Re: UK article on Open Access

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Plus, of course, the fact that the number of journals are no indication of
volume. Some journals publish less than 20 articles a year, others more
than 1000. An *article* count of what's *available* with open access would
give a better idea of OA's growth. Manuscript inflow certainly is growing
for BioMed Central journals.

Jan Velterop

On 16 Nov 2004, at 22:43, David Goodman wrote:

> 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