Historical APC data from before the April upgrade

Historical OA APC data from the DOAJ website – reblogged from the DOAJ website and also copied below as not all of the data was copied.

The following is copied from the DOAJ News Service

In my post the other day, I promised to provide the APC information from the old site. Here it is as of today:

APC? Number of journals

N 6283 (67.6%)
Y 2999 (32.3%)
No info 9 (0.1%)
TOTAL 9291

Today there are 10,508 journals in DOAJ which leaves 1217 journals unaccounted for in the old APC data above. These are all journals that have been accepted into DOAJ under the new criteria. (We have accepted 1217 journals into DOAJ since March 2014.) We know from the new data that 364 of them do have APCs. Therefore 853 journals have NO APCs. Then we can work out the following TOTALS for ALL journals in DOAJ:

APC? Number of journals

N 7136 (67.9%)
Y 3363 (32%)
No info 9 (0.1%)
TOTAL 10,508

This also means that the APC facet on the new site should display:

APC? Number of journals

N 853 (8.1%)
Y 364 (3.5%)
No info 9291 (88.4%)
TOTAL 10,508

88.4% of all the journals in DOAJ have yet to reapply.

Cite as: Morrison, H. (2015). Historical APC data from before the April upgrade. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/15/historical-apc-data-from-before-the-april-upgrade/

DOAJ News Service

In my post the other day, I promised to provide the APC information from the old site. Here it is as of today:

APC?   Number of journals

N             6283 (67.6%)
Y             2999 (32.3%)
No info         9 (0.1%)
TOTAL   9291

Today there are 10,508 journals in DOAJ which leaves  1217 journals unaccounted for in the old APC data above. These are all journals that have been accepted into DOAJ under the new criteria. (We have accepted 1217 journals into DOAJ since March 2014.) We know from the new data that 364 of them do have APCs. Therefore 853 journals have NO APCs. Then we can work out the following TOTALS for ALL journals in DOAJ:

APC?   Number of journals

N             7136 (67.9%)
Y             3363 (32%)
No info        9 (0.1%)
TOTAL  10,508

This also means that the APC facet on the new site should display:

APC?   Number of journals

N             853…

View original post 21 more words

$1,300 per article or $25K / year in subsidy can generously support quality scholar-led OA journal publishing

Update May 14:the Austrian Science Fund published very similar numbers in 2012 – 20 articles per journal, €22,000 per year, €1,100 per article. See below for details and comments.
Second update May 14: see Stevan Harnad’s comments on the GOAL list Fair Gold vs. Fool’s Gold and my comments below.

This is one potential model for supporting small scholar-led open access journals, drawing on interviews and focus groups with editors. In brief, $1,300 per article (mixing CDN and USD, currently not too far off par) or a subsidy of about $25,000 per year can pay for the following for a small journal publishing 20 peer-reviewed articles per year:

  • $8,000 for a course release to hire a sessional to free up close to a full day per article for a senior academic to focus on the journal (e.g. academic editing, coordinating with the board)
  • $12,790 to hire a senior support staff for one day (7 hours) per week at a total of $35 / hour (including benefits) – tasks to include things like communicating with authors, copyediting, marketing and promotion which may include social media; this is over two full days per peer-reviewed article
  • $2,700 USD for top of the line OJS journal hosting (see the PKP site* for what’s included in Enterprise hosting)
  • $2,500 annually for various other costs (e.g. language editing, graphics)
  • $25,990 total. Assuming 20 articles per year, that’s $1,300 per article.

In addition to the modest costs, local advantages include the leadership opportunities, prestige and local profile-raising that come with leading a journal and local part-time job opportunities suitable for new or emerging scholars and the universities’ own graduates. A faculty with a few journals like this might consider combining some of the part-time positions into one full-time, i.e. 5 one-day support staff positions could add up to a full-time permanent job at a rate of $63,950 including benefits. This is a generous model. There are sessional positions at less than $8,000 per hour. The Canadian minimum wage is about $10 / hour, so the $35 / hour for support staff is a nice professional salary. OJS offers basic service at a third of what is budgeted here.

Austrian Science Fund 2012 data (thanks to Falk Reckling)

Reckling, Falk et al.. (2012). Initial funding for high-quality open access journals in the humanities and social sciences. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.16462

Excerpt

For the time after the three-year initial funding period, the median costs assumed were
approximately €22,000 per year. As the journals aim to publish some 20 articles each
year, the medium-term costs were estimated at €1,100 per article on the average.
Comments
  • As of today, these figures translate to $22,000 CDN per year or $1,500 CDN per article at the 1.3632 exchange rate according to the Bank of Canada daily currency converter.
  • The journal-level peer review process described is worth having a look at as a potential model for assuring quality in scholarly publishing, another benefit of the subsidy model. Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council also has a journal subsidy program with journal-level peer review as part of the application process. It would be interesting to hear about other examples of journal-level peer review.
  • The Austrian Science Fund is looking for journals with an international visibility. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Based on my interviews, funding tied to publishing local authors is too limiting for a number of journals. On the other hand, internationalization sometimes makes sense in the humanities and social sciences, but not always. There are some research areas in any discipline (sciences too) where important research topics are of necessity local, e.g. local history, geography, politics and culture. One suggestion for funders to be flexible to recognize the varying needs of different research communities.

Stevan Harnad’s comments on the GOAL list Fair Gold vs. Fool’s Gold : excerpts and comments.

To paraphrase Harnad: Fool’s Gold is paying for open access publication while still paying for the subscriptions system, while Fair Gold is what will emerge after all scholarly works are available open access through repositories. The sole immediate priority is mandating open access archiving. Comment: I absolutely agree that the immediate priority is open access policy and that all policy should be for green self-archiving, not gold open access publishing (with the exception of publishing organizations and publishing funders setting internal policies). I share Harnad’s concern with spending on open access publishing without cutting subscriptions. My perspective is that this takes money away from the research itself. Unlike Harnad, I do see value in a gradual transition as a collective learning process.

Harnad: re *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green OA.

The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
to the unrefereed draft.

Morrison: I agree that this is optimal. The Houghton / JISC study found the repository-peer-review overlay to be the most cost-effective option (by far) for UK open access (as compared with gold open access publishing or just repositories). The journal as a format was optimized for print (hence the bundling into mailable issues); whether journals will be needed in the future is far from clear. There are signs of convergence in repository and journal hosting software and services. For example, many library scholarly communication services provide both types of support. Bepress Digital Commons repository software advertises that “A Digital Commons repository showcases the breadth of scholarship produced at an institution – everything from faculty papers, student scholarship, and annual reports to open-access journals, conference proceedings, and monographs”. DOAJ uses the Open Access Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) to harvest content from open access journals.

Harnad *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:

The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will need to be a no-fault submission fee so that accepted authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)

Morrison: thank you. I know you have years of experience as an academic editor, these details will really help with this research.

Harnad: *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
over 2 days’ support per peer-reviewed article”*:

Copy-editing is either obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per accepted article.

Morrison: again, thank you. In retrospect I think I’ve overestimated the time for the support staff person. I am not sure that copyediting will be obsolete, but would agree that we should at least talk about this. There are probably areas where copyediting does not clearly benefit scholarship per se, for example re-writing to fit the style of a particular journal or translating the minor spelling and grammar differences of British/Canadian and American English. In situations where copyediting is beneficial, it makes no sense to include this in a blind review process. To minimize the risk of introducing errors, a copyeditor should work as closely with the author as possible. This is another area where it makes sense to work with a local copyeditor charging local rates in the local currency. It makes no sense, for example, for an author in the developing world to pay for copyediting services in the developed world if these services are available locally. Many authors can do their own copyediting and proofreading. If support services are provided to authors, local services that might be extended to help with grant and report writing might be the most useful, i.e. services that are institutionally rather than publisher based.

* Note that the main reason for using OJS / PKP in calculations is transparency of pricing. There are other hosting services and other ways to provide OJS hosting service.

This post is part of the resource requirements for small scholar-led open access publishing project.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2015). $1,300 per article or $25K / year in subsidy can generously support quality scholar-led OA journal publishing. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/

 

How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% – 77% price increase

by Jihane Salhab and Heather Morrison

The purpose of this post is to explain the impact of currency differences on article processing charges. Over the past few years megajournal PLOS ONE has been a good model in at least one way, maintaining the APC of $1,350 USD with no price increase over several years. However, if you happen to be paying in Euros, the PLOS ONE APC rose 14% from March to December of 2014, or 23% from March 20, 2014 to March 20, 2015. In South Africa, the price increased 58% in the same 3-year period; in Brazil, the price increase was 77%. Click on the following link to view the PLOS ONE price rises from March to December 2014 and from March 2012 to March 2015 in 8 currencies.

The PLOS ONE APC 8 curr

Any scholarly publishing system that involves cross-border payments, whether demand side (subscriptions / payments) or supply side (APC, journal hosting or other production services) has this disadvantage of pricing variability almost everywhere. In this case, US payers benefit from the flat fee, but anytime an APC is paid for a US scholar publishing in an international venue the same pricing variations based on currency will apply. In contrast, any scholarly publishing system that involves local payments (e.g. hosting of local journals, paying local copyeditors and proofreaders) has the advantage of relative pricing stability that comes with paying in the local currency.

This post is part of the open access article processing charges project.

Cite as:

Salhab, J., & Morrison, H. (2015). How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% – 77% price increase. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/

Market Economy and Social reality – A pragmatic view from a well known author

The pragmatics of having a market economy deal with social realities are highlighted in an interview with award winning author David Simon. Link to article including the interview: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/25/the-wire-creator-us-drug-laws

Why we need more than market economy theory to understand social stability.

Without commenting on David Simon’s conclusions on the American war on drugs, this interview highlights the importance of understanding social realities from a holist perspective. This has the effect of trying to identify little known influences on social reality. Knowledge commonly available through media outlets or public discourse does not necessarily shed light on the full consequences of using a market economy to regulate social interactions.

The critical view of Simon, seeing the war on drugs thrive along the poverty line, can be appreciated as a description of a reality where a segment of the American population has distanced itself from another. This distancing could be read as a consequence of criminal activity if Simon did not reverse this perception and present it with brutal pragmatism. Simon talks about how American society is splitting itself with the criminalization of the only working opportunity available to pockets of people left behind after the golden days of the American middle class.

We can see why, for Simon and political economists such as Karl Polanyi long before him, a market economy cannot be relied upon for social stability and in fact erodes the social fabric. Morality, as Simon describes it in the American context, is the expression of rejection from one group to another and I would argue, sign of the absence of moral obligation between those groups, that is, between two groups where one could be said to be privileged in relation to the other. In addition, a “pure form” of capitalism, says Simon, does not exist nor solve those issues.

Needless to say the marginalization and repression of a group by another is an all too common occurrence. What Simon does is to awaken the listener to the need to question market economy solutions to social problems. The lessons of this awakening are yet to come in his opinion, as the current system has not yet reached a point where the people has had enough. This was two years ago. Current events in Baltimore and elsewhere lead me to think we North Americans are living a sudden awakening to underlying social tensions in part resulting from market logics applied to social reality.

Questioning the free market notion is nothing new. On this blog, and in a recent publication (http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/1/1), the Sustaining Knowledge Commons team explores various Open access alternatives to the current publication system. By researching a transition of published scholarly works to a knowledge commons, the project may help avoid some of the pitfalls of a market economy for scholarly works such as the enclosure of knowledge or a segmented participation to the public good due to prohibitive publication costs.

Cite as:

Calvé-Genest, A. (2015). Market Economy and Social reality – A pragmatic view from a well known author. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/

From conference to newsletter to journal: a challenge to the emphasis on peer review

The reason for posting the following excerpt from one of the resource requirements interviews is intended to raise the question: is the current focus on the technical aspects of peer review out of touch with the communication / community aspects of scholarly communication of which formal publishing is arguably just one part?

This journal is one among the many thousands of small, scholar-led fully open access journals that would clearly meet all of the requirements for inclusion in DOAJ, including the peer review process. However, the peer-reviewed journal is just one portion of the rich history of the communication of this scholarly community, which flows from the conference(s) and early newsletter. Does it really make sense to separate the peer-reviewed bits from the larger history of communication among this scholarly community? I argue that it does not, that to fully understand the peer-reviewed literature it is important to know the historical context.

What about today’s emerging scholarly communities? I think I am seeing a narrow emphasis on the technical aspects of peer review, understandable in the context of open access debates but probably not optimal for scholarly communication and communities. This would be a good topic for further research, one that might appeal to historical researchers. There is probably a good deal of material within scholarly journals (there are often editorials about recent developments) and on the websites of scholarly societies. Current scholarly societies could be interesting to explore for researchers in anthropology or other social sciences.

In the words of the anonymized interviewee:

“we had a conference on this in [years several decades ago], at [our university], on the topic of we called it [our topic] and it was sort of a new field in [our discipline] and by the way we’re all [members of our discipline] it’s a multidisciplinary field now and I guess it always has been, but anyway we had this conference and people discovered that they’re breaking away from previously standard arguments / approaches [in our discipline] independently and in much the same direction and so it’s quite exciting to find that among the [less than 100] people that came to this conference that there was this commonality, and somebody said that we should keep in touch, and so we offered to set up this newsletter, and so we had a newsletter from [period of 5 years] but people began to send us manuscripts and people who didn’t need to publish in a refereed journal to get tenure sent us manuscripts and we began to get more and more articles and by [the end of the 5-year period] we said clearly there is a demand for the journal so we turned ourselves into a journal by getting ourselves an editorial board and establishing some procedures”.

This was a rich interview and content will be included in other posts. The purpose of this narrow excerpt is to focus on this challenge to the narrow focus on peer review.

This post is part of the resource requirements for small scholar-led open access publishing project.

Morrison, H. (2015). From conference to newsletter to journal: A challenge to the emphasis on peer review. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/

Wanting to be open does not mean we want to be open about everything

In planning interviews with editors of small scholar-led journals that either are, or would like to be, open access journals, I started off with the assumption that interviewees might want their interviews to be open, too, either as audio online or as transcripts. This would have been a deviation from the custom of confidential or anonymous interviews. Therefore, my approach was to offer the customary confidentiality / anonymity with the invitation to share the interview openly if desired by participants. None of the 8 interviewees to date has taken me up on the offer to make their interviews open. This makes sense. A journal might want to be open access, but some of the behind-the-scenes discussions around this decision might need to be kept private. There may be justifiable concerns about a revenue stream or supporting resource for the journal in the context of universities in tight financial situations looking for areas to cut. I’ll keep the invitation open, but for now will consider this a learning experience. In retrospect, this just makes sense. We can be advocates for both strong open access and strong privacy rights at the same time (I am very much for both); consider the intertwining of freedom of information and privacy.

This post is part of the Resource Requirements for Small Scholar-Led Open Access Publishing project.

If you are doing or thinking about doing research in this area, please let us know in the comments section.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2015). Wanting to be open does not mean we want to be open about everything. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/wanting-to-be-open-does-not-mean-we-want-to-be-open-about-everything/

Forthcoming research and an invitation to cooperate

Here is what we are up to, why, and plans for the near future, shared in the spirit of open research and by way of invitation to others working on overlapping research to share your own plans through comments on this post, so that we can combine efforts and all get to the goal of figuring out how to sustain open access as quickly as possible.

Resource requirements for small scholar-led open access journals

  • Interviews and focus groups with small scholar-led journals that either are, or want to become, open access, on the resources required. This is a qualitative-to-quantitative, idea-gathering and partial action research project. To date, 8 interviews conducted with journals from 4 countries, 1 focus group. Initial writing / blogspots will begin to appear this summer. More invitations to participate forthcoming soon. The primary reason for this project is a hypothesis that this sector is both the most cost-effective and the best option from the perspective of scholarship and the public interest. According to my analysis, the average revenue for OJS journals of $188 per article according to a survey by Edgars and Willinsky is about 4% of current global average spend per peer-reviewed journal article by academic libraries. This may not be enough to sustain these journals, but there is a lot of leeway between an average of $188 per article and the over $4,000 per article current spend. The purpose of this project is to figure out what these journals need to survive into the future; for example, what is the work, who does it (academics and/or support staff), journal hosting and sources of support.

Open access article processing charges

For me, the primary reason for this research stream is that in an online environment, cost-per-article is a rational measure of efficiency. The APC study is important in the macro-analysis of the potential for full transition to open access publishing, and worthy in its own right as a model used by a minority of journals and in an minority of disciplines. Studying APCs does not imply endorsement of the model. I have never paid an APC. Now that I am a researcher even the idea of diverting funding from research to pay APCs when so much money is still going into subscriptions is a concern. Institutional funding for APCs sounds like a great idea, but when universities are strapped for cash this kind of support could be reduced or dropped. The focus of this research is trends over time, particularly looking for the potential for the same dysfunctional market that has plagued scholarly publishing for decades will appear in APCs too.

For published work see the Publications and Presentations page.

In progress

  • Correlating subjects and APCs, based on May 2014 data (tendency to charge and how much) (Progress: see which subjects are charging the most? and this post with links to data and documentation.
  • Correlating content in DOAJ and APCs, based on May 2014 data (hypothesis: at least some types of journals, particularly commercial journals, are charging low or no fees initially with plans to initiate or raise fees once they become established). Example: Hindawi provides free publishing for a number of their journals on a rotating basis, even though it is clear that this is an APC model. Progress: a significant positive correlation has been found in the DOAJ data (i.e. journals with more content in DOAJ, if they use APCs, tend to have higher charges), however a check against the actual publications of the journals suggests that the DOAJ publication size only roughly corresponds with actual journal publication size. A check of DOAJ in May 2015 suggests that recent tech changes at DOAJ mean that this data is different today and perhaps even less reliable. A tech tips post for journal publishers contributing content to DOAJ has been released. The large size of the sample and the at least roughly comparable journal sizes is still worth reporting on. Currently I am pondering whether a follow-up study based on publisher website counts is necessary or worthwhile. If anyone has this data in a dataset that identifies journals (by title or ISSN) for cross-referencing purposes please let me know.
  • Varying impact of APC based on regional differences and currency fluctuations. Early work contrasts the Egpyt-based commercial OA APC success story Hindawi with the difficult financial situation for researchers at Egypt’s public universities.

Theoretical work

  • Exploring theoretical frameworks such as the commons and the gift economy for potential for ideas on how to sustain a global open access knowledge commons.


Forthcoming

  • May 2015: update of 2014 APC survey and longitudinal comparisons with data from 2014, 2013 and Bjork and Solomon’s 2010 study
  • Impact factor / APC correlation. Hypothesis: some types of journals, particularly commercial journals, will tend to increase charges disproportionately when they obtain an impact factor or increase in rankings.


A bit farther into the future

  • Case studies: library journal hosting services costs
  • Publisher survey(s): follow-up from interviews and focus groups
  • Revist macro analysis for potential for global transition to OA based on academic library budgets

Related projects

  • Creative Commons and Open Access Critique: a call to abandon the idea of CC-BY as default for open access and open the conversation about how best to address issues such as copyright, licensing, attribution and re-use
  • Updating 2010 survey of  Canadian libraries journals and university presses’ support for open access (with team leader Brent Roe, Don Taylor, Kumiko Vézina and Andrew Waller (in progress)

Some details about the open research approach and the reason for this invitation

One of the primary reasons for the existence of this blog is to support the project’s open research approach. Scholarly traditions tend to favor competition which gives researchers an incentive to keep what they are doing, and their data, secret until they are ready for formal publication, ideally before the competition so we can prove we are the best researchers.

Research in an area like open access article processing charges provides a good illustration of the potential advantages of collaborating rather than competing. Last May we downloaded the DOAJ metadata file and gathered in-depth quantitative and qualitative information about article processing charges for a large sample of the minority of journals using this approach. Our main dataset is available through the dataverse. We have other information gathered (e.g. full publisher APC lists including journals not in DOAJ and various DOAJ screen scrapes including content by year, publisher and provider). The reasons for not sharing all data openly have more to do with the learning curve of working with this much data (e.g. if we added all the data to one dataverse would that make it too difficult for people to find?) and the complexities of documentation. At last count we had well over 300 files of various types (mostly large spreadsheets) that we share among team members.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2015). Forthcoming research and an invitation to cooperate. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/07/forthcoming-research-and-an-invitation-to-cooperate/

Tech tip for DOAJ journals contributing article-level metadata

If your journal is contributing article-level metadata to DOAJ, you should probably check to see if the year of publication is being noted correctly. Based on data gathered last year, it appears that article counts by publication year by journal significantly under-represent the actual journal content, and based on a more recent cursory search of DOAJ and e-mail with DOAJ’s community manager Dom, it appears that a fairly recent change in metadata harvesting at DOAJ has increased the disparity.

Here is how to check for your journal:

From a DOAJ Advanced Search Screen

    Under journals vs. articles (left hand side of the screen) select Articles
    In the main search area across the top of the screen, use the drop-down menu that starts with Search all, select Article: Journal Title and enter the title of your journal as the search term
    On the left-hand side of the screen, expand Year of Publication

If the publication numbers by year in DOAJ do not match your journal’s publication numbers, check the DOAJ For Publishers page for information on what to do next. If you have any questions, please send them to DOAJ feedback. If you have tips for other publishers to resolve this issue, feel free to add a comment to this post. Feel free to add questions too, just note that I won’t be able to help.

To illustrate the scope of the problem

A DOAJ Advanced Search for “articles” with no search terms or limits with the Year of Publication expanded yields the following results for the past 4 years:

2015 (11)
2014 (37388)
2013 (183470)
2012 (211728)

It is far more likely that the nearly ten-fold decrease in publication numbers from 2012 to 2014 reflects the difference in ingestion of metadata than an actual decrease in publication numbers in DOAJ journals.

How did I notice this? I’ve been doing some analysis of content in DOAJ. As of last May, the number of articles identified via publication year appears to have been considerably understated for many journals. For example, a search of the World Journal of Gastroenterology for 2004 – 2013 yielded a total of 23,000 articles while the DOAJ results for this journal for these years was only 5,901. 1,047 articles were identified as published in 2013. A DOAJ search for World Journal of Gastroenterology today, almost exactly a year later, still yields exactly 5,901 articles total for this journal. The Year of Publication option on the left-hand side of the screen lists 2012 as the most recent year, while the results show articles published in 2013.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2015). Tech tip for DOAJ journals contributing article-level metadata. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/06/tech-tip-for-doaj-journals-contributing-article-level-metadata/

Heather at the Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar

Heather Morrison presented as an invited speaker on the topic of open access and creative commons licensing at the Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing in Washington, D.C. on April 16, 2015. Links to view a video of her presentation or download her slides can be found in the institutional repository (links to conference website previously posted are no longer available).

Morrison, H. (2015). Open access & copyright: Let’s start the conversation. Invited speaker. Presented at the Emerging trends in publishing seminar, Washington, D.C., sponsored by Allen Press. Retrieved from http://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/39972

Subject classification of DOAJ journals – data and documentation

Data for the subject classification of DOAJ journals is now available in the OA APC dataverse:

Morrison, Heather; Villamizar, César; Mondésir, Guinsly; Calvé-Genest, Alexis, 2019, “OA APC – Subject Analysis – Statistic Frequency & Coding”, https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/4WKTZF, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1

Documentation of the dataset:

Documentation – Subject Classification – OA APC – V1.3

Presentation of results:

Morrison, H., Villamizar, C., Salhab, J., & Calvé-Genest, A. (2015). Open access APC subject, content and impact factor correlational study. Presented at the Canadian Association of Information Studies annual conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Retrieved from https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/32440

Cite as:

Villamizar, C., Mondésir, G., Calvé-Genest, A., & Morrison, Heather. (2015). Edit Post ‹ Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://wordpress.com/post/sustainingknowledgecommons.org/334