Open Access Heatmap 2016

Just as 2015 and 2014 I produced an Open Access Heatmap using data provided by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). I calculated the number of Open Access Journals per country as listed by the DOAJ (this quite trivial data can be downloaded as a CSV file here, it was retrieved from the DOAJ yesterday). Using this CSV file with the online service CartoDB I produced the following heatmap visualizing the number of Open Access Journals per country. Please note that the map is generated by CartoDB and that CartoDB’s terms of use and terms of service apply. Click on a country to see how many Open Access Journals are published there. The countries publishing most of the Open Access Journals listed in the DOAJ are: Brazil (873), the United Kingdom (754) and the United States of America (675). Please feel free to use the CSV file and mash it up with other data just as Christian Heise did with the data from 2015.

Earlier this year the DOAJ cleaned its index and removed about 3,300 journals,  this explains why the numbers for 2016 differ so much from the heatmaps of 2015 and 2014.

Please note that the map has only illustrative value and of course it is obvious that it needs to be contextualized with other information to allow profound conclusions. Anyone who wants to have more detailled or granualar information is invited to take the data available on the web and to build heatmaps that visualize for instance the number of Open Access articles published per country. Of course it may also be useful to take other indicators into account as consumer price index, expenditures for research or the number of scientists.

Although I am very well aware of all these limitations of the heatmap published here unfortunatley I do not have the time to collect the data and build these maps – it is up to the rest of the Open Access community to do so if it thinks better maps are needed.

 

 

[cite]

Open Access Heatmap 2015

Just like last summer I produced an Open Access Heatmap using data provided by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). I calculated the number of Open Access Journals per country as listed by the DOAJ (this quite trivial data can be downloaded as a CSV file here). Using this CSV file with the online service CartoDB I produced the following heatmap visualizing the number of Open Access Journals per country. Please note that the map is generated by CartoDB and that CartoDB’s terms of use and terms of service apply. Click on a country to see how many Open Access Journals are published there.

 

 

 

Open Access Heatmap 2014

Last week (at the 22nd of August) I downloaded data from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and calculated the number of Open Access Journals per country as listed by the DOAJ (this quite trivial data can be downloaded as a CSV file here). Using this CSV file with the online service CartoDB I produced this heatmap visualizing the number of Open Access Journals per country. Please note that the map is generated by CartoDB and that CartoDB’s terms of use and terms of service apply. Click on a country to see how many Open Access Journals are published there.

 

 

 

Numbers and shares of Open Access Journals in Sociology charging publication fees

In June 2014 I analysed the data of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to find out to what extent Open Access Journals in Sociology (as listed by the DOAJ) charge their authors with publication fees (or article processing charges APCs). A CSV-file offered for download by the DOAJ did not contain any information on APCs, in fact the whole APC-column was empty, so I gathered the information manually from the DOAJ’s search interface. Unfortunately the DOAJ’s information on sociological journals using APCs was too a large degree wrong.

On the eleventh of June the DOAJ listed 109 sociology journals.  In eleven cases the information on APCs was wrong:

  • nine were labeled as APC-based although they did not use APCs
  • one was labeled as using APCs conditionally, but in fact it charged every article published
  • one was charging its authors although the DOAJ listed it as not using APCs

This means that for this subset of journals the information on publication charges was wrong in more than 10 % of all journals. Focusing on the eleven journals that – according to the DOAJ – use (always or conditionally) APCs the situation is even worse:  10 of these journals (90,9 %) are categorized wrongly.

In fact only three out of these 109 journals (2,75 %) charge their authors: Sociology Mind (ISSN 2160-083X) charges 700 US-$ per article (plus 50 US-$ for each additional page). Studies of Sociology of Science (ISSN 1923-0176) charges 300 US-$ per article and Intersticios (ISSN 1887-3898) charges beween 10 and 20 € per article (depending on the number of pages). None of these APC-based journals has a journal impact factor  assigned (according to the Journal Citation Reports Edition 2012). Instead four of the other journals (not using APCs) have an impact factor assigned.

Compared to other disciplines APCs are a rare phenomenon in Sociology (as mentioned 2,75 % of the journals know publication fees): Solomon & Björk (2012) report a portion of 26 % of Open Access journals charging their authors, whereas Shieber (2009) reports 23,14 %. Shieber seems to have trusted in the data offered by the DOAJ, therefore his numbers might potentially be biased. Solomon & Björk used a randomized sample of journals and checked for each journal within the sample the information on APCs, so their results are very trustworthy. Please not: This comment intends not to malign Shiebers excellent work.

The data is openly available as:

Herb, U. (2014). Numbers and shares of Open Access Journals in Sociology charging publication fees (article processing charges APCs). Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10760
References:
Shieber, S. (2009). What percentage of open-access journals charge publication fees? The Occasional Pamphlet. Retrieved June 05, 2012, from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/05/29/what-percentage-of-open-access-journals-charge-publication-fees/
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, 63(8), 1485–1495. doi:10.1002/asi.22673http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/

 

The prevalence of Open Access publication fees

Just another by-product of my dissertation thesis on Open Science in the Social Sciences: Last saturday (June 14, 2014) I had a look at the ten countries that publish the most Open Access journals and the share of journals charging their authors with article processing charges (APCs) per country. I used the Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ to gather the information needed and faced some problems: Of course I would have prefered to use the CSV-file offered by the DOAJ, the DOAJ homepage promises that the „csv file is updated every 30 minutes“ – in fact it is about five weeks old and was obviously generated at May 7th, that is at least what the file’s name indicates: doaj_20140507_1330_utf8.csv. Accordingly the information within the CSV file was not up to date, it contained information on 9.709 journals. However the DOAJ website told me that it lists 9.834 journals.

Moreover the CSV file was not usable for my purpose because it did contain a column named Publication Fee, but this column did not contain any information, in fact it was totally empty. So I had to compile the information on Open Access journals per country and the occurence of publication fees by using the DOAJ web interface. The following table gives an impression about the ten countries publishing the largest numbers of Open Access journals. The query via the web interface showed a difference between the total number of journals per country and the sum of journals that either raised no APCs, that did charge APCs or did charge them conditionally. This difference was interpreted as the number of missing values. As we see most of the journals are published in the USA, Brazil (probably mainly via the publication network SciELO) and the UK.

CountryNumber of journalsMissing ValuesNo information availableConditional charges (number of journals)Conditional charges (percentage)No charges
(number of journals)
No charges
(percentage)
Has charges
(number of journals)
Has charges
(percentage)
USA1.206633473,90%63252,40%48840,46%
Brazil927215141,51%84591,15%424,53%
UK61544152,44%20032,52%39263,74%
India593337813,15%25442,83%25543,00%
Spain526104122,28%48091,25%203,80%
Egypt46121000,00%418,89%39986,55%
Germany3385441,18%22666,86%9929,29%
Romania2992062,01%26488,29%279,03%
Italy2925262,05%25185,96%289,59%
Islamic Republic of Iran264803714,02%19373,11%269,85%

 

Resorting the table by the share of journals charging their authors per country gives us some insight in the prevalence of an APC based business modell per country:

CountryNumber of journalsMissing ValuesNo information availableConditional charges (number of journals)Conditional charges (percentage)No charges
(number of journals)
No Charges
(percentage)
Has Charges
(number of journals)
Has charges
(percentage)
Egypt46121000,00%418,89%39986,55%
UK61544152,44%20032,52%39263,74%
India593337813,15%25442,83%25543,00%
USA1.206633473,90%63252,40%48840,46%
Germany3385441,18%22666,86%9929,29%
Islamic Republic of Iran264803714,02%19373,11%269,85%
Italy2925262,05%25185,96%289,59%
Romania2992062,01%26488,29%279,03%
Brazil927215141,51%84591,15%424,53%
Spain526104122,28%48091,25%203,80%

This chart makes the differences between the countries even more distinctive:

apcs_per_country

Surprisingly Egypt leads this ranking with 86,55% of its Open Access journals charging authors, followed by the UK (presumably reaching this position because of the large number of Open Access journals published by the UK based publisher BioMed Central), India (traditionally suspected to be the country of origin of many predatory Open Access Publishers, that use APCs as an revenue modell but that do not guarantee the quality control of their publications) and the USA. The USA and the UK have always been known to be the home countries of well-known commercial publishing houses and it might be that they are also the home country of many commercial Open Access Publishers. Right away I do not have a explanation for Egypt’s ranking – except the unfounded (and to some extent chauvinstic) idea that the large amount of APC-based journals might hint at a prevalence of predatory publishing, but I emphasize that I do have any evidence for that insinuation.

Both data and chart are available under an open license, please cite this information as:

Herb, U. (2014). Shares of Open Access journals charging publication fees per country. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10480

Update: Lambert Heller and Richard Poynder noted in two comments that the high numbers of Open Access journals from Egypt are caused by the activities of the Open Access publisher Hindawi – and of course they are absolutely right. So thanks a lot for that hint Lambert and Richard!

 

Comments:

Lambert Heler: Egypt -> Hindawi Publishers? Anyway thanks for the data, Uli!

Richard Poynder: Egypt: Hindawi is based in Egypt; Hindawi publishes 434 journals (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/); Hindawi journals charge APCs.

Ulrich Herb: @Richard: Great idea! Of course it would be some (or even a lot of) work. To my mind the data would best be gathered manually or via the journals OAI interfaces (if they have one). One could use the DOAJ as a starting point, in a second step one should identfy the correspondings authors affiliation. If we would also like to know the money spend (and not only the number of articles published under an APC modell), it would be necessary to check the APC conditions on the publishers homepages. You would also need to consider whether the information provided by the DOAJ whether a journal charges APCs are correct. For Sociology I found an incredibly high share of false postives (journals that in fact did not charge their authors, but that – according to the DOAJ’s information – used APCs).

Richard Poynder: A good candidate for a crowdsourcing project perhaps?

Ulrich Herb:
Absolutely! The crowd would just strictly have to take heed of the design of the study, but I guess that would be a minor problem.

Wow!ter: I would have expected Nigeria in this graph as well. What would be their position on the graphs?

Ulrich Herb:
Dear wow!ter, Nigeria is missing because (according to the DOAJ) it only publishes 38 Open Acceess journals, correction: the DOAJ indexes only 38 Open Access journals from Nigeria that is position 47 in a ranking of the countries with the highest output of Open Access Journals. 29 of these Nigerian journals are charging their authors, 3 are charging them conditionally and 6 that don’t use publication fees. So the share of journals using fees is 76,31%.That means Nigeria would hold position two in table two, but it must be noted that we do not know the shares of APC based journals in the other countries on positions 11 to 46 in a ranking of the countries with the highest output of Open Access Journals.

Dom Mitchell: Hello there, I just wanted to correct a small thing here: „Nigeria is missing because (according to the DOAJ) it only publishes 38 Open Access journals,“ Actually, DOAJ only indexes 38 Open Access journals from Nigeria. We are sure that there are many others but they have either never applied to be part of DOAJ, or they were rejected from DOAJ because they didn’t meet the requirements. I am certain that is what you meant but I just wanted to make sure that was clear for wow!ter. Many thanks, Dom

Ulrich Herb:  @Dom thanks a lot for that correction!

Creative Commons Lizenzen und Open Access Journals

Wissenschaftler tun sich oft noch schwer damit, ihren Lesern (oder Nutzern) Rechte einzuräumen, die über das reine Rezipieren (oder Konsumieren) ihrer Texte hinaus gehen – sogar wenn sie diese Open Access publizieren. Während in anderen Kontexten, z.B. bei der Open Source Software, klar definiert ist, dass offen keine Paraphrase von entgeltfrei nutzbar ist, sondern weitergehende Feiheiten – wie die kommerzielle Verwertbarkeit oder die Möglichkeit, abgeleitete Werke zu erstellen – umfasst, kapriziert sich die Vorstellung von der Offenheit im Open Access rgelmäßig noch auf die rein kostenlose Nutzung von Werken. Eine kleine Erhebung im Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ, dem zentralen Verzeichnis für Open Access Zeitschriften, gibt einen Einblick in die Akzeptanz von wirklich offenen Lizenzen, die den Ansprüchen der Open Definition genügen. Diese versucht die Prinzipien der Open Source Software auf Wissensinhalte jeder Art zu übertragen.

Von den 9.804 am gestrigen Tag im DOAJ gelisteten Zeitschriften nutzten insgesamt 3.772 (knapp 38%) eine Creative Commons (CC) Lizenz. Auch wenn nur zwei der sechs Creative Commons Lizenzen (CC-BY und CC-BY-SA) den Vorgaben der Open Definition genügen, bringen alle Spielarten gegenüber einer Verfügbarmachung der Texte ohne Lizenz schon Vorteile: So verdeutlichen sie dem Nutzer anschaulich, welche Nutzungsrechte ihm eingeräumt und welche ihm vorenthalten wurden. Überdies hat er in jedem Fall das Recht, den Inhalt weiter zu verteilen, diese Befugnis Recht hätte er bei fehlender Lizenzierung unter CC nicht. Die Nutzung der unterschiedlichen Lizenztypen bei den Journals des DOAJ verteilte sich wie folgt:

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY nutzen: 1.964
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 20,03%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen: 52,77%

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY-SA nutzen: 52
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 0,53%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen: 1,40%

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY-NC-ND nutzen: 737
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 7,52%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen: 19,80%

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY-NC nutzen: 665
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 6,78%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen: 17,87%

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY-NC-SA nutzen: 260
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 2,65%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen:6,99%

Zahl der Journals, die CC-BY-ND nutzen: 44
prozentualer Anteil an allen Journals des DOAJ: 0,45%
prozentualer Anteil an Journals des DOAJ, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen: 1,18%
Insgesamt 2.016 (oder 20,56%) der im DOAJ geführten Journals nutzen demnach eine Lizenz (CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA), die mit den Vorgaben der Open Definition kompatibel ist und eine restriktionsfreie Nutzung erlaubt – so werden Nachnutzungen jeder Art erlaubt. Betrachtet man den Subset der Journals, die irgendeine CC-Lizenz nutzen, domieren die den Ansprüchen der Open Definition genügenden Lizenzen sogar knapp: Über 54% aller Journals, die eine CC-Lizenz nutzen, verwenden entweder CC-BY (52,77%) oder CC-BY-SA (1,40%). Überraschend niedrig fällt der Anteil der Journals aus, die die restriktivste CC-Lizenz CC-BY-NC-ND nutzen: Nur 737 Journals (7,52% aller Journals bzw. 19,80% unter den CC-lizenzierten Zeitschriften) verwenden diese Variante, die weder Bearbeitungen oder die Erstellung abgeleiteter Werke (wie Übersetzungen) noch eine kommerzielle Nutzung erlaubt. Überraschenderweise erlauben mehr als die Hälfte (2.060, 55,35%) der unter einer CC-Lizenz stehenden Journals eine kommerzielle Verwertung der Inhalte zu, nur 44,65% (1662) untersagen diese. Die Daten sind verfügbar unter: Herb, Ulrich (2014). Total numbers and shares of Open Access Journals using Creative Commons Licenses as listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals. ZENODO. 10.5281/zenodo.8327

Update 13.02.2014:

Nachdem Christian Heise dieses Posting in hybridpublishing.org aufgriff, stellte Rupert Gatti von openbookpublishers.com dort in einem Kommentar die Frage, ob das DOAJ auch Informationen zu anderen Lizenzierungsoptionen neben den CC-Lizenzen anbiete. Ich habe Rupert Gatti in hybridpublishing.org geantwortet und wiederhole meine Antwort auch hier: Das DOAJ bietet nur Informationen zu vergebenen CC-Lizenzen an. Man könnte zwar die Lizenzbedingungen der Journals, die keine CC verwenden, händisch prüfen – allerdings ist dieses Vorgehen sehr aufwändig. Ein ausbalancierter Ansatz würde darin bestehen, ein Zufallsauswahl (oder einen Mikrozensus) der Journals zu bilden, die keine CC-Lizenz vergeben und ihre Lizenzierung zu prüfen.