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




[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

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

[GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

[Arif Jinha]

our work! For me it's like the Blues Brothers - 'I'm
on a mission from God'. lol.
 
Now that I've finished my MA, I don't have to conform anymore and I can be
myself again - mystic-philosopher-entrepreneur-occupier.  There is a lot of
bitterness I need to transform into beauty, which is why I Occupy myself with
the Creative Arts at the moment. Poetry, literature, music, visual art,
photography, creative capitalism and mutual aid.  This was dashed off quickly,
and I really ought to be on my zafu doing anapasati (that's Buddhist for
'sitting around').  Do you think, though, that there will ever space in the
future for the Bohemian at university - the Alan Watts type? I hope so. 
Otherwise, you'll just say to people 'I got this strange letter from this
student who is probably mentally ill or on drugs'.  Ugggh. That is the Brave 
New
World we are in.
 
If this stuff is less fun and interesting to read than my thesis, I've lost you!
I wish you greatness in life, the depth of being human, and a good death.
 
'I believe that unconditional love and unarmed truth will have the final say in
reality' - MLK.
 
all the best,
 
Arif
 
yo
 
  - Original Message -
From: Arthur Sale
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

Thank you Arif.  I have read the article this afternoon (3 January) and
will download and look through your thesis asap.

 

However I feel compelled to re-emphasize to the list that I am not looking
for an estimate of how many articles are published annually, or ever. The
first of those pieces of data is useful for estimating what I really want
to know: how many active researchers are employed in year y? Particularly
2011. Of course, it will be useful to have article counts by discipline,
however rough, because publication practices differ widely between
disciplines. A publication in some disciplines is worth far less than in
others, the number of authors/article differs widely, and journal prestige
varies at least as much.

 

There are many other confusing factors in estimates based on article
production rates which I touched on in my reply to Stevan Harnad, not
least of which is the frequency of publication of equally highly respected
researchers. Some publish rarely (say once every three years), others
produce multiple articles per year. There are distributions in all these
things which we should understand. If I mention just one, the huge
disparity between articles/title in ISI and non-ISI journals listed in
your article (111 vs 26, from Bjork et al) must give anyone cause to
reflect! That?s over 4:1, too big to gloss over.

 

I know of course that I cannot determine exactly the number of researchers
in the world, any more than anyone else can determine exactly how many
articles were written or published.  As an engineer in a previous career,
absolute precision in these matters is not required, rather sufficient
confidence that we are in the right ballpark. Anyway, thank you very much
for your help and links, which I greatly appreciate.

 

Arthur Sale

University of Tasmania

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Arif Jinha
Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 5:26 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

 

Arthur,

 

You're not going to be able to determine the exact number of researchers
in the world and you will have to make good estimates. But there are
direct relationships between the number of researchers, the number of
articles published annually and the number of active peer-reviewed
journals. Good sources for methodology are my thesis 
-http://arif.jinhabrothers.com/sites/arif.jinhabrothers.com/files/aj.pdf (defend
ed and submitted this fall)

- Article 50 million 
-http://www.mendeley.com/research/article-50-million-estimate-number-scholarly-a
rticles-existence-6/

Methods and data are based chiefly on:

Bjork et al's studies on OA share growth 2006 to current

Mabe and Amin, Tenopir and King - works 1990s to early 2000s

Derek De Sallo Price - 1960s - the 'father of scientometrics.

- you can get the number of article from Bjork's methods and data and
mine.

- you can get the number of researchers from UN data but there is ratio of
researchers to publishing researchers, and publishing researchers publish
an average of 1 article per year, so if you can determine good estimate
for that ratio you are on your way. You have good data on growth rates of
researchers, articles and journals, but growth rates have increased
dramatically since 2000 as demonstrated in my thesis.  It got a bit
complex and I tried to sort it best I could in my thesis.

 

all the best,

 

Arif

 

 

 

- Original Message -

  From: Arthur Sal

{Disarmed} [GOAL] {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} {Disarmed} Open Access to Research Outputs - Materials?

[Arif Jinha]

Sridhar
are you on the a2k (access to knowledge) list? it’s not specific to those 
topics but is actually wider in scope looking across all issues related to 
intellectual property versus what some would call ‘the openness paradigm’.
arif

From: Sridhar Gutam 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:50 AM
To: GOAL@eprints.org 
Subject: {Disarmed} [GOAL] {Disarmed} Open Access to Research Outputs - 
Materials?

Dear All, 


I am aware that this group/forum is discussing about the Research Outputs - 
Scholarly Communications. But I want some to direct me to a forum which is 
discussion on Open Access to Publicly Funded Research Outputs - Materials like 
seeds, plants, genes, GMOs etc please.


Thanks & Regards
Sridhar
__
Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotech. (WIPO)
Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical 
Horticulture
Joint Secretary, Agricultural Research Service Scientists' Forum
Convener, Open Access India
Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
Google Scholar: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at 
"goo.gl". Do not trust this website: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in 
the website at "goo.gl". Do not trust this website: 
http://scholar.google.co.in/citations?hl=en&user=6W1MSSwJ
  




___
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: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!

[Arif Jinha]

s,
marketers, salespeople and the rest.  They are akin to brand-name
pharmaceutical companies who typically spend less than 20% of their funds on
research, and the rest on marketing and admin.  Let them change, or let them
fall. These firms, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, Blackwell-Synergy have the
most pointless websites on the internet.  Who would visit them, when the
article is inaccessible and there is no content of any merit.  They are
doing a disservice to journals.

I have made strides toward planning a new publishing firm.  We are starting
with the creative arts, but I am open to publishing journals.  I will treat
the journals, the readers, the authors and the Access Principle with
respect. If you are interested in my thesis, or in Article 50 million,
please see --.  I could be ready to publish journals by next summer, when
I've had some space from academia, so keep me in mind. And for goodness
sake, everyone needs to take a breather from the academy and breathe in the
world.  Don't take yourselves so seriously all the time.  Don't try to
dominate one another with intellect or money, but uplift and share the world
equitably instead. It is what the global youth are saying to the boomers.
It is a question of 'tone'.  I know mine will not sound right to some, but
I'm speaking about the energy of surging towards change and transformation
in the world.  It is how it is, and young people have struggled for the
respect of their mentors.  One thing we know though, is the web.  So, we are
going to take Open Access to another level.  But don't just wait and see,
bring the message of OA to grads and undergrads who will find it natural,
normal and obvious.  They will be the profs of the future.

My humble opinions, but let us talk with confidence about the future of OA
instead of dragging each other down.  No line by line attack will hold the 
youth back.
We will register our business in 2012, with indomitable spirit, will to love 
wisdom, and 100% commitment, we will change the world

"Occupy Publishing!"

Arif Jinha
http://arif.jinhabrothers.com
Chief Creative Officer - JBP Wakefield (coming in 2012, the year of the 
beginning)
MA Globalization and International Development, uOttawa.
011-819-459-1385
arif at jinhabrothers.com





- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Carroll" 
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!


> Dear Jennifer,
>
> Thanks for the news, but I'm afraid your press release is
> misleading and should be corrected.  You say that T&F is now publishing
> " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing
> arrangements this simply is not the case.  A fully open access journal
> is one that publishes on the web without delay *and* which gives readers
> the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that
> users provide proper attribution.
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.100
> 1210
>
> T&F's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access.
> Could you please explain why T&F needs to reserve substantial reuse
> rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of
> publication?
>
> If your response is that the article processing charge does not
> represent the full cost of publication, what charge would?  Why aren't
> authors given the option to purchase full open access?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Michael W. Carroll
> Professor of Law and Director,
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University, Washington College of Law
> 4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> (202) 274-4047 (voice)
> (202) 730-4756 (fax)
> vcard: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/mcarroll/vcard.vcf
>
> Research papers: http://works.bepress.com/michael_carroll/
> http://ssrn.com/author=330326
> blog: http://www.carrollogos.org/
> See also www.creativecommons.org
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of McMillan, Jennifer
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:46 AM
> Subject: [GOAL] Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Oxford, 16th December 2011
>
> The New Year sees the launch of an exciting range of Open Access options
> from Taylor & Francis via the Taylor & Francis Open program. This new
> initiative is designed to give authors and their sponsors flexibility
> and variety when they choose to publish research with Taylor & Francis.
>
> The Taylor & Francis Open program is a su

[GOAL] Re: Titanium Killer Apps and OA

[Arif Jinha]

3 Cheers for the Titanium Road.

My publishing company will mandate from the journal side the authors to make 
Green OA deposits for greater availabiility,  exposure to the journal name, for 
preservation (copies, copies, copies).  

Open access materials such as online journals and scholarly websites are 
particularly at risk of
disappearing. (Jootkandt )

Green OA repositories are not gauranteed against failure either, and therefore 
hard copy/journal copy/archive copy/preservation archive copy would be best, 
IMHO.  

There are 2 risks to the literary legacy of the Northern baby boom who grew up 
in the big science period.  The first is that scientific development of that 
era will be buried under copyright until 2100.  The second is that the 
literature will not be read or preserved, because vast majority is 3rd party 
transferred copyright to conglomerate private publishers whose economic outlook 
is now threatened by OA, these companies are potential ghosts unless they 
convert to OA.  A post-industrial society may well forget where it came from.  
This may haunt us.  

How will we liberate and preserve that literature, I wonder? I am interested in 
the entire corpus from 1665 being available, a global Alexandria.  Converted OA 
publishers should backdate their OA, and authors can use Titanium OA to release 
their own older papers to archives.  That would be most helpful

Arif Jinha 
- OA that is Green, Gold, Red (print production sales - CC license) and Black 
(no author-fee)
JBC Wakefield - a 2012 company
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stevan Harnad 
  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:01 PM
  Subject: [GOAL] Titanium Killer Apps and OA


  On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Arthur Sale  wrote:


I really don?t understand how Stevan manages to call the Titanium Road ?a 
technologically supercharged version of the Green Road?, but Stevan can explain 
that statement if he wishes.


  The Gold Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in an OA journal and 
the journal makes the paper accessible free for all online.


  The Green Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in any journal and, 
in addition, the author makes the paper accessible free for all online ("author 
self-archiving").


  The "Titanium Road" to OA consists of new user tools with which the author 
can make the article accessible free for all online ("author self-archiving").


  Hence the "Titanium Road" is merely a technologically enhanced version of the 
Green Road ("author self-archiving").


  There are only two roads to OA (free online access): The journal does it or 
the author does it.


 The more important issue is that I have failed to get across to him that 
the Titanium Road has nothing to do with researcher voluntarism.



  Volunteerism means that in order to make their papers OA, researchers have to 
do something that they are not currently doing, of their own accord, not 
because of an institutional or funder requirement.


  Using new tools, voluntarily, is volunteerism.


The Gold Road does, because unless the researcher is funded by the Wellcome 
Trust or its like, he or she is likely to have to volunteer to divert money 
from his or her research grant to pay the author-side fees. 



  You've missed the much more fundamental volunteer step in publishing in a 
Gold OA journal, Arthur: 


  Choosing to publish in a Gold OA journal rather than in a non-OA journal.

The Green Road also does, because the researcher has to volunteer to 
undertake unnatural extra work to deposit works in the institutional repository 
through a clunky interface.



  The volunteer step in Green OA self-archiving is: Choosing to self-archive.


  The "clunkiness" of the interface is a technological matter. Not everyone 
would agree that filling out a few obvious form-interface fields (login, 
password, author, title, journal, date, etc.) is so "clunky" or "unnatural" in 
a day when we are filling out online forms all the time. It's just a few 
minutes' worth of keystrokes.


  But my friend Arthur is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that the reason why 
over 80% of researchers are not voluntarily self-archiving today is because 
they find it too "clunky" to do the keystrokes.


  I wish it were that simple. But in fact there are at least 38 reasons 
researchers why do not voluntarily self-archive -- 
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries -- and their worry that 
doing so might be "clunky" is just one of them (and usually based on never even 
having tried it out).


  (But I do think that it is his implicit assumption that the real deterrent to 
OA is having to do too many keystrokes that makes Arthur think that a new 
technology has come along (the "Titanium Road") that authors will find so 
effortless, attracti

[GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

[Arif Jinha]

Arthur,

You're not going to be able to determine the exact number of researchers in the 
world and you will have to make good estimates. But there are direct 
relationships between the number of researchers, the number of articles 
published annually and the number of active peer-reviewed journals. Good 
sources for methodology are my thesis - 
http://arif.jinhabrothers.com/sites/arif.jinhabrothers.com/files/aj.pdf 
(defended and submitted this fall)
- Article 50 million - 
http://www.mendeley.com/research/article-50-million-estimate-number-scholarly-articles-existence-6/
Methods and data are based chiefly on:
Bjork et al's studies on OA share growth 2006 to current
Mabe and Amin, Tenopir and King - works 1990s to early 2000s
Derek De Sallo Price - 1960s - the 'father of scientometrics.
- you can get the number of article from Bjork's methods and data and mine.
- you can get the number of researchers from UN data but there is ratio of 
researchers to publishing researchers, and publishing researchers publish an 
average of 1 article per year, so if you can determine good estimate for that 
ratio you are on your way. You have good data on growth rates of researchers, 
articles and journals, but growth rates have increased dramatically since 2000 
as demonstrated in my thesis.  It got a bit complex and I tried to sort it best 
I could in my thesis.

all the best,

Arif



- Original Message - 
  From: Arthur Sale 
  To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
  Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:25 PM
  Subject: [GOAL] How many researchers are there?


  I am trying to get a rough estimate of the number of active researchers in 
the world. Unfortunately all the estimates seem to be as rough as the famous 
Drake equation for calculating the number of technological civilizations in the 
universe: in other words all the factors are extremely fuzzy.  I seek your 
help. My interest is that this is the number of people who need to adopt OA for 
us to have 100% OA. (Actually, we will approach that sooner, as the average 
publication has more than one author and we need only one to make it OA.

   

  To share some thinking, let me take Australia. In 2011 it had 35 universities 
and 29,226 academic staff with a PhD. Let me assume that this is the number of 
research active staff. The average per institution is 835, and this spans big 
universities down to small ones. Australia produces according to the OECD 2.5% 
of the world's research, so let's estimate the number of active researchers in 
the world (taking Australia as 'typical' of researchers) as 29226 / 0.025 = 
1,169,040 researchers in universities. Note that I have not counted 
non-university research organizations (they'll make a small difference) nor PhD 
students (there is usually a supervisor listed in the author list of any 
publication they produce).

   

  Let's take another tack. I have read the number of 10,000 research 
universities in the world bandied about. Let's regard 'research university' as 
equal to 'PhD-granting university'. If each of them have 1,000 research active 
staff on average, then that implies 1 x 1000 = 10,000,000 researchers.

   

  That narrows the estimate, rough as it is, to

   1.1M  < no of researchers < 10M

  I can live with this, as it is only one power of ten (order of magnitude) 
between the two bounds. The upper limit is around 0.2% of the world's 
population.

   

  Another tactic is to try to estimate the number of people whose name appeared 
in an author list in the last decade. Disambiguation of names rears its ugly 
head. This will also include many non-researchers in big labs, some of them 
will be dead, and there will be new researchers who have just not yet 
published, but I am looking for ball-park figures, not pinpoint accuracy. I 
haven't done this work yet.

   

  Can we do better than these estimates, in the face of different national 
styles?  It is even difficult to get one number for PhD granting universities 
in the US, and as for India and China @$#!

   

  Arthur Sale

  University of Tasmania, Australia

   

   



--


  ___
  GOAL mailing list
  GOAL at eprints.org
  http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120102/de7bbe58/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

[Arif Jinha]

! For me it's like the Blues Brothers - 'I'm 
on a mission from God'. lol. 

Now that I've finished my MA, I don't have to conform anymore and I can be 
myself again - mystic-philosopher-entrepreneur-occupier.  There is a lot of 
bitterness I need to transform into beauty, which is why I Occupy myself with 
the Creative Arts at the moment. Poetry, literature, music, visual art, 
photography, creative capitalism and mutual aid.  This was dashed off quickly, 
and I really ought to be on my zafu doing anapasati (that's Buddhist for 
'sitting around').  Do you think, though, that there will ever space in the 
future for the Bohemian at university - the Alan Watts type? I hope so.  
Otherwise, you'll just say to people 'I got this strange letter from this 
student who is probably mentally ill or on drugs'.  Ugggh. That is the Brave 
New World we are in.

If this stuff is less fun and interesting to read than my thesis, I've lost 
you! I wish you greatness in life, the depth of being human, and a good death.

'I believe that unconditional love and unarmed truth will have the final say in 
reality' - MLK.

all the best,

Arif

yo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Arthur Sale 
  To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
  Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:43 PM
  Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?


  Thank you Arif.  I have read the article this afternoon (3 January) and will 
download and look through your thesis asap.

   

  However I feel compelled to re-emphasize to the list that I am not looking 
for an estimate of how many articles are published annually, or ever. The first 
of those pieces of data is useful for estimating what I really want to know: 
how many active researchers are employed in year y? Particularly 2011. Of 
course, it will be useful to have article counts by discipline, however rough, 
because publication practices differ widely between disciplines. A publication 
in some disciplines is worth far less than in others, the number of 
authors/article differs widely, and journal prestige varies at least as much.

   

  There are many other confusing factors in estimates based on article 
production rates which I touched on in my reply to Stevan Harnad, not least of 
which is the frequency of publication of equally highly respected researchers. 
Some publish rarely (say once every three years), others produce multiple 
articles per year. There are distributions in all these things which we should 
understand. If I mention just one, the huge disparity between articles/title in 
ISI and non-ISI journals listed in your article (111 vs 26, from Bjork et al) 
must give anyone cause to reflect! That's over 4:1, too big to gloss over.

   

  I know of course that I cannot determine exactly the number of researchers in 
the world, any more than anyone else can determine exactly how many articles 
were written or published.  As an engineer in a previous career, absolute 
precision in these matters is not required, rather sufficient confidence that 
we are in the right ballpark. Anyway, thank you very much for your help and 
links, which I greatly appreciate.

   

  Arthur Sale

  University of Tasmania

   

   

  From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On 
Behalf Of Arif Jinha
  Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 5:26 AM
  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
  Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there?

   

  Arthur,

   

  You're not going to be able to determine the exact number of researchers in 
the world and you will have to make good estimates. But there are direct 
relationships between the number of researchers, the number of articles 
published annually and the number of active peer-reviewed journals. Good 
sources for methodology are my thesis - 
http://arif.jinhabrothers.com/sites/arif.jinhabrothers.com/files/aj.pdf 
(defended and submitted this fall)

  - Article 50 million - 
http://www.mendeley.com/research/article-50-million-estimate-number-scholarly-articles-existence-6/

  Methods and data are based chiefly on:

  Bjork et al's studies on OA share growth 2006 to current

  Mabe and Amin, Tenopir and King - works 1990s to early 2000s

  Derek De Sallo Price - 1960s - the 'father of scientometrics.

  - you can get the number of article from Bjork's methods and data and mine.

  - you can get the number of researchers from UN data but there is ratio of 
researchers to publishing researchers, and publishing researchers publish an 
average of 1 article per year, so if you can determine good estimate for that 
ratio you are on your way. You have good data on growth rates of researchers, 
articles and journals, but growth rates have increased dramatically since 2000 
as demonstrated in my thesis.  It got a bit complex and I tried to sort it best 
I could in my thesis.

   

  all the best,