Heather Morrison:
> If 10% of last year's revenue
> stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
> by 10%. OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
> departments, etc., should not support the publication charges.
[Bill Hjooker:}
While I have seen publishers cl
PLOS One at 4800 articles in 2009 will clearly be one of the largest journals,
only PHYS REV B (5782) and APPL PHYS LETT (5449) published more articles in
2008.
Other journals in the 'largest' category, with their 2008 article counts, are:
J APPL PHYS (4168)
PHYS REV LETT (3905)
J BIOL CH
** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
Fullly hyperlinked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/606-guid.html
Critique of: Romary, L & Armbruster, C. (2009) Beyond
Institutional Repositories.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf
Clarification: PLoS One is among the world's largest journals,
anticipating publication of about 4,800 articles in 2009 - it is not
THE largest journal, at least not yet.
If anyone has data about average annual output of the world's largest
journals, that would be most helpful. If PLoS One does b
I cannot find -- in Jan's explanation, below, of the nonlinear nature
of subscription journal pricing -- the response to the pair of points
I raised. So I will try to repeat them, in context:
(1) Yes, if and when subscriptions are all cancelled, and journals
have downsized to providing only the pe
Heather Morrison:
> If 10% of last year's revenue
> stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
> by 10%. OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
> departments, etc., should not support the publication charges.
While I have seen publishers claim that OA uptake
Two thoughts here 1) shouldn't an increase in the size of the journal be
factored into the discussion before making the 'double-dipping' charge and 2)
PLOS One has published ~6000 articles while the Journal of Biological Chemistry
(and probably several others) have published almost 10,000 articl
So it seems double-dipping unless it's honest? Perhaps it's honest
unless it's clearly double-dipping.
A very wide-spread misconception, on this list and elsewhere, is that
subscriptions somehow are priced linearly. That if 10% of the papers
are OA, and paid for on behalf or by the author, the sub
On 5-Jul-09, at 4:37 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
So it seems double-dipping unless it's honest? Perhaps it's honest
unless it's clearly double-dipping.
A very wide-spread misconception, on this list and elsewhere, is that
subscriptions somehow are priced linearly.
Comment:
Publisher revenue is inde
