<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 December 2012 23:15, Hans Pfeiffenberger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans.pfeiffenberger@awi.de" target="_blank">hans.pfeiffenberger@awi.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">for your convenience: the link, again, was: <a href="http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/" target="_blank">http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/</a></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mike Taylor was probably getting his figures from: </div><div><br></div><div>Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B.-C. 2012. A study of open access journals using article processing charges. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 63:1485-1495. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>also available for free at <a href="http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/">http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/</a></div><div><br></div><div>some relevant facts and figures from this paper (do please read it for yourselves!)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Only 26% of DOAJ-listed (as of 23-Aug-2011) journals charge an APC.</div><div><br></div><div>"Walters and Linvill (2011) examined 663 journals selected from the DOAJ in six fields of which 29%<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>charged APCs. They noted while 29% of the journals charged APCs, they accounted for approximately 50% of the articles."</div>
<div><br></div><div>summary of another previous study: Dallmeier-Tiessen et al 2011 </div><div>"Almost 23,000 authors who had published an article in<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> an OA journal where asked about how much they<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>had paid. Half of the authors had not paid any fee at all, and only<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>10% had paid fees exceeding 1,000 Euros."<br>
<br><br></div><div><br></div><div>As for David Prosser's comments, I agree that a 'by journal' assessment of things may be misleading but... </div><div>cross-referencing with the figure given in Solomon & Bjork (2012) of 100,697 articles published in 2010 appearing in 1370 DOAJ-listed journals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>PLoS journals (all) only account for ~26500 articles in 2010 & BMC journals (all) only ~21,000 articles in 2010<br>(as can be surmised from a quick Web of Knowledge query).</div><div><br></div><div>
Thus these two high-volume high-profile OA publishers only account for less than half of all possible APC-fee paying articles in 2010.</div><div><br></div><div>Additionally, as someone in the field of palaeontology I happen to know for a fact that PLoS (and probably BMC too) routinely give out discounts or *full* fee waivers to those authors that genuinely can't afford to pay them, many in my field are making use of this. So it would be wrong to assume that all ~47,500 of those PLoS & BMC articles in 2010 paid full fees.<br>
<br>If you're interested in this, I thoroughly recommend reading the Solomon & Bjork paper.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Ross</div><div><br></div></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div> <br>-- <br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>
Ross Mounce<br>PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow<br>Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group<br>University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07<br><a href="http://about.me/rossmounce" target="_blank">http://about.me/rossmounce</a><br>
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>