<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jean-Claude has an excellent point.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, professors (can’t remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that bibliometric
measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics
a distorted, pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it would still remain
that normal science follows similar rules in Russia, Japan, and China and yet a huge part of that content still goes unaccounted for. A normal US or UK paper is not any better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or Russian paper yet the former are frequently
counted, the latter more frequently not. The low impact of non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the exclusion of journals published in non-English speaking countries, and Jean-Claude is right to say there are thousands of them.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level self-citations are frequently excluded when journals are not published in English-language journal.
If one wants to see the effect of removing national self-citation, try removing them altogether and you’ll see how badly clobbered the US ends-up in terms of relate impact. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting to measure that way as it would be unwise (I
always advocate the inclusion of self-citations at all levels even though everyone knows some authors and journals are narcissistic and playing the number game – self citations are an essential part of the knowledge-building edifice and excluding them potentially
create more problems than it solves), but it is a valid experiment to show how bad the situation currently is because we count only publications from half of the journals published, and that half is anything but randomly selected. For those who want to see
the effect, I can send you a table – among countries with 45,000 papers or more, and adjusted for scale, the US ranked 22<sup>nd</sup> (after Japan, the Czech Republic and Mexico) if only citations from other countries were included. We never published that
paper as we thought it was brain damaged to exclude national self-citation. Yet, by excluding many many locally published journals from citation counts, this is what the advanced analytics that come out of dominant bibliographic databases do, and this is a
sin that we, bibliometricians, commit every day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hopefully open access will play a huge role in reducing the distortion field. I can confirm there is more than 50,000 scholarly and scientific journals the
world over, not by any measure all open access, but all peer or quality reviewed according to the norms of scholarly and scientific communication in all fields of academia. Stay tuned, more neutral metrics are going to be available in the near future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric Archambault<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jean-Claude Guédon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> April-28-15 9:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> goal@eprints.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have repeatedly criticized the numbers of journals used to describe scientific and scholarly publishing in the world. I have also regularly criticized the use of lists such as the Web of Science, Scopus and Ulrich's as being largely centred
on the North Atlantic and/or OECD countries.As a counter to such numbers, I have pointed out that Latin America alone, as indicated by the Latindex vetted list, can sport over 6,000 titles. Presumably, if Asia and Africa did the same kind of work, numbers
of 25-27,000 titles for the whole world would look funny.<br>
<br>
Another way to look at this is through disciplines or study areas. No one, I suspect, would argue that Classics (Latin and Greek) is a large speciality in the world of learning. Typically, classics departments are small and tend to disappear. Nonetheless, one
can find a list of 1498 journal in this field, <b>and that list is limited to open access journals</b>.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.ca/2012/07/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html">http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.ca/2012/07/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html</a>
<br>
<br>
The list dates from the summer of 2012. There may be a few more or a few less since, but the least one may add is that such a number reveals a publishing activity that reaches well beyond expectations (at least mine).<br>
<br>
Conclusion: scholarly journal publishing is a lot more complex than what is provided by most scientometric studies.<br>
<br>
And a final question: who is advantaged by the illusory simplicity of the publishing landscape?<o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Jean-Claude Guédon<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Professeur titulaire<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Littérature comparée<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Université de Montréal<o:p></o:p></pre>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>