Mastodon

The Gold OA plot v0.2

I said I would make an update on Tuesday (today), so if I get this posted before midnight I will (just) have met that  goal…

In this (minor) update I have:

added: Ubiquity Press (great low cost option!), SPIE (scored for 1-column per page), SAGE Open, Frontiers, WileyOpenAccess, OxfordOpen (OUP hybrid option), GigaScience, Open Biology (Royal Society)

added the label for: Pensoft (sincerest apologies, it is tied with Copernicus and was on the 0.1 plot, just unlabelled!)

changed the categorization of: Scientific Reports (NPG) [I have put it in a no-mans-land between CC BY and CC BY NC since they give authors a choice of licenses. I think this is a bad idea as it allows authors to make the mistake of choosing a less open licence (are there really any common circumstances in which they might want a less open, free to read licence?)]

 

As noted elsewhere there are actually a lot of completely fee-free Gold Open Access journals out there (I shall try and make a listing of them in a future post), they’re just not perhaps all that well-known. GigaScience and Open Biology (Royal Society) are temporarily completely fee-free options that certainly look like good recommendations!

 

I shall endeavour to add-in more of a variety of the various differently priced BMC journals in the next update of the plot. Basically I believe most of them lie in the range between BMC Research Notes, and BMC Biology.

My site stats show that in just a few days v0.1 of the plot had nearly 1000 pageviews, which is HUGE for my otherwise low-key blog!

And it has had real impact already. Thanks to Mike Taylor, Acta Pal. Polonica is thinking of adopting the CC BY licence. Brilliant news! It is fee-free but not explicitly licensed to allow re-use at the moment. Hopefully this will change soon.

 

Anyway, I have to get off the train now, so that’ll be the end of this post.

 

 

 


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Comments

16 responses to “The Gold OA plot v0.2”

  1. […] UPDATE: version 0.2 of the plot is now available here […]

  2. David Bapst Avatar
    David Bapst

    That’s great news to hear about that they are thinking of instating policy at APP.

    1. Ross Mounce Avatar

      Trackback: If one looks at the latest proofs over at APP
      http://www.app.pan.pl/issue.html?issue=forthcoming

      e.g. Preservation of soft tissues in an Ordovician linguloid brachiopod from ChinaAndrzej Baliński and Yuanlin Sun

      At the end of the proof one can find:

      “Copyright © 2012 A. Baliński and Y. Sun. This is an open−access articledistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any me−dium, provided the original author and source are credited.”

      W00t! Well done APP! RCUK/BOAI-compliant OA publishing as it should be!

  3. Richard Van Noorden Avatar
    Richard Van Noorden

    Ross, have you considered doing another version of this chart, which is ‘journals not yet compliant with RCUK policy’? that would be anyone who neither offers a CC-BY gold license, nor a green (CC-BY-NC or equivalent) license.

    1. Ross Mounce Avatar

      Yes, this was one of the original motivators of doing this plot: only the top line CC BY journals provide RCUK-compliant gold Open Access (green OA is a separate subject best left to SHERPA/RoMEO, I’m not against green myself but I do prefer gold for a variety of reasons)

      I suspect a legion of academics don’t realise quite how many journals *aren’t* compliant, and I also hold out hope that this may encourage some journals to upgrade their gold OA licensing options to include CC BY for RCUK/BOAI compliant Open Access.

      It would be very bad if a UK-funded author mistakenly paid an APC fee to publish an article in a gold journal that was not properly OA compliant; CC BY provides additional value through its increased openness and minimal restrictions on re-use, RCUK clearly wants to pay for this and will not accept anything less, nor should it IMO.

  4. […] les licences et les coûts de publication varient énormément comme le montre ce graphique de Ross Mounce qui positionne les revues selon ces deux facteurs […]

  5. […] l’open access est la norme pour les publications scientifiques bien que les régimes de licence et les coûts de publication dans les principales revues forment un méli-mélo incompréhensible. Les pratiques de […]

  6. […] charges are just too high. There is no real justification for this as it can be done much cheaper (http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/09/04/the-gold-oa-plot-v0-2/) — £200 or so seems reasonable; more over, I think it is bad for science because […]

  7. […] fees (APCs) of many commercial publishers are rather high (and the degree of openness this buys varies greatly). This offers a clear opportunity for newcomers to establish themselves. Three more traditional […]

  8. […] (APCs) of many commercial publishers are rather high (and the degree of openness this buys varies greatly). This offers a clear opportunity for newcomers to establish themselves. Three more traditional […]

  9. Graeme Moffat Avatar

    Hey Ross, I just saw this now thanks to a tweet, and I hadn’t realized you produced a second version. Thanks for including Frontiers!

    1. Ross Mounce Avatar

      Sorry, I should have informed you of the good news. I’m *extremely* busy this month. But a lot has changed since this plot, so a new 2013 version is sorely needed now too. I’ll let you know if/when I post that :)

  10. […] Well, I was inspired by Ross Mounce post (http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/08/30/a-visualization-of-gold-open-access-options/) showing the various open access options, showing the entertainingly large gap between the price of open access from different publishers; the gap should only be a surprise to those with little understanding of economics; prices relate to what the market can bear and not what a service costs to provide, I have described previously (http://www.russet.org.uk/blog/2248). At the top left of the graph (most permissive license, cheapest article charges) comes MDPI, although the second version of the plot shows cheaper options (http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/09/04/the-gold-oa-plot-v0-2/). […]

  11. […] und deren assoziierten Publikationslizenzen. Open Access ist nicht teuer. Abbildung von Ross Mounce, CC by […]

  12. […] und deren assoziierten Publikationslizenzen. Open Access ist nicht teuer. Abbildung von Ross Mounce, CC by […]