[Open-access] Fwd: Fee-free scholarly publishing

Thu Aug 16 08:21:50 UTC 2012

Dear All,

I realise that this thread is a discussion of how to document and support
"fee-free" OA journals, but it might be useful to put in context the comment
below that 70% of journals listed in the DOAJ (in 2009) were no-fee. 

I say this because some might conclude on reading the comment that 70% of
*papers* published in OA journals are being published without a fee. This is
clearly not so. While some of the journals in DOAJ may currently be
publishing no more than a handful of papers, others will be publishing many
more. Indeed, for-fee "mega journals" will be publishing a great many more.
Thus PLoS ONE (which charges an APC of $1,350) is now publishing around
2,000 papers a month, and expects to publish 3% of the STM literature this
year
(http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/05/18/plos-one-a-personal-farewell/). 

Moreover, as subscription publishers increasingly embrace OA we can be sure
that they will be doing so by charging an APC.

As such, I assume that we have no idea at all of how many OA *papers* are
being published on a no-fee basis. (Or perhaps someone does have some data
here)?

Either way, list members will doubtless feel that this makes it is all the
more important to document and support fee-free journals. 

Best wishes,

Richard Poynder

-----Original Message-----
From: open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gray
Sent: 15 August 2012 15:37
To: open-access at lists.okfn.org
Subject: [Open-access] Fwd: Fee-free scholarly publishing

Hi all,

I'm forwarding a very interesting recent thread about fee-free scholarly
publishing started by Peter Murray-Rust with Rosemary Laurent from INRIA
[1], Richard Poynder, Peter Suber, Jenny Molloy, Tom Olijhoek, Ross Mounce
and several other OKFN folks.

Peter Murray-Rust's original email to Rosemary is at the bottom, as well as
some of the subsequent correspondence with Rosemary Laurent, Richard Poynder
and Peter Suber.

Basically the discussion is about how we can better document and support
'fee-free' open access journals - which might include case studies, a
possible 'fee-free' OA handbook, publicity and community building
activities, and building a better 'best practises network'
with people and organisations who have done it.

We all agreed that - rather than continuing discussion in private - it would
make more sense to open this discussion up to others on this list!

All the best,

Jonathan

[1] http://www.inria.fr/en/institute/inria-in-brief

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Peter Suber <peter.suber at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd be glad to stay in the loop for this discussion.
>
> In May 2009, Stuart Shieber did a systematic survey of the journals in 
> the DOAJ, and found that 70% were no-fee. As far as I know, that's the 
> most recent systematic survey.
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/05/29/what-percentage-of-op
> en-access-journals-charge-publication-fees/
>
> The DOAJ doesn't maintain a separate list of the no-fee journals. But 
> if you browse the journals by field, the journal record will tell you 
> whether or not the journal charges a publication fee. Here are the 
> journals in botany just to show some examples. Look at the first two 
> listed. The first charges a fee and second doesn't.
> http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=72&uiLanguage=en
>
> I've written about OA journals several times over the years, most 
> recently (not very recently!) in November 2006, when most people 
> didn't even realize they existed, let alone that they constituted the
majority of OA journals.
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-06.htm#nofee
>
> I haven't seen a "handbook" of no-fee OA journal publishing. If you 
> compile one, it would be very useful. Meantime, see the list of OA 
> journal business models at the Open Access Directory.
> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
>
> This list has no entry for "no-fee" OA journals because "no-fee" isn't 
> a business model. Instead, look at the business models other than 
> "publication fees" and "submission fees".
>
>      Best,
>      Peter S.
>
> Peter Suber
> gplus.to/petersuber