[Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

Chris Sherlock
Hello all,

The following post on HN states the following:

> About fifteen years ago I was working on a venture to make an open-content journal publishing system. It didn't pan out for various reasons, but the general argument we were making this. Here are various services, and who (or what) handles them:
>
> - Peer review and top-level decision-making. This is handled entirely by the editorial board.
> - Typesetting. We have a free system for this: it's called LaTeX.
> - Copy-editing and typeset-checking. This is handled by the publisher.
> - Publishing and archiving. This is handled by the publisher.
> - Famous Name. This is controlled by the publisher and is pure rent-seeking.
>
> It used to be that the publisher handled much more than this. But with a decent online publishing, workflow, and archiving system, and with a near-zero cost in publishing and archiving online nowadays, essentially the only useful service the publisher provides is copy-editing. That is very minor.
>
> If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a publisher disappears

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251>

In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup journals?

With the WMF’s reputation, I can't see what would stop them from recruiting reputable people who can be reviewers on the panel. Copy editing could be done over the Wiki.

This would take the control of information away from for-profit companies, give maximum transparency, increase the stature of Wikimedia, allow for verified content and allow Wikipedia to keep its user generated, no original research model and allow for WMF expansion into area that it didn't have the ability to be part of before - like research!

Heck, it could then allow the WMF to serious consider funding pure research, or make it easier to run a reputable online university.

The case for disrupting the current business models of Elsevier is compelling. In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% on revenues of £2.070 billion. [0] I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the economic benefit of allowing publication of free journals to countries such as Afghanistan. My calculation may be way off, but as an example according to Elsevier they charge an individual researcher "$31.50 per article or chapter for most Elsevier content [and] select titles are priced between $19.95 and $41.95 (subject to change).” [1]

My calculation, on the assumption that the median wage in Afghanistan is 50,000 AHD per year and the exchange rate for USD to AHD of 68.3 AHD to 1 USD shows that for one article it is about 2,150 AHD, or half the monthly wage of an Afghani with a median income!

We could step into this space. And we could do our disruption legally, and make things like Sci-Hub less necessary for those in countries who cannot afford the extraordinary prices of journal publishers!

So what do people think?

Chris Sherlock


0. "2015 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF at http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf <http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf>). RELX Group Company Reports. RELX Group. March 2016.

1. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

jmh649
We have two journals already as listed here

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_Journal

We are currently in the process of creating a user group to support them.

James

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The following post on HN states the following:
>
> > About fifteen years ago I was working on a venture to make an
> open-content journal publishing system. It didn't pan out for various
> reasons, but the general argument we were making this. Here are various
> services, and who (or what) handles them:
> >
> > - Peer review and top-level decision-making. This is handled entirely by
> the editorial board.
> > - Typesetting. We have a free system for this: it's called LaTeX.
> > - Copy-editing and typeset-checking. This is handled by the publisher.
> > - Publishing and archiving. This is handled by the publisher.
> > - Famous Name. This is controlled by the publisher and is pure
> rent-seeking.
> >
> > It used to be that the publisher handled much more than this. But with a
> decent online publishing, workflow, and archiving system, and with a
> near-zero cost in publishing and archiving online nowadays, essentially the
> only useful service the publisher provides is copy-editing. That is very
> minor.
> >
> > If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing
> and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex
> entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university
> institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a
> publisher disappears
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 <
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251>
>
> In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup
> journals?
>
> With the WMF’s reputation, I can't see what would stop them from
> recruiting reputable people who can be reviewers on the panel. Copy editing
> could be done over the Wiki.
>
> This would take the control of information away from for-profit companies,
> give maximum transparency, increase the stature of Wikimedia, allow for
> verified content and allow Wikipedia to keep its user generated, no
> original research model and allow for WMF expansion into area that it
> didn't have the ability to be part of before - like research!
>
> Heck, it could then allow the WMF to serious consider funding pure
> research, or make it easier to run a reputable online university.
>
> The case for disrupting the current business models of Elsevier is
> compelling. In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37%
> on revenues of £2.070 billion. [0] I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation
> of the economic benefit of allowing publication of free journals to
> countries such as Afghanistan. My calculation may be way off, but as an
> example according to Elsevier they charge an individual researcher "$31.50
> per article or chapter for most Elsevier content [and] select titles are
> priced between $19.95 and $41.95 (subject to change).” [1]
>
> My calculation, on the assumption that the median wage in Afghanistan is
> 50,000 AHD per year and the exchange rate for USD to AHD of 68.3 AHD to 1
> USD shows that for one article it is about 2,150 AHD, or half the monthly
> wage of an Afghani with a median income!
>
> We could step into this space. And we could do our disruption legally, and
> make things like Sci-Hub less necessary for those in countries who cannot
> afford the extraordinary prices of journal publishers!
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Chris Sherlock
>
>
> 0. "2015 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF at
> http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf
> <
> http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf>).
> RELX Group Company Reports. RELX Group. March 2016.
>
> 1. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view <
> https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
I would support investigating the possibility
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Sherlock
Sent: Thursday, 05 May 2016 8:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

Hello all,

The following post on HN states the following:

> About fifteen years ago I was working on a venture to make an open-content journal publishing system. It didn't pan out for various reasons, but the general argument we were making this. Here are various services, and who (or what) handles them:
>
> - Peer review and top-level decision-making. This is handled entirely by the editorial board.
> - Typesetting. We have a free system for this: it's called LaTeX.
> - Copy-editing and typeset-checking. This is handled by the publisher.
> - Publishing and archiving. This is handled by the publisher.
> - Famous Name. This is controlled by the publisher and is pure rent-seeking.
>
> It used to be that the publisher handled much more than this. But with a decent online publishing, workflow, and archiving system, and with a near-zero cost in publishing and archiving online nowadays, essentially the only useful service the publisher provides is copy-editing. That is very minor.
>
> If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a publisher disappears

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251>

In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup journals?

With the WMF’s reputation, I can't see what would stop them from recruiting reputable people who can be reviewers on the panel. Copy editing could be done over the Wiki.

This would take the control of information away from for-profit companies, give maximum transparency, increase the stature of Wikimedia, allow for verified content and allow Wikipedia to keep its user generated, no original research model and allow for WMF expansion into area that it didn't have the ability to be part of before - like research!

Heck, it could then allow the WMF to serious consider funding pure research, or make it easier to run a reputable online university.

The case for disrupting the current business models of Elsevier is compelling. In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% on revenues of £2.070 billion. [0] I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the economic benefit of allowing publication of free journals to countries such as Afghanistan. My calculation may be way off, but as an example according to Elsevier they charge an individual researcher "$31.50 per article or chapter for most Elsevier content [and] select titles are priced between $19.95 and $41.95 (subject to change).” [1]

My calculation, on the assumption that the median wage in Afghanistan is 50,000 AHD per year and the exchange rate for USD to AHD of 68.3 AHD to 1 USD shows that for one article it is about 2,150 AHD, or half the monthly wage of an Afghani with a median income!

We could step into this space. And we could do our disruption legally, and make things like Sci-Hub less necessary for those in countries who cannot afford the extraordinary prices of journal publishers!

So what do people think?

Chris Sherlock


0. "2015 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF at http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf <http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf>). RELX Group Company Reports. RELX Group. March 2016.

1. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7596 / Virus Database: 4565/12165 - Release Date: 05/04/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

geni
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
On 5 May 2016 at 19:17, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a publisher disappears
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251>
>
> In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup journals?
>

The Directory of Open Access Journals currently lists 11,649
journals[1]. While some of those are junk[2] the world is currently in
no way short of open access journals.

The only way a wikimedia backed open access journal would make sense
is if either we aimed for a really high quality journal (probably by
throwing money at the problem) or a journal that targets areas that
wikipedians have identified as being hard to find citations (and this
month's edition of citation needed features a number of papers on the
initial sales price of games consoles and vessels used in local ferry
services)

[1]https://doaj.org/
[2]https://doaj.org/article/ebed893bfc3748d58695b2851c8270e9


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

jmh649
Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
another OA journal like this.

James

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 May 2016 at 19:17, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing
> and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex
> entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university
> institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a
> publisher disappears
> >
> > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 <
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251>
> >
> > In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup
> journals?
> >
>
> The Directory of Open Access Journals currently lists 11,649
> journals[1]. While some of those are junk[2] the world is currently in
> no way short of open access journals.
>
> The only way a wikimedia backed open access journal would make sense
> is if either we aimed for a really high quality journal (probably by
> throwing money at the problem) or a journal that targets areas that
> wikipedians have identified as being hard to find citations (and this
> month's edition of citation needed features a number of papers on the
> initial sales price of games consoles and vessels used in local ferry
> services)
>
> [1]https://doaj.org/
> [2]https://doaj.org/article/ebed893bfc3748d58695b2851c8270e9
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

Andrew Gray-3
On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
> that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
> another OA journal like this.

The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees to authors.
(They only represent a minority of articles published - they tend to
include the smaller ones).

I would agree that there is no shortage of journals in the world.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

jmh649
@ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
Which ones are you thinking of?

The entire PLOS family charges, so does JMIR. Not sure if I have come
across one that has no attached fees. Some will waive fees in
specific circumstances but that is very different than no fees generally.

Best
James

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different
> in
> > that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
> > another OA journal like this.
>
> The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees to authors.
> (They only represent a minority of articles published - they tend to
> include the smaller ones).
>
> I would agree that there is no shortage of journals in the world.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

geni
In reply to this post by jmh649
On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
> that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
> another OA journal like this.


DOAJ lists 10,294 (including one I've actually cited the Journal of
Lithic Studies)



geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

geni
In reply to this post by jmh649
On 8 May 2016 at 22:56, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> @ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
> Which ones are you thinking of?
>


DOAJ lists 10294 without article processing charges and 1355 with.
Taking the far more limited DOAJ seal stuff (BTW if we really want
something to throw money at funding DOAJ to employ someone to exclude
more junk from their database would be useful). We get 173 with and
199 without.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

jmh649
Okay so the link we are looking at is this one

https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.has_apc.exact%22%3A%22No%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D

It lists 10,294 with no "article processing charges". So I clicked on the
first one "The Journal of Problem Solving" publication charge $500
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/policies.html

Unable to locate "Conference Papers in Medicine" unclear if it is still
being published

JCDA is listed but does not appear to actually be open access per here
http://www.jcda.ca/about

The Annals of Intensive Care while listed as no fee actually has an
"article-processing
charge of £1255/$1965/€1600 for each article accepted for publication"
http://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/submission-guidelines/fees-and-funding

Basically the DOAJ search function is not returning accurate information.
James

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:06 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 May 2016 at 22:56, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > @ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
> > Which ones are you thinking of?
> >
>
>
> DOAJ lists 10294 without article processing charges and 1355 with.
> Taking the far more limited DOAJ seal stuff (BTW if we really want
> something to throw money at funding DOAJ to employ someone to exclude
> more junk from their database would be useful). We get 173 with and
> 199 without.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by jmh649
Hi James,

"Majority" is a little contested (it depends whether you count all the
hybrid titles, and that's a different digression), but the fact that a
lot of journals do not charge APCs is fairly well understood.
Discounting the complicated issue of hybrids, Walt Crawford found last
year that 74% of DOAJ listed journals were free, but they published
only 43% of the papers overall.
http://citesandinsights.info/civ15i9.pdf

Basically, the OA journals make a classic long-tail. The megajournals
at one end (PLOS, Scientific Reports, etc) all charge. They publish a
*lot*. Many of the middling journals charge. Then the majority of
journals are the ones that publish a handful of papers a year, and
these are the ones which are most likely to have no publication
charges. They are more common in humanities/social science fields and
often tend to be lower-profile, niche, or regional.

So, the majority of journals do not levy a charge; the majority of
journals only publish a minority of papers; the majority of papers
involve a charge; many individuals will never notice a non-charging
journal.

Andrew.

On 8 May 2016 at 22:56, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> @ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
> Which ones are you thinking of?
>
> The entire PLOS family charges, so does JMIR. Not sure if I have come
> across one that has no attached fees. Some will waive fees in
> specific circumstances but that is very different than no fees generally.
>
> Best
> James
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different
>> in
>> > that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
>> > another OA journal like this.
>>
>> The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees to authors.
>> (They only represent a minority of articles published - they tend to
>> include the smaller ones).
>>
>> I would agree that there is no shortage of journals in the world.
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>>   [hidden email]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disrupting journal publishing

geni
In reply to this post by jmh649
On 8 May 2016 at 23:28, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Basically the DOAJ search function is not returning accurate information.
> James
>


Well the good news is that they've just deleted 3.3K journals to try
and improve on that:

https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/doaj-to-remove-approximately-3300-journals/

Now if we can just find a way to get stuff accurately listed by
language it will be a lot more usable.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>