Hindawi: comparaison 2016-2017

 

L’éditeur Hindawi avait en 2016, 406 titres de revues alors qu’en 2017 il y a 339 titres de revues.Il y avait donc 76 revues qui était disponible en 2016 mais qui ne le sont plus en 2017. Cela représente près de 25 % et inclus une série complète

La moyenne des frais de publication en 2016 est de 802$ .Il y a cinq revues qui n’ont aucun frais publication en 2016 et pour la majorité des journaux les frais publication sont de 600 $ par article.

Tableau de la distribution des prix pour 2016

Screen Shot 2017-04-22 at 4.48.31 PM

En 2017 on remarque une augmentation de la moyenne des prix à 922$. Cette moyenne prend compte des nouvelles revues pour l’année de 2017 qui sont au nombre de 9. Cette année, la majorité des revues possèdent des frais de publication de 1000$ par article.

Screen Shot 2017-04-22 at 4.50.48 PM

La moyenne des titres qui sont restés inchangés entre 2016 et 2017 est de 910 $ et en moyenne, il y a une hausse de 0.13% des frais de publication.

Des revues qui existaient en 2016 et 2017, on peut remarquer que des 330 revues, il y a 65 revues dont les frais de publication ont diminués. Il y a donc près de 20% des publications d’Hindawi. De plus on remarque pour une grande majorité des revues les frais sont restés les mêmes. Soit 41% des titres n’ont pas augmenté. Avec ces chiffres nous pouvons déduire que seulement 39% de titres de cet éditeur ont subit une augmentation de leurs frais de publication.

Screen Shot 2017-04-22 at 4.54.55 PM.png

En conclusion, les prix pour cette maison d’édition ont dans la majorité des cas resté les même et que certaines revues ont même baissé leur frais de publication. Cependant, il faut noter le fais de certaine publication ont tout de meme augmenté puisque le mode en 2016 était de 600$ et qu’il est  passée à 1000$. Le mode est la valeur la plus réprésenter de la répartition. Dans l’ensemble,les prix reste stable.

Fréquences des pays et des devises dans: OA 2016 Main Publishers

Fréquences par pays

Cet article est le résultat de nos recherches dans la base de données 2016 OA Main DOAJ. Notre objectif est de présenter l’apport au niveau mondial et africain. 125 pays ont fourni 12037 revues. La contribution africaine est de 18 pays africains avec 235 revues. Nous avons calculé la fréquence et le pourcentage que représente chaque pays dans cette base de données. Nous avons aussi analysé les tendances des devises et les frais de publication qui ont été utilisées. De façon aléatoire, nous avons divisé les pays en 4 séries pour faciliter nos analyses. La première série est composée de 29 pays, la deuxième 30, la troisième 29, la quatrième 37. Trois pays arrivent en tête des fréquences (Brazil-1059 ; United States-1043 ; United Kingdom-749). Les plus faibles fréquences apparaissent une seule fois dans la série 1.

Les tableaux et les graphiques ci-dessous présentent les fréquences et le taux de pourcentage de chaque pays.

doc 1

doc1-1

seri2

seri 2

doc3-1

doc 3

doc4-1

doc 4

Frais de publication

Deux séries de frais de publication présentent notre analyse sur les dénominations attribuées aux frais de publication. Une première est composée de 7 catégories : No cost found, No publication fee, Title not Found, APPC, F(WC), cost not specified et Publication fee. La deuxième est composée de 11 catégories. Cette deuxième série regroupe les qualifications que des chercheurs qui ont exprimé lors de leur analyse de la base de données. Vu que certaines catégories répondent aux mêmes appellations que d’autres, nous avons décidé de les fusionner. Ainsi : See next phase of journal et predecessor now npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine sont fusionnées pour donner : predecessor now npj Primary… Formula based on work, cannot read (Chinese), cannot confirm due to language (Chinese only), conflicting information et coming in 2017 sont fusionnée pour donner Autres. Ceased publication in May 2016, ceased publication in 2014, discontinued, et active 2015 donne Title not found. Enfin, No publication fee et APPC, F(WC) pour donner No publication fee. Résultat, No Publication fee est le plus fréquent avec 7785 soit 65%. Publication fee obtient 27% avec 3260 fréquences.

Le tableau et le graphique ci-dessous dressent la liste de ces tendances.

Capture d_écran 2017-04-19 à 23.18.35

Tendance des Devises

Notre analyse montre aussi que la devise des États-Unis (USD) est la plus fréquente avec 1997 fois citées. Elle est suivie de celle de la Grande Bretagne (GBP) 415 fois. Nous avons trouvé 40 revues qui ont des frais de publication mais dont la devise n’y figure pas.

devies 1

devise-12

II-African Journals In OA Main 2016

Nombre de pays et journaux

Nous avons compté 18 pays africains dans la base de données de OA Main 2016. L’Afrique du sud possède 120 journaux, le Nigeria, 27 et l’Egypt 27. Nous avons exclu toutes les revues concernant l’Égypte dans la revue Hindawi ne sont pas comprises, parce qu’elles ont une origine autre que l’Afrique.

Les détails dans le tableau et le graphique ci-dessous.

devis 1

Les fréquences des pays qui sont cités sont répertoriées dans le tableau et le graphique ci-dessous.

africa1-2

Fréquences APC Afrique

Sur un total de citations de 221 fois. Les fréquences des frais de publication sont les suivantes : No publication fee est cité 113 fois soit 51%. APC fee est cité de son côté 68 fois soit 31%. Title no found 8 soit 3,5%, No cost found 23 soit 10% wt APPC 9 soit 4%.

Le tableau et la graphique ci-dessous décrivent les tendances.

apc afric 1

III-Conclusion

L’examen de la base de données de OA 2016 Main Publishers nous a montré que 125 pays on fourni 12037 revues. Le Brésil est 1059 fois plus fréquent et les États-Unis 1043 fois. L’Afrique a contribué pour 235 revues. Onze catégories de dénominations de frais de publication ont été identifiées. La devise des États-Unis (USD) y est citée 1997 fois. L’Afrique du sud totalise 104 fréquences et sa devise ZAR 30 fois. La participation de l’Afrique pour les revues sans frais est de 51% par rapport à sa contribution totale.

PDF de L’article

Frenquencies In OA 2016 Main Publishers

Taylor & Francis bought Co-Action Publishing

In the last year, Taylor and Francis announced that Co-Action Publishing will be part of their portfolio for 2017.

Caroline Sutton, co-founder of Co-Action Publishing is now the Head of Open Scholarship Development in Taylor & Francis Group. It appears that the journals that were published by Co-Action Publishing are now merged in Taylor & Francis’ brand and not as a separate imprint.

According to Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Co-Action Publishing was publishing 34 journals and more than 2000 open access articles per year.

References :

http://taylorandfrancis.com/co-action-message

http://oaspa.org/member/co-action-publishing/

2016 OA APC longitudinal study data and documentation: now published

Now published in Data: http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/2/2/13

Morrison, H.; Brutus, W.; Dumais-Desrosiers, M.; Kakou, T.L.; Laprade, K.; Merhi, S.; Ouerghi, A.; Salhab, J.; Volkanova, V.; Wheatley, S. Open Access Article Processing Charges (OA APC) Longitudinal Study 2016 Dataset. Data 2017, 2, 13. doi:10.3390/data2020013

Abstract

This article documents Open access article processing charges (OA APC) Main 2016. This dataset was developed as part of a longitudinal study of the minority (about a third) of the fully open access journals that use the APC business model. APC data for 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 are primarily obtained from publishers’ websites, a process that requires analytic skill as many publishers offer a diverse range of pricing options, including multiple currencies and/or differential pricing by article type, length or work involved and/or discounts for author contributions to editing or the society publisher or based on perceived ability to pay. This version of the dataset draws heavily from the work of Walt Crawford, and includes his entire 2011–2015 dataset; in particular Crawford’s work has made it possible to confirm “no publication fee” status for a large number of journals. DOAJ metadata for 2016 and 2014 and a 2010 APC sample provided by Solomon and Björk are part of the dataset. Inclusion of DOAJ metadata and article counts by Crawford and Solomon and Björk provide a basis for studies of factors such as journal size, subject, or country of publication that might be worth testing for correlation with business model and/or APC size.

To download data: doi:10.5683/SP/KC2NBV

Preprint and initial data version previously announced here.

Errata

As we continue to gather data for the 2017 longitudinal study and conduct additional quality assurance processes in the course of data analysis any errata discovered in the data will be noted here and corrected.

A version 2 of the dataset is now available in the OA APC dataverse. This version corrects AOSIS publication fee data. APPC data (article page processing charges) were incorrectly identified as APCs in 2015 and 2016. The errors would have resulted in incorrect data suggesting a significant price reduction since 2010. The corrected data will result in slight changes in the numbers and percentage of journals with APCs and APPCs in 2016.

 

2010 – 2016 APC journals comparison: attrition rate

In brief: our evidence suggests an average attrition rate of APC-charging journals of approximately 1.5% – 2% per year, depending on whether one includes or excludes the anomaly of a particular business model of a new publisher (Bentham Open) starting off with a very large number of journals and retaining only successful titles.

Abstract

Solomon and Björk (2012) conducted a survey in 2010 of APCs based on a sample of 1,090 APC-charging journals that were listed in DOAJ at that time. Not all APC-charging journals in DOAJ as of 2010 were included; no journals listed in DOAJ as of 2010 that did not charge APCs were included. We compared this data with our 2016 APC survey (Morrison et al, 2017).

Of the 1,090 titles, 32 titles were published by publishers that have never been included in our longitudinal APC survey. Our survey is not limited to DOAJ, but is limited to fully OA journals that either have been listed in DOAJ in 2014, 2015, or 2016, or whose publishers have been listed in DOAJ in 2014, 2015, or 2016. Excluding the 32 titles, of the 1,058 titles studied, 849 are confirmed active in 2016, and 209 are discontinued or presumed discontinued for an attrition rate of 20% from 2010 – 2016. However it is important to note that Bentham Open is a significant anomaly, accounting for 123 of the discontinued titles from 2010 – 2016 and 4 of the discontinued titles from 2015 – 2016. Excluding these journals, the attrition rate is 82 / 935 journals or 9% over the 6 year period.

The attrition rate for 2015 – 2016 for journals studied in 2010 is 2%, or 19 of the 868 journals studied in 2015 found to be inactive in 2016. Note that 4 of these journals (25% of the total) are Bentham Open journals.

The Bentham Open anomaly reflects a particular business practice. This fairly new publisher has taken the approach of creating a large number of journals at once and appears to be retaining titles that are successful. That is, Bentham Open’s high numbers of discontinued journals need to be assessed in light of the total number of journals. In 2010, Bentham Open accounted for 211 of the 1,090 journals studied. Of these, 84 journals were active in 2016. In other words, the number of discontinued journals does not necessarily reflect an unsuccessful publisher.

In conclusion, the evidence appears to suggest an average attrition rate of about 1.5% – 2% of APC charging journals sampled, depending on whether we include or exclude the anomaly of a publisher model of starting with a large number of journals on speculation and retaining only successful titles.

Details

2010 to 2016 comparison attrition

References

Morrison, Heather; Brutus, Widlyne; Dumais-Desrosier, Myriam; Laprade, Katherine; Merhi, Salah; Ouerghi, Arbia; Salhab, Jihane; Volkanova, Victoria; Wheatley, Sara, 2017, “Open access article processing charges 2016”, doi:10.5683/SP/KC2NBV, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V2

Solomon, D. J. & Björk, B.-C. (2012) A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63, 1485–1495. Available online: http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf

APCs in DOAJ 2017: summary of 3 studies

The DOAJ application form requests information from journals and publishers about article processing charges: whether or not there are charges, if yes the amount and currency, and a URL for more information. Is DOAJ APC data sufficient for the purposes of our longitudinal study on APC charges? In brief, we compared the APCs on publisher website for 3 publishers and conclude that no, DOAJ APC is not sufficient. There are significant differences between APC data on the websites of publishers Hindawi, MDPI, and Taylor & Francis. Conclusion: APC details in DOAJ are not sufficient for the longitudinal study of APC.

Details in brief and links to substantive posts

We used the DOAJ metadata as of Jan. 31, 2017 (our DOAJ metadata set for the 2017 APC study) for these studies.

Widlyne Brutus compared journal and APC data for Hindawi on the Hindawi website and in DOAJ – not an easy task as the title lists in DOAJ and on the Hindawi website are quite different. DOAJ includes titles that Hindawi no longer publishes (a good practice but this makes research a challenge), but not all of the titles that Hindawi currently does publish. Hindawi titles have a high rate of APC listings in DOAJ, but only 9% of the titles have the same price in DOAJ and on the publisher’s website. 144 titles have higher prices on the publisher’s website, while 45 have a lower price on the publisher’s website. Details: https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/03/14/hindawi-apc-le-site-web-dhindawi-versu-le-repertoire-du-doaj/

Arbia Ouerghi found that 107 MDPI titles listed in DOAJ have an APC according to the MDPI website. DOAJ has APC data for only 21 of these journals, and only 3 have the same price on the MDPI website and in DOAJ. APCs on the MDPI website are higher than those listed in DOAJ. Details: https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/03/02/comparaison-doaj-et-mdpi-titres-et-apc/

Katherine Laprade found 150 fully OA titles on the Taylor and Francis website. 77% of these titles have an APC according to the Taylor & Francis website, but only 1% have an APC listed in DOAJ. Of these titles, 54% have a different amount in DOAJ as compared with the publisher’s website. https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/03/28/taylor-francis-2017-data/

Comment (Heather Morrison): the question about whether journals charge an APC or not is a useful one, however the answer based on our research is more complex than a simple yes / no. DOAJ used to have a “conditional” charges option that I recommend re-instating. As we noted in 2014 (Morrison et al, 2015), the vast majority of fully OA journals (over 90%) have variations in pricing based on such factors as the status of the author (society member, editing contributions to the journal, location, perceived ability to pay), and the nature of the work (length, quality, type of article). A single flat-fee approach to APC does exist but is not that common. Collecting specific APC information and keeping it up to date will depend on publishers updating DOAJ every time there is a price change. It seems likely that DOAJ’s APC information will become more and more outdated over time. The yes / no / conditional information and link to where to find the information seem likely to be stable and useful, but DOAJ and its user community might want to reconsider the costs and benefits of capturing specific APC amounts.

Reference

Morrison, H.; Salhab, J.; Calvé-Genest, A.; Horava, T. Open Access Article Processing Charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014. Publications 2015, 3, 1-16. doi:10.3390/publications3010001