27 Hindawi titles active in 2015, not found in 2016

The following 27 titles were available on the Hindawi website in 2015 but are not found on the publisher’s website as of 2016. As of May 2015, Hindawi listed about 408 active titles. This is a substantial journal attrition rate of 7% in less than a year. In theory, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) eliminates journals no longer active (more on DOAJ versus actual titles below). On surface, this seems like a good idea – but what about the many authors whose works become less visible because DOAJ has de-listed their journal? I do not think that this is a good practice for OA. DOAJ should have a means of indicating that a journal is inactive and continue to make journals and their content available and visible whenever possible. Until this is sorted out, this possibility is one of the reasons I argue that authors should always self-archive their work as open access, even when publishing in open access journals, and why funding agencies and universities should insist on archiving in open access policy.

Journals listed in Hindawi APC site in 2015 no longer visible as of February 2016

Advances in Anesthesiology
Advances in Biomaterials
Advances in Critical Care
Advances in Evolutionary Biology
Advances in Geology
Advances in Molecular Biology
Advances in Oceanography
Advances in Radiology
Advances in Regenerative Medicine
Conference Papers in Science
Developmental Biology Journal
International Journal of Chemical Physics
International Journal of Embryology
International Journal of Mineralogy
International Journal of Photochemistry
International Journal of Superconductivity
Journal of Aerodynamics
Journal of Calculus of Variations
Journal of Computational Environmental Sciences
Journal of Dental Surgery
Journal of Experimental Physics
Journal of Geochemistry
Journal of Mining
Journal of Probability
Journal of Viruses
Paleontology Journal
Structural Biology

More about DOAJ versus Hindawi OA journal lists

Our 2015 dataset (downloadable from the OA APC dataverse, described in MDPI’s Data journal) included 538 Hindawi titles. 130 of these were the then-obsolete ISRN series of journals. 538 – 130 = 408 journals, that’s how I calculated the total number of journals for 2015. The ISRN series, which has been obsolete for some time, was still included in the February 2016 DOAJ metadata. 28 titles are listed as current on the Hindawi website but were not indexed in DOAJ as of February 2016, of these 18 were on the Hindawi website with an APC as of 2015.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2016). 27 Hindawi titles active in 2015, not found in 2016. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/05/03/27-hindawi-titles-active-in-2015-not-found-in-2016/

DOAJ, Impact Factor and APCs

by César Villamizar and Heather Morrison

In May 2015 we conducted a pilot study correlating OA APCs and the journal impact factor, using data from 2010, 2013 and 2014. Here are some early results:

  • about 10% of the journals listed in JCR are DOAJ journals
  • over 10% of the journals listed in DOAJ have an impact factor
  • about 40% of the DOAJ IF journals had an APC as of May 2015 (estimate; higher than overall journals with APC)
  • average APC of IF journals in 2014 more than double overall average APC ($1,948 as compared with overall average of $964)
  • average APCs of IF journals increased by 7% in a 5-month period from 2013 to 2014 and by 16% from 2010 to 2014
  • over 80% of APC / IF journals increased price by 6% or more in a 5-month period from December 2013 to May 2014
  • about 20% of APC / IF journals increased price by 10% or more in a 5-month period from December 2013 to May 2014
  • 7% of APC / IF journals increased price by 20% or more in a 5-month period from December 2013 to May 2014

Conclusion: about 10% of DOAJ journals have impact factors, and about 10% of impact factor journals are DOAJ journals. Open access journals (or some OA journals) using the APC business model may be exploiting impact factor status as a means to raise prices. Further investigation warranted.

Details

As of May 3, 2015, Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports (JCR) listed 11,619 journals with impact factor (IF). Of these, 1,146 are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). As of May 15, 2015, 10,532 journals were listed in DOAJ. This means that 9.8% of the titles listed in JCR are DOAJ titles, and 10.8% of DOAJ journals have an IF.

The pilot involved selecting half of the DOAJ journals with an IF (572 journals from both sciences and social sciences, selected alphabetically abbreviated title A – J Otolaryngol-Head and looking up the quartile and subject ranking. Of these titles, 169 were included in the May 2014 OA APC sample. For 126 journals data was available for both December 2013 and May 2014, the basis of the 2013-2014 calculations. Assuming that the portion of APC-charging journals would be the same for non-sampled journals, this would result in an estimate of 229 journals with IF and APC, 40% of the total. This is higher than the 26% of journals with APCs as of May 2014.

Stats of the 572 in DOAJ with impact factor (pilot):

  • 42.1% of the journals are in the quartile four (Q4), 27.2% of the journals are in the quartile three (Q4), 18.9% of the journals are in the quartile two (Q2), and 11.8% of the journals are in the quartile one (Q1)
    • 69% of the journals are in the Q4 and Q3
    • 31% of the journals are in the Q2 and Q1

DOAJIFquartile

 

  • Out of the 572 journals,
    • APC data by year
      • 2010 B&S : 176
      • Dec 2013 SKC : 129
      • May 2014 SKC : 169
  • We have 126 journals with APC information collected in Dec 2013 SKC and May 2014 SKC
  • We have 110 journals with APC information collected in 2010 S&B,Dec 2013 SKC and May 2014 SKC.

Stats of the 126 journals with APC Data (Dec 2013 SKC – May 2014 SKC)

  • 17,5% of the journals are in the quartile four (Q4), 38,1% of the journals are in the quartile three (Q4), 30,2% of the journals are in the quartile two (Q2), and 14,3% of the journals are in the quartile one (Q1)
    • 55,5% of the journals are in the Q4 and Q3
    • 45,5% of the journals are in the Q2 and Q1

DOAJIFallapcs

  • 3,2% of the journals decreased their APC (this is 3 journals; 2 are Hindawi journals. Hindawi as of May 2014 had a practice of rotating free publication. These 2 journals had APCs of 0 in 2014, but have substantial prices today (Bioinorganic Chemistry Applications is now $1,250 and International Journal of Genomics is now $1,500). The third journal with an apparent small price decrease, Experimental Animals, from $200 to $198 USD is likely an anomaly due to a weakening of the main currency, the Japanese Yen, with respect to the USD. In other words, all price decreases appear to be temporary anomalies.
  • 14,3% of the journals maintained their APC
  • 82,5% of the journals increased their APC at least 6.4%
    • 3,1% increased their APC between 6,4% and 7,49%
    • 54,8% increased their APC between 7,5% and 9,49%
    • 15% increased their APC between 9,5% and 13,9%
    • 7% increased their APC between 14% and 25%

The following figure reflects the 123 titles remaining after removing the 2 anomalous 0 APC titles.

DOAJIFAPC201314increasewhite

The following chart illustrates the percentage of journals by price increase from 2013 to 2014.

DOAJIFAPC201314percentincrease

APC 2010 USD APC 2013 USD APC 2014 USD
Max 2,165 2,420 2,650
Min 500
Min greater than zero 500 200 198
Median 1,825 2,060 2,215
Mode 1,825 2,060 2,215
Average 1,637 1,808 1,948
  • Medicine and Biology and Life Science represents 81,1% of the journals categories susceptible to charge APCs
    • 3% of the journals in these two categories increased their APC at least in 6.4%
    • 9% increased their APC between 6.4% and 7.49%
    • 1% increased their APC between 7.5% and 9.49%
    • 50% increased their APC between 9.5% and 13.9%
    • 8% increased their APC between 14% and 25%

Note and references

2010 data courtesy of Solomon, D.J. & Björk, B.C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. The Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012. Retrieved May 31, 2015 from http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/ (data unpublished)

2014 data: Morrison H, Salhab J, Calvé-Genest A, Horava T. Open Access Article Processing Charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014. Publications. 2015; 3(1):1-16. http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/1/1

Cite as:

Villamizar, C., & Morrison, H. (2015). DOAJ, Impact Factor and APCs. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/06/01/doaj-impact-factor-and-apcs/

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

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/

How to download and work with DOAJ journal metadata without messing up the characters in the journal titles and publisher names.

Background: the file containing the sample for May 2014 has incorrect characters which are very difficult to fix because we did not contemplate how to download and open the csv files in the right way.

These are the most important steps to download and work with DOAJ journal metadata without messing up the characters in the journal titles and publisher names:

  • Go to DOAJ and download metadata
  • Save the CSV file on your computer WITHOUT opening it
  • If you’re using a spreadsheet package, first open the application (e.g. Excel or LibreOffice Calc) and then IMPORT the CSV file into the application.

The following is one example of how you can import and work with the file without messing up the characters using Excel 2013.

  • Open Excel and click on the “Data” menu option.
  • Click on the “From Text” icon.
  • Browse the location of the CSV file, and then click on the “Import” button.
  • The Text Import Wizard will prompt, showing Step 1 of 3.
  • Choose “Delimited” on data type.
  • Select the character set as “65001: Unicode (UTF-8)”
  • Click on the “Next” button to display Step 2 of 3.
  • Select the “Comma” character.
  • Click on the Next button to display Step 3 of 3.
  • Choose the appropriate data format for each column
  • Click on the “Finish” button to complete importing your data into MS Excel.
  • Save the file in MS Excel format WITH ANOTHER NAME, ensuring that you preserve a copy of the original CSV file for further verifications.

If you use open software like LibreOffice Calc, you can import and work with the file and save it again without messing up the characters using Excel 2013.

Import file into LibreOffice Calc.

  • Open the application (LibreOffice Calc).
  • Click on “File – Open”.
  • Browse the location of the CSV file and click on the “Open” button.
  • An import file dialog box will prompt
  • Select the character set “Unicode (UTF-8)”
  • On the Separator Options, select “Comma”
  • Choose the appropriate data format for each column
  • Click on the “Finish” button to complete importing your data into LibreOffice Calc.
  • Save the file in LibreOffice Calc format, WITH ANOTHER NAME, ensuring that you preserve a copy of the original CSV file

Now you can work and modify the file, adding more information if needed using any spreadsheet software. However, if you work with Excel and need to save the file again in CSV format, you need to follow another process or you end up messing up the characters in the journal titles and publisher names, or special characters added in another columns.

The easiest way to do this is to follow these steps:

  • Open the Excel file using LibreOffice Calc
  • Choose File – Save as – Text CSV
  • An export file dialog box will prompt
  • Select the character set “Unicode (UTF-8)” and click Ok

If you know other methods or alternatives, please share them with us.

Cite as: Villamizar, C. (2015). How to download and work with DOAJ journal metadata without messing up the characters in the journal titles and publisher names. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/03/12/how-to-download-and-work-with-doaj-journal-metadata-without-messing-up-the-characters-in-the-journal-titles-and-publisher-names/

Genome Biology: not listed in DOAJ

Genome Biology, a well-established open access journal published by BioMedCentral with an impressive impact factor, is not listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).  Presumably this is because one of DOAJ’s criteria for inclusion is “All content freely available”. In Genome Biology, the research articles are open access, but subscriptions are required for other content. Genome Medicine uses the same approach and is similarly not listed in DOAJ.

This is just one illustration of a methodological conundrum for the open access article processing fee research project. We are using DOAJ as the main source list for open access journals, however the DOAJ title lists for open access publishers using OA APCs do not quite match the publishers’ own lists, at least not the Hindawi and BioMedCentral title lists. In some cases this is likely due to recent changes at the publisher (new journals, older journals that have ceased to exist, changed titles or merged). However, the omission of a journal like Genome Biology is significant for this type of research because it is well-established, with an impact factor and a relatively expensive APC.

Traditional journals that use a hybrid approach (some articles open access while the journal as a whole continues as a subscription journal) are appropriately described as “double-dipping” by the open access movement. Are we giving publishers like Springer (the owner of BioMedCentral) an unwarranted free ride for doing exactly the same thing? Considering the high cost of publishing in Genome Biology or Genome Medicine ($2,835 US), this may be a question worth asking.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2014). Genome Biology: Not listed in DOAJ. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2014/08/01/genome-biology-not-listed-in-doaj/