Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    Following David Roberts’ comments in another thread, I think we should build a shared list of free = (Green OA) refereed math journals. Some basic quality judgments would be good too, once we agree on a simple scale for that.

    1) I checked www.doaj.org and browsed the category “mathematics.” Since they don’t separate Green from Gold OA, there are 212 listed. Scanning briefly I found 10 that I have heard of (some of which I have refereed for or published in):

    • Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics
    • Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science
    • The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics
    • Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra
    • Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences
    • Integers : Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory
    • Journal of Generalized Lie Theory and Applications
    • New York Journal of Mathematics
    • Seminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire

    2) Some are missing, such as Electronic Journal of Probability. Also, I am happy to include related areas such as Theory of Computing (Babai’s journal). I am sure I missed some in my brief scan.

    3) The list of Green ones starting with “A” is already very long, and includes many journals run by universities I haven’t heard of in non-OECD countries (nothing wrong with that, but they are a bit obscure). The list also includes New Zealand Journal of Mathematics, which I have heard of - living there makes it more likely :)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2012

    One comment just to avoid confusion: green OA is is a different concept. It’s open access through self-archiving. For example, if you publish in any journal (OA or not) but put your paper in the arXiv or your institutional repository, then that’s green OA.

    Incidentally, I was astonished at the size of the first math journal listed at DOAJ, namely Abstract and Applied Analysis. It’s not free - there’s a $1200 article processing charge - but they’ve published 1416 papers, with 380 so far in 2012. I wonder what fraction of those authors are paying the full charges.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2012

    Henry is right. An open access journal is deemed gold-OA even if it has no author charges. I was very surprised at this. Some people call this diamond or platinum OA. But to reduce proliferation of jargon we could call it cost-free gold OA, or similar.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    As far as quality judgements go, I’d like to include some indicators such as whether it is published by a mathematical society or university (which at least gives a basic level of quality), if it is published by a publisher on Beall’s list of predatory publishers (http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355 and https://www.facebook.com/POA.Publishers). The example Mark mentions is published by Hindawi, who is on Beall’s watchlist, a sort of ’might be bad, might be not’, due to their mixed history. The journal “American Journal of Computational Mathematics” on the other hand is published by Scientific Research Publishing, a shonky outfit. Likewise I found a ScienceDomain International journal called “British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science ” - coming from an India-based company, this is clearly not entirely honest. Other publishers to watch are Medwell, Bentham, International Scholarly Research Network, Mind Reader Publications and generally anything with a generic name including phrases like International/Modern Science. Similarly any journal with a mismatch between title/country of origin/language/publisher name e.g. a journal ’based’ in the UK entirely in Chinese, or the publisher Asian Network for Scientific Information supposedly based in New York (of course, the journals of Japanese universities/maths societies in English/French are almost certainly exceptions here). Out of that list of 200+ I’d say around between 15-25 journals looked suspicious, which is not too bad. Most were maths society/university-published, with a couple by Springer.

    I also didn’t see Theory and Application of Categories in my scan of the list.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    I too am surprised - I thought Green meant free to publish. Anyway, I am talking about peer reviewed, free to publish, free to read and probably free to reuse as my definition of “good”, and I hope we can get a decent list of “good” journals. I will write to DOAJ to get them to update their list, once we have a complete one here. I have reformatted my original post which was hard to read. Please start adding journals to it, and commenting on them.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorColin Gopaul
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    David, does Beall give reasons why all publishers are on his list? I spent a very long time reading and searching on his blog , but found many publishers / journals listed appeared rather by magic. I would have a hard time referencing that list without it providing some concrete reasons for why any given publisher / journal is on it. I left a comment here

    Also, I think it would be better to itemize the different OA models, not just put a variety of semi-similar models under Gold / Green / Platinum. The more detailed information available at this time will greatly assist decision making in the future.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    Let me give you some quotes, for those on the predatory list http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355:

    “…falsely associates itself with authentic organizations and conferences. “

    “…Pakistan-based publishers…, this publisher claims to be headquartered in New York.”

    “Full of contradictions, this site is confusing. Its content appears to be open access, but it lists a subscription fee of $400 per year.”

    “Although this publisher purports to be headquartered in Libertyville, Illinois, United States, it actually appears to operate out of China.”

    ”..looking under the clever disguise reveals only a sophisticated vanity press, an enterprise where anybody can, for a price, get their work published in a journal or as a monograph. “

    “Its “contact us” page only yields a form, and no contact or geographical information is given. Always be wary of open-access publishers that give less than full contact information, including location, telephone numbers, email addresses, etc. At the same time, be aware that many publishers misrepresent their true business locations. “

    “Looking at individual articles, I notice that the period between submission and acceptance is generally two weeks, an indication of bogus or nonexistent peer review.”

    And sometimes it just means looking at the quality of papers. Owning something like 200 journals in all fields takes a huge enterprise to publish, and when contact details are sketchy, or publishers don’t seem to have a viable business model, then one has to wonder how all the work like refereeing and editorial input is done.

    Also, I think Beall gives plenty of reasons for the journals/publishers he mentions.

    This one cracked me up: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/07/12/new-journal-claims-to-be-the-ultimate-online-journal-publishing-house/#more-471 A student on the editorial board? Publishing his own work, which is in addition plagarism?

    By the way, the newest version of this list is here: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ for reference.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorColin Gopaul
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012
    • (edited Jul 30th 2012)

    Thanks David. As this is related to your idea of a "basic quality" measure to be added to Mark’s list, I think it is not too far off topic to warrant another thread. What would be useful in lesser developed countries are these quotes made specific to a publisher. Something that a staff member can take to the library or a department & faculty and have them black-list these journals / publishers. This is because limited department funds are being lost by (i) paying to publish in these poor journals, (ii) tenure given based on these publications, (iii) tenure and funding based on positions held within these publishing houses & journals, (iv) hosting and joint organization of conferences with these journals parent organization(s), etc. And there seems to be "no one around capable" of stopping what I would describe as madness. Since Elsevier’s Scopus typically has an impact factor for many of the journals on Beall’s list and Worldcat indexes a large number as well, this makes it harder to stop. Of course there are useful content in some of them (most likely a very small number), for example, I have seen a useful book chapter or two at In-Tech (I suppose its creditable authors showing support for OA models more than anything else, but that’s a wild guess).

    Lastly as I spoke about developing nations in a Beall post I found out about the following useful article for anyone interested:

    Contreras, Jorge. (2012). “Open access scientific publishing and the developing world.” St. Anthony’s International Review 8.1:43-69. Available here

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2012

    Thanks Colin. At first I misunderstood what you were getting at, and thought you were after general guidelines as to how Beall made his decisions. This is why I didn’t specify publishers. But I see his ’live’ list doesn’t have the critical commentary his older one does. I guess that is covered in the individual blog postings when they are added, but they aren’t linked,.as you said.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2012

    Some interesting discussions here, but can we please keep this thread for its original purpose and start another if required. We want an annotated list of mathematics (reasonably broadly interpreted) journals that are completely free. This will rule out predatory publishers, etc. Some of the ISRN by Hindawi are initially free but become pay-to-publish fairly soon after launch. If necessary, restrict to journals that are at least 3 years old, for example.

    I started the list above, and we also have EJP, TAC and a lot of university/society operations not yet listed. I thought of another one: Online Journal of Analytic Combinatorics. Please mention whether your suggested journal is on DOAJ or not (OJAC is not, surprisingly). I found 3 more published by IMS on DOAJ: Electronic Communications in Probability, Electronic Journal of Statistics, Probability Surveys.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2012
    • (edited Aug 2nd 2012)

    Here are some more. All of them are good quality, I believe.

    • Homology, Homotopy and Applications, (on DOAJ)
    • Documenta Mathematica, (on DOAJ, published by Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Mathematik)
    • Journal of Graph Algorithms & Applications, (not on DOAJ)
    • Theory of Computing, (not on DOAJ)
    • Ars Mathematica Contemporanea (not on DOAJ)
    • Contributions to Discrete Mathematics, (on DOAJ, published by University of Calgary)
    • Journal of Computational Geometry, (on DOAJ, published by Carleton University)
    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2012

    Some of these listed were actually on DOAJ (or at least are today) and I have completed the suggestions of new ones. Thread closed until we find some new ones, it seems.