The 'Platinum Route' to Open Access: A Case Study of <i>E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. In 1999, with no money and no support from any library organization, the author partnered with the International Consortium for Alternative Academic Publication (ICAAP), later renamed the International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication, to found a new electronic journal, The Journal of Southern Academic and Special Librarianship, renamed E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship in 2002. Description. This case study is based on the author’s own experiences founding and developing a professional, independent, permanently archived, peer reviewed, open-access, electronic library journal, employing a scholar-led model of publishing. The author’s partnership with the ICAAP is discussed emphasizing the benefits of this collaboration. Conclusion. The ICAAP has demonstrated to the world that is possible to form independent scholarly journal publishing projects outside of the commercial mainstream. Also, the ICAAP has shown that there is an alternative to paying commercial publishers hundreds and even thousands of dollars to buy back the scholarly research of our colleagues in academia. The alternative is starting and/or supporting scholarly journal publishing projects that take the ‘platinum route’ to open-access. Everyone is encouraged to work to make academic research free and freely accessible on the Web for one and all. “The Platinum Route is the voluntary, collaborative, no charge model that is usually overlooked in the debates on OA” (Wilson 2007)
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".