Open Access Article Processing Charges (OA APC) Longitudinal Study 2016 Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article documents Open access article processing charges (OA APC) Main 2016. This dataset was developed as part of a longitudinal study of the minority (about a third) of the fully open access journals that use the APC business model. APC data for 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 are primarily obtained from publishers’ websites, a process that requires analytic skill as many publishers offer a diverse range of pricing options, including multiple currencies and/or differential pricing by article type, length or work involved and/or discounts for author contributions to editing or the society publisher or based on perceived ability to pay. This version of the dataset draws heavily from the work of Walt Crawford, and includes his entire 2011–2015 dataset; in particular Crawford’s work has made it possible to confirm “no publication fee” status for a large number of journals. DOAJ metadata for 2016 and 2014 and a 2010 APC sample provided by Solomon and Björk are part of the dataset. Inclusion of DOAJ metadata and article counts by Crawford and Solomon and Björk provide a basis for studies of factors such as journal size, subject, or country of publication that might be worth testing for correlation with business model and/or APC size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.035 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".