<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 January 2017 at 16:57, Heather Morrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca" target="_blank">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Elsevier is now one of the world’s largest open access publishers as measured by the number of fully OA journals published. What are the implications?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are precisely no implications.</div><div><br></div><div>The number of journals is an utterly irrelevant measure, but I'm assuming you already knew this. </div><div><div>Journals are just vessels for content. It is actual content that is important.</div></div><div>Article volume is what counts in publishing (economically), and Elsevier are nowhere near the largest when it comes to immediate OA publishing. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Most of Elsevier's fully OA journals are recently created and are low-volume. They can create and close (e.g. <a href="https://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science/">https://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science/</a> ) journals at the click of button. </div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps though this is part of Elsevier's strategy - at a very very superficial level (e.g. counting journal titles) it looks like they are deeply invested in open access publishing. I hope no politicians or librarians are fooled by this simple ruse.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br></div><div>Ross</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>