Three significant things happened in the last week or so:
JQ Johnson, Director of Scholarly Communications & Instructional Support for the University of Oregon Libraries, took a crack at a simple mash up of SCImago Journal Rankings (SJRs) with open access journals that appear in the Directory of Open Access Journals to create a list of highly cited (good) open access journals. And he also threw in a similar calculation of article influence from eigenfactor.org , the metric system from ISI Web of Science.
- Tables (PDF) of the 50 highest ranked OA journals, ranked by SJR and by Article Impact.
- A spreadsheet (XLSX) containing all 2014 OA journals rated by SCImago, with additional information, including subject.
- A spreadsheet (XLSX) containing 625 journals rated by eigenfactor.org
JQ’s Tables could probably jump-start an institutional conversation on high quality and effective open access. One of his conclusions is that, with just a few exceptions, “The vast majority of highly ranked OA journals are in biomedicine.”
Not bad writing or reporting, but a comprehensive catalog of bad (predatory and/or questionable) open access publishers, courtesy of the librarian Jeffrey Beall, whom I credit with coining the term “predatory open access” and keeping the catalog fresh in his blog Scholarly Open Access. There are 46 questionable publishers on Jeffrey’s list.
It’s always ugly when dirty laundry ends up in view of many people. Jeffrey Beall’s catalog of predatorial publishing tendencies became news on the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Education web site (along with a nice picture of Jeffrey) with the headline ‘Predatory’ Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish‘(subscription required for premium content).
I guess we need an open access version of The Chronicle that everyone can read. Wait, Alice, I think there is: