Talk:List of open-access journals/Archive 1

message: These are examples of how you can use  to add entries for individual journals.
Journal	Free culture license?             	Fully open access      	Copyright transfer       	Fee
Example	Yes (CC-BY-SA)                    	Yes                    	No, author retains rights	$3000
Example	No (CC-BY-NC)                     	No (Hybrid)            	No, author retains rights	None
Example	No (CC-BY-ND)                     	No (Delayed: 12 months)	Exclusive license        	$250 for immediate access
Example	Yes (public domain or CC0)        	Yes                    	No, author retains rights	$500 upon submission
Example	No (All rights reserved or custom)	Yes                    	Copyright transfer       	None
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs) 
*Please note that if a publication is not peer-reviewed, it is not considered to be an academic journal but a magazine. Being peer-reviewed is the very definition of an academic journal. Publishing in such journals is what almost all academics are judged on, publications in non-peer reviewed publications hardly count for anything. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry to be a pest, but are we supposed to list prices of products (an article is a product, after all) on WP? We're not supposed to be a consumer guide, I think... --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: Once we finish filling out the data for this list (or even before), we should start importing Journals from the OA journal category, specifically the :Category:Creative_Commons-licensed_journals and the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA ones within that.  Kxra (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Journals 

message: The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology does require subscription to the sponsoring organizations, in order to view an issue within the first three months of publication. Thereafter, the issue becomes open access. Alan Pascoe 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now called Delayed open access journals.DGG 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure whether acceptable for inclusion 

message: I think that the question of whether or not a journal is 'free' is a 'grey area'. One I have just listed, the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, limits access to members of the sponsoring organization within the first three months of publication. At any time, most of its content is free, so this is very nearly a journal available free online. A journal such as The Vocabula Review is not free. A subscription is required to access any content. However, according to the journal website, the 12 US Dollars a year subscription hardly covers their operating costs. All journals will have operating costs, even the 'free' ones. In these cases these costs are paid by a sponsoring organization. This is probably a learned society in the case of scientific journals, and these have fee-paying members. Alan Pascoe 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as grey as it used to be--see Open access journalDGG 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey area? 

message: to Journals with free content?DGG 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed title change

message: This list seems to attract spam entries. The lead explicitly says "selected particularly notable journals", and I think a particularly notable journal would merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Therefore should we simply remove all red links, and require that people create articles first before adding entries to this list? — Miym (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: Could Google Knol be considered an open access online journal? It has many research papers and theories, along with established information on a variety of subjects. 74.132.50.90 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Knol 

message: This should be converted to a series of tables showing their OA type (full, hybrid, or delayed), whether they use a free culture license, and whether they are fee-based. Kxra (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of OA status 

message: To keep this maintainable, the table should (whenever possible) have footnotes for each "number of articles" entry, even if it's just basically "counted from [archive link] as of 2013-01-29". I looked through the first entry, for International Journal of Biological Sciences, and it's had 57 issues, typically with 10+ articles each, so it definitely has more than the "~200" listed. If each entry has a source or date that can be checked, then the table will still preserve some useful info when the numbers get stale.--ragesoss (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. It seems like this is tough information to find manually. All these journals are extensively indexed by Google Scholar and things like PUBMED and Web of Science. Anyone know of an easy way to find the total number of articles in a journal through some of these index services? If not, it's going to be very hard to maintain that column.--ragesoss (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Journal Citation Reports includes this info in their annual editions. For journals that are not included in the JCR, you will have to do some research yourself. However, this information will be out of date basically the moment that you put it in an article and apart from that appears pretty trivial to me anyway. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think knowing the scale of a journal helps a lot to put it in context. I'll remove that column for now, though, until we find a straightforward way to find and update the numbers. This project may be useful at some point for kind of info.--ragesoss (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources and/or dates needed for number of articles 

message: I built a template for adding entries to the tables, , which should make each one a little bit more readable, and also give us the chance to standardize the formatting more efficiently and reduce the amount of formatting stuff that has to be entered manually. I put the template format in for all the examples. Basically, each entry in the table goes like this:

--ragesoss (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *As I explained in other comments on this page, I think that you should remove the peer-reviewed and articles lines. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  template for table entries 

message: I just requested a history merge for Talk:Comparison of open-access journals. I think this is not quite possible because of edits on both pages. Better to delete this one and move the other here. I already moved discussion from here to there.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was resolved instead by putting the past discussion in an archive.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History merge

message: This one?
* List of questionable, scholarly open-access journals
Jeff5102 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's a reliable source (see Jeffrey Beall and predatory open-access publishing). --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. I'll put it under "Other". Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this link be useful? 

message: Hello,
This is a list. And it's always an exhausting job that to create and update them.
Couldn't this be done by a sql query ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia
I think a lot of lists would gain making this transition.
If you want to read more about it I suggest you the PhD thesis of Christopher DAVIS.
http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/thesis/ChrisDavisPhD_MakingSenseOfOpenData.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RP87 (talk • 
contribs) 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using query for lists 

message: The List of open access nonprofit journals could be incorporated into this list and indicated if it is also non-profit. It could be a column if the list was converted to a table, as discussed above. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should be merged--there is already some duplication.  DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from List of open access nonprofit journals 

message: Just a heads up that I've removed the articles which were included on the basis of articles on other Wikipedias. Other Wikipedias have different standards for notability, and guidelines are often not well enforced owing to the smaller user base. That may or may not be the case here, but a spot check shows most of these were based just on primary sources anyway. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to articles on other Wikipedias 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of open access projects which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of open-access projects which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This list currently combines both gold OA (e.g. PLOS One) and diamond OA (e.g. Acta Mathematica) without any indication of which is which.  I think it would be helpful to split into two lists.  Also, the current title is confusing since other flavors of OA are excluded (to be clear, I think other flavors should be excluded since there are so many OA journals these days, my issue is just with the title.  Crust (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into Gold OA and Diamond OA lists?