LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 May 2013 18:47:06 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:08:20 +0100

The 70% is often mentioned. Perhaps Kevin, who has presumably looked into
this, will confirm or deny my understanding that the great majority of these
70% are small humanities journals which are underwritten by the departments
of the editors. I would suggest that the great majority of larger journals
in the sciences and social sciences are mainly financed by APCs. Maybe
someone (with time) has done an analysis?

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:43:17 -0500

Does anyone know if the 30% includes all of the journals identified by Beall
as "predatory"? Is there any other way for a "predatory" journal to make
money than by charging APCS (and sponsoring "conferences")?
Are all the "predatory" journals listed in the DOAJ? Are there any criteria
applied to journals that are listed there?

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:32:08 +0000
>
> Agreed.  And it is worth noting that nearly 70% of gold OA journals do
> not charge APCs.  So we are talking about a minority of journals
> within only one of the OA business models.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
> Director of Scholarly Communication
> Duke University Libraries
> P.O. Box 90193
> Durham, NC 27708

ATOM RSS1 RSS2