|thread||works:178_elpub2008 triggered this discussion:
harnad:Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options
|subject||Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options|
|message||(1) The Ulrich's estimate for the total number of peer-reviewed journals (hence of the proportion of them that are OA) is bound to remain somewhat fuzzy, as Ulrich's criteria for "refereed" are not made explicit, and unlikely to be rigorous or exhaustive. Perhaps from the ISI and DOAJ journals that are *not* indexed (or not indexed as "refereed") by Ulrich's, it would be possible to estimate the degree to which the Ulrich's total for refereed journals is an underestimate; and if there are journals that Ulrich's classifies as "refereed" but DOAJ has excluded as non-refereed, an estimate of Ulrich's overestimate could also be derived.
(2) The estimates of the article counts in the non-ISI and non-DOAJ journals is probably also somewhat fuzzy. Perhaps it could be better triangulated by getting field-specific figures from ISI and DOAJ and then using the field classifiers to estimate the missing journals' article counts by field.
(3) It is not clear whether the embargoed-access journals should be included in the OA counts, particularly as this was based on one year (2006), and a one-year embargo means that those articles were not accessible when the rest (Gold and Green) were. By the same token, it would be important to try to estimate when the Green OA articles were deposited, relative to the availability date of the journal version.
(4) Probably both the Green and Gold estimates are under-estimates, but they are in the same ball park we keep finding: under 20% for both, and Green (the more underestimated of the two) 2-3 times as high as Gold.
|last changed||2008/06/26 00:26|