Comparaison DOAJ et MDPI : Titres et APC

Posted by

0

Résumé :

En comparant les frais de publication mentionnés par DOAJ et ceux de l’éditeur lui-même (MDPI) nous avons remarqué quelques différences : Selon le site MDPI, environ 175 revues en libre accès sont listées contre seulement 146 dans DOAJ.

Par ailleurs, parmi la liste MDPI, 107 revues exigent des frais de publication alors que DOAJ n’en mentionne que 21. Aussi, aucun des frais de publication DOAJ n’est inférieur à celui mentionné par MDPI. Seulement 3 revues ont les mêmes frais. Dans 31 des cas étudiés, les frais MDPI sont plus élevés de 50% et plus que ceux fournis par DOAJ.  Applied Science, l’exemple de différence le plus frappant, passe de 500 CHF en DOAJ à 1200 CHF sur le site MDPI.

Objectif :

Cette étude se propose de comparer la liste des revues répertoriées par DOAJ versus l’éditeur lui-même ; MDPI en l’occurrence; ainsi que la différence des frais de publication mentionnés.

Méthodologie :

L’échantillon est constitué de 107 revues de l’éditeur MDPI.

Nous avons commencé par repêcher les frais de publication sur le site de DOAJ en janvier 2017. Par la suite, nous avons cherché les frais de publication pour ces mêmes revues sur le site de l’éditeur lui-même, MDPI en l’occurrence et ce en février 2017.

Les données sont consignées sur un document Excel pour pouvoir par la suite calculer la différence des APC.

Résultats

  1. Selon le site MDPI, environ 175 revues en libre accès sont listées ; seulement 147 de ces revues sont recensées en DOAJ.

En comparant les APC (frais de publication par l’auteur) des revues répertoriées, nous constatons que DOAJ ne recense pas (ou la liste n’est pas a  jour)toutes les revues en accès libre de l’éditeur MDPI ; seulement 147 sur 175 titres y sont listées. Les 28 revues manquantes a l’appel sont :

  1. Big Data and Cognitive Computing
  2. Biomimetics
  3. ChemEngineering
  4. Condensed Matter
  5. Cryptography
  6. Data
  7. Designs
  8. Drones
  9. Epigenomes
  10. Fermentation
  11. Fishes
  12. Genealogy
  13. Horticulturae
  14. Infrastructures
  15. Instruments
  16. International Journal of Turbomachine Propulsion and Power
  17. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
  18. Languages
  19. Logistics
  20. Magnetochemistry
  21. Mathematical and Computational Applications
  22. Multimodal Technologies and Interactions
  23. Philosophies
  24. Recycling
  25. Scientia Pharmaceutica
  26. Sinusitis
  27. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
  28. Vision

Il est à noter que la majorité de ces titres sont de nouvelles revues 2017. Une seule revue « Chromatography » est listée dans DOAJ mais pas sur le site MDPI.

2. Parmi la liste MDPI, 107 revues exigent des frais de publication (APC) seulement 21 ont des frais de publication selon DOAJ (environ 20 %).

3. Pour ces 20 % des revues, aucun APC DOAJ n’est inférieur à celui mentionné par MDPI

En observant les APC fournis par les deux sites, nous remarquons qu’aucun des APC n’a diminué entre janvier 2017 et février 2017.  Seulement 3 desdites revues ont les mêmes frais de publication dans les deux répertoires (lignes vertes), ceci dit environ 86% des APC sont différents.

doaj_mdpi1

Cette augmentation des APC oscille entre 7% et 140 %. L’APC de la revue Applied Sciences est de 500 CHF selon DOAJ versus 1200 CHF selon MDPI.

slide1

4. Les APC fournis par MDPI sont plus élevés que ceux révélés par DOAJ. La différence atteint 50 % ou plus dans 31 % des cas. (revues en jaune et rouge )

mdpi_doaj2

 

Conclusion

En guise de conclusion, les observations ci-dessus nous amènent à se poser une question : Est-ce que l’information fournie par DOAJ est mise a jour?

Les chiffres obtenus démontrent une grande différence non seulement au niveau de la liste des revues en libre accès mais aussi au niveau de l’information fournie aux auteurs, les frais de publication en particulier.

Citation: Ouerghi, A. (2017). Comparaison DOAJ et MDPI: Titres et APC. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/03/02/comparaison-doaj-et-mdpi-titres-et-apc/

What do rankings tell us about higher education? Roundtable at the Peter Wall Centre, Vancouver May 2017

Posted by

0

May 13 – 17 I will be at a roundtable talking about rankings and higher education at the Peter Wall Centre, University of British Columbia. If you’re in Vancouver join us for one of the public events!

My approach to rankings is a critical one flowing from my theoretical perspective of irrational (or instrumental) rationality. In brief, we humans have a tendency to develop tools such as metrics to help us then become slaves to the tools. The old metrics (e.g. relying on high impact factor journals) are a barrier to productive change in scholarly communication; but will the new metrics be any better? What are your thoughts on university rankings? Comments are welcome.

Update December 2019: please see this book chapter preprint https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/39088 for my latest work on this topic, and watch for publication of this book by the University of Toronto Press anticipated in 2020.

OA APCs in 2016: average $840 USD, price skew at low end of range

Posted by

0

Here is another early result from the 2016 OA APC project. Of the 3,282 journals for which we have APC data, the average is $840 USD, and the media $600, illustrating a skew towards the low end of the price range. That is to say, half of the APCs are below $600. Excluding journals with an APC of $0 (journals that clearly  use the APC model but are currently free to publish in), the average is $877 USD. This year’s average of $840 is $124 or 13% less than the average of $964 USD the team found in 2014. This finding should be interpreted with caution as pricing for specific journals may have increased substantially, with the global total offset by large numbers of journals that are small, new, or from the developing world with relatively lower APCs. The 3,282 journals are all journals for which we were able to confirm pricing and specify a particular APC. Journals using article page processing charges (APPC) are considered as a separate model and not included in this analysis. The full dataset and documentation are in progress.

The following chart and table illustrate the pricing by bands of $500.

OA APCs by price range in 500s.jpg

APC in USD by range by 500’s # of journals
0 – 500 1,486
501 – 1,000 739
1,001 – 1,500 278
1,501 – 2,000 599
2,001 – 2,500 101
2,501 – 3,000 33
3,001 – 3,500 10
3,501 – 4,000 26
4,001 – 4,500 5
4,501 – 5,000 2
5,001 – 5,250 2
Total (missing one) 3,281

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2017). OA APCs in 2016: Average $840 USD, price skew at low end of range. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/02/22/oa-apcs-in-2016-average-840-usd-price-skew-at-low-end-of-range/

OA journals study 2016: 65% free-to-publish

Posted by

0

First result from the 2016 OA APC study: of the 12,060 journals for which we have data for 2016, 7,786 are free to publish in (noted free in Crawford (2016)*, plus no publication fee (SKC team)). 3,510 or 29% have a publication fee (APC or article page processing charge, cost specified or not specified). 404 or 3% were “cost not found”, i.e. we could not determine whether or not there is a cost associated with publishing. 343 or 3% were title not found (titles might be discontinued  or there could be technical issues with websites or connectivity). The 12,060 journals include journals whose publishers either are, or have been, listed in DOAJ, including titles from many publishers that are not currently listed in DOAJ. Dataset and detailed documentation are in progress.

oa-journals-fee-free-2016

* Thanks to Walt Crawford for providing open data for his Gold Open Access Jounals 2011-2016 dataset. Without this work it would not have been possible to expand the OA APC study from a sample of about a quarter of the journals listed in DOAJ to all of DOAJ and beyond. In particular, 7,040 of the journals confirmed as free to publish in are from Crawford’s work.

Crawford, W. (2016). Gold Open Access Journals 2011 – 2016. http://walt.lishost.org/2016/05/gold-open-access-journals-2011-2015-its-here/

Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2017). OA journals study 2016: 65% free-to-publish. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/02/22/oa-journals-study-2016-65-free-to-publish/

Various APC models: the case of conference proceedings

Posted by

0

By Victoria Volkanova and Heather Morrison

In a small, serendipitous, non-random sample of 170 Eastern European journals that were part of gathering data for the OA APCs project, we came across an interesting income model where the APCs are included in the annual conference registration. The journals seem to be closely associated with the scientific conferences organized by either universities or academic societies. Six (6) out of 170 journals (3.5%) use this model:

  1. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Republic of Srpska publishes a journal that is part of the International Scientific Conference “Contemporary Materials”. It charges no APC for articles, but 100 KM (Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark) per paper is included in the conference registration
  2. Wychowanie w Rodzinie/Family Upbringing *: APC is 100 EUR; for participants of the International Scientific Conference “Education in the Family” publication fee is part of the conference fee *Please note that on February 21st the journal’s website is no longer responding. We will verify the link in the next days and update the blog accordingly.
  3. Aerul şi Apa: Componente ale Mediului/Air and Water Components of the Environment: 100 EUR Conference Fee, includes APC for the conference proceedings
  4. Challenges of the Knowledge Society: 100 EUR Conference Fee, includes APC for the conference proceedings (CKS Journal)
  5. Proceedings of the International Conference Nanomaterials : Applications and Properties: 200 EUR Conference Fee, includes APC for conference proceedings
  6. Risk in Contemporary Economy: 300 RON Conference Fee (Romanian New Leu), includes APC for conference proceedings

The countries of origin of the journals are:

  • Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
  • Poland (1)
  • Romania (3)
  • Ukraine (1)

Their websites state that the fees for the publication in the conference proceedings or the journals are included in the conference registration. This is a model that looks like an APC but in fact isn’t. Other journals or conference organizers might consider this model as an alternative source of funding for scientific journals.

Cite as:

Volkanova, V., & Morrison, H. (2017). Various APC models: The case of conference proceedings. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2017/02/21/various-apc-models-the-case-of-conference-proceedings/

 

Elsevier as an open access publisher

Posted by

0

Just published:

Morrison, H. (2017). From the field: Elsevier as an open access publisher. The Charleston Advisor 18:3, pp. 53-59 doi https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.18.3.53

Abstract:

Highlights of this broad-brush case study of Elsevier’s Open Access (OA) journals as of 2016: Elsevier offers 511 fully OA journals and 2,149 hybrids. Most fully OA journals do not charge article processing charges (APCs). APCs of fully OA journals average $660 US ($1,731 excluding no-fee journals); hybrid OA averages $2,500. A practice termed author nominal copyright is observed, where copyright is in the name of the author although the author contract is essentially a copyright transfer. The prospects for a full Elsevier flip to OA via APC payments for articles going forward are considered and found to be problematic.

Citation: cite the original article rather than this blogpost.

Oxford Open: Increased the Number of Open Access Journal

Posted by

0

Oxford Open wants to distribute journals of high-quality research but to be able to publish the journal in the open access model. They do charge article processing fees for most of their journals. Oxford Open also has journals that the author can choose the open access option (hybrid journals), but for the purpose of our research, we only use the journal that is available fully in open access.

By collecting the information about the open-access journals I noticed that only 14 of their journals don’t have any processing charge and some of them don’t have them, but only for 2016.

 

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 11.40.15 AM.png

On their website I was able to collect 35 journal titles, the DOAJ only has 16. They seem to aim for more journals that will be available without fees for the user.

 

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 11.42.27 AM.png

In 2015 they had 11 journals and we sampled 5 of them. Only two have increased their price and the other three journals the price remained the same. The Journal DNA Research has increased the most of their processing fees in 2016. It has risen by 50%. However, the Nucleic Acids Research  has a rise they processing fees from 1400 GBP in 2015 to 1420 GBP in 2016.

Cite as:

Brutus, W. (2016). Oxford Open: Increased the Number of Open Access Journal. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/11/17/oxford-open-increased-the-number-of-open-access-journal/

 

Libertas Academica: follow-up

Posted by

0

by Widlyne Brutus and Victoria Volkanova

Highlights

We recently reviewed the APCs of the publisher Libertas Academica for the year 2016 and found a mostly steady pricing compared with the year 2015. The fees are now listed in USD and GBP only, the latter replacing both Euro and Japanese Yen which were used in the previous years for authors from outside of North America. We also have noted the tendency to standardized pricing for the majority of the OA journals: US$1,848 / 1,399 GBP for the journals that are included in PubMed Central (PMC), and US$1,699 /1,299 GBP for the journals that are not included in PMC.

Details

According to its website, Libertas Academica (LA) publishes 83 international, peer-reviewed scientific, technical and medical journals.  Most of the LA journals are open access with the exception of the Clinical Medicine Reviews series that operates under the traditional subscription or pay-per-view model (http://www.la-press.com/about_us.php).

Last year we reviewed the APCs (or APFs, as they call it) of this publisher and found out the overall increases in all currencies (USD, Euros and Japanese Yen) that were much greater than the normal inflation rate warranted. In the comments to the original post, Tom Hill from Libertas Academica provided some explanation for the price increases, more specifically the addition of many journals to PubMed Central (i.e. XML creation, image quality requirements and additional quality control) and the depreciation of the Euro and the Yen, which were the two currencies used for authors from outside of North America. He also pointed out the ongoing possibility of fee waivers and discounts for authors.

Recently we revisited Libertas Academica’s website and compared their 2016 APCs with the previous years. First of all, we’ve noted one significant change in the currencies used: as of 2016, the authors from North America pay APCs in USD, whereas the authors from the rest of the world pay in GBP. We couldn’t find any explanation as to the reasons for which the publisher dropped both the Euro and the Japanese Yen in favour of the British Pound. Some of the possible reasons are the location of the company’s key external service providers in the United Kingdom (as well as in India and in New York, USA); generous UK APCs funding (RCUK, Wellcome Trust), or else the relative stability of this particular currency.

On a side note, the institutional membership fees are charged in USD only and go from US$3,300 to US$13,500, entitling the member institutions for an APC discount varying from 5% to 25%. So far, only one institution has subscribed to this option.

Another observation is the unified APCs for the journals that are being included in PubMed Central: US$1,848 and 1,399 GBP respectively. The fee in USD has remained stable for most journals. However, depending on the exchange rate between GBP and Euro (fluctuations ranging from 1.1054 to 1.4286 – GBP to Euro – in the past year, according to the Bank of England), the new price represents either a slight decrease (0.91% at the low point) or an increase of 1.17% at the high point.

For most journals that are not being included in PubMed Central, the APCs have been standardized at US$1,699 /1,299 GBP, which once again ranges from staying the same as in the year 2015 (for the APCs in USD and in some cases for the rest of the world) to an average increase of 1.47% (min being 1.28 % and max being 1.66%) for the other currencies.

However, there are a few exceptions to the standardized APCs (PMC- included or not): the journals Gene Expression to Genetical Genomics, Genomics Insights, and International Journal of Insect Science saw an increase of 1.59% in their 2016 APCs payable in GBP (1,399). Out of the three journals, Gene Expression to Genetical Genomics is not currently included in PMC.

As to the APCs stated previously in the Japanese Yen, the recent switch to the GBP had practically no impact: the charges fluctuated slightly between 0.916 % and 1.104 % compared to the previous year.

According to the LA’s website, the journals Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research, Infectious Diseases: Research and Treatment, Palliative Care: Research and Treatment, and Virology: Research and Treatment are included in PMC, however, these titles do not appear on the PMC list as of November 1st, 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals).

Cite as:

Brutus, W., & Volkanova, V. (2016). Libertas Academica: Follow-up. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/11/01/libertas-academica-follow-up/

Hikari- favor some disciplines?

Posted by

0

Hikari is a publisher of journals in science, technology and medicine founded in 2005. They used to be in the DOAJ 2015, but in 2016 the publisher isn’t mentioned in the directory. The publisher didn’t change the amount of their OA APC. The majority of the journals still charge processing fees but they no longer charge publication fees in the fields of medicine and economics. This means that of their 20 journals, 4 of them no longer have publication fees. 25 percent of their journals have no publication fees. The journals that still have publication fees charge 200 EUR per page up to 8 pages and an extra 25 EUR per pages for the additional pages.

Cite as:

Brutus, W. (2016). Hikari- favor some disciplines? Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/10/13/hikari-favor-some-disciplines/

Medknow 2016: it’s complicated!

Posted by

0

by Widlyne Brutus and Heather Morrison

Highlights

Medknow is an emerging commercial scholarly journal publisher based in the developing world (India) that is owned by one of the oldest and most traditional western-based commercial publishers, Wolters Kluwer, that publishes in partnership with many long-standing traditional society and university journals. Even though the publisher is for-profit by nature, the majority of journals do not charge APCs. Of the journals that do charge APCs, most have not changed price between 2015 and 2016; some journals are adding or dropping APCs, and a few have lowered their APC. However, we identified 16 journals that did raise APCs from 2015 to 2016, in some cases by substantial amounts (over 50%, some even doubling or tripling in price).

medknow-partnershipsmedknow-apc-split

Details

Medknow is a commercial publisher of peer-review medical journals that originated in India. This publisher has partnerships with many associations, societies and universities and its publications include many long-standing not-for-profit journals. Of the 141 journals published by Medknow, more than half (83 journals) are published in partnership with universities and learned societies.

A traditional commercial scholarly publisher, with a history dating back to 1836, Wolters Kluwer, acquired Medknow in 2011. The reason for mentioning this is as one example of how the distinction between traditional and open access publishers may not be as relevant today as it used to be.

The partnership with the not-for-profit societies and universities likely explains why less than half of Medknow journals (70 journals) charge an APC as of 2016 (an increase from 61 journals with APCs in 2015).

In 2016, there are 26 journals that clearly state that there is no processing charge, down from 28 journals in 2015. It is not always clear whether there is an APC or not. In 2016 we note 38 journals with no cost found (meaning we did not find either an APC or clear language stating that there is no APC), down slightly from 41 in 2015.

There 28 publication in 2015 that have no publication fees and in 2016 26 publication have no processing charge.

Widlyne compared the averages of the article processing charge for the year of 2015 and 2016.

The average in 2015 was $285 and in 2016, $173 in US dollar. While the price seems to have decreased, this likely reflects currency fluctuations as the primary currency for a large portion of the journals is not USD, for example Indian rupees as the primary currency is very common. So this information should not be taking as a proof of the decrease of APC.

Comparing prices on a journal-by-journal basis, most of the prices did not change (31 journals had exactly the same price). Four journals lowered their APC and two no longer charge APC’s.

16 journals have increased their APCs, this table show which journal have increase their APC’s, the amount for 2015 and 2016 and the percentage of increase.

screen-shot-2016-10-06-at-4-57-36-pm

As you can see most of these journals have increase their APC considerably; at least 8 journals increased their price by more than half. Some journals even doubled or tripled their prices.

Cite as:

Brutus, W., & Morrison, H. (2016). Medknow 2016: It’s complicated! Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/10/11/medknow-2016-its-complicated/