RE: UK article on Open Access

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

It is not even necessary to wait. In the article itself the evidence is
given as follows:
 
"It is not currently evident that author-pays publishing is a growing
phenomenon," the report notes. "According to figures reported to us from
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, of 89 new journals launched so far in
2004, only 11 of these are Open Access journals. This compares to 30 Open
Access Journals that were launched during the whole of 2003."

"Ulrich's also shows that the percentage of Open Access journals launched,
compared to all journals launched has actually decreased since 2001." The
report notes that in 2001, 63 new Open Access journals launched out of a
total of 308 journals (20.5%). In 2002 that fell to 18.4% (47 out of 255
journals), and in 2003 to 15.2% (30 out of 198). The current downward
trajectory continues in 2004, with open access capturing just 12.4% of all
journals launched so far"

This is a simple case of information about OA Journals being used to
characterize the entire OA movement. Most such instances are at least
disguised; this is a bare-faced attempt by the UK government writers to
tell untruths without any attempt at concealment. Indeed, the article is a
true account of the government assertions. The article accurately cites
and rep[eats the untruths.

Information World, and the author of the article in it, should be ashamed
for taking the UK government assertions as if they were true.

(Quite apart from assumming OA journals are the only form of OA, basing
one's evidence on Ulrichs alone is not valid. Ulrichs is the best single
source available, but it is not complete or up to date, and uses almost
entirely information supplied by the publisher. It is a very valuable
source for identifying titles and finding fundamental information about
journals, but it is not based on the examination of the actual journal,
and does not pretend to be. The information about peer-review,
circulation, indexing, and journal purpose, content and standing are all
based entirely on the publishers' reports.  Its publisher has no reason to
be ashamed of its limitations--it is clear that complete annual
verification of such extensive information would be extraordinarily
formidable, and is not reliably available from any single source. No
experienced user would consider it sufficiently accurate for bibliometric
purposes, and certainly not for purposes of public policy.)

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

________________________________

From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Mon 11/15/2004 5:55 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: UK article on Open Access

Stay tuned! The author of this article, Bobby Pickering, has written that
it will be covered in more depth in the next issue of IWR. The view may
prove quite different...

Stevan Harnad