The gist was that, after several years, I was getting ready to give up on an audiophile magazine I called “The Absolute Bose” (not quite its real name) for various reasons.
I finally did. And only five months after not renewing and three months after explicitly telling them I wasn’t going to, they stopped sending the issues.
Briefly, I stopped because I no longer found their general attitudes amusing–and, in fact, was finding the editor’s attitudes so grating that I came close to throwing the mag across the room most months. (I am neither violent nor especially demonstrative, as anyone who knows me can attest.) Specifically, assertions such as there being no point of diminishing returns in absurdly expensive audio upgrades and my increasing sense that (a) writers were looking for their preferred set of distortions and (b) writers were hearing differences that could largely be explained by the fact that hearing is NOT entirely based on sound waves at the ear: what the brain does may be more important and (c) every seemingly-audible improvement was a world-shattering improvement. Oh, and the recognition that my 80-year-old hearing-aid using ears aren’t the batlike organs that seem so to be universal among TAB writers.
And, to be sure, the general sense that vinyl is always better than digital…and that *real* music lovers mostly listen to jazz (or maybe classical).
So I’m left with one audio magazine. And I’m increasingly thinking that, in a couple of years when that one’s up for renewal, I might drop that one. Maybe I’m just too old for this stuff. (The other magazine’s many columns seem almost all to be vinyl- and turntable/cartridge-centric, and I still don’t regret having sold all of my 1,200-plus LPs shortly after CDs emerged.) Frankly, reading a favorable review of a cartridge that uses (I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!) Mammoth tusks for cartridge bodies is…well, I don’t have words. I guess that Mammoth breeding program is going well?
]]>What’s amusing is that when I log in, it always brings up the nearest store. And says that the store is a mere 61.4 miles away. Which is only off by about 60 miles.
I love automation.
]]>The new template isn’t quite as fancy, but it’s cleaner and nicely suits the future usage of Walt at Random. I don’t expect ever to add 2,500 more posts (the blog’s been around for 21 years), but I’m happy not to lose it.
]]>Also, prices for earlier editions of Gold Open Access and Diamond OA have been adjusted to cover Lulu pricing changes–usually involving an increase of around $0.25-$0.50. (If anybody purchased a print copy during late June, Lulu would have charged the minimum price; I round up to the nearest quarter-dollar, quarter-Euro, or quarter-pound).
Now after a little break, to see if I can make changes to this here blog so that current PHP is supported… (In that process, the appearance and features may change…)
]]>We shall see.
]]>While completing that publishing process, I will be adjusting all of the Gold OA/Diamond OA prices as needed (Lulu’s production prices have risen a bit, and if I don’t do it they’ll charge odd prices to meet minima).
Shortly after that, I plan to do a major trimming of the Cites & Insights Books collection–getting rid of many of the items. That will probably include all 14 of the Cites & Insights annual collections. Most of which have sold zero copies.
So in the unlikely event that you want any of those, now’s the time. [The print versions of Gold/Diamond OA books won’t go away just yet…and the free downloadable PDFs will be available as long as I keep paying hosting fees/domain fees, so they’re safe for at least another year or two or more.]
]]>That’s also true for the spreadsheet on my account or on Figshare–although the typos there may not even be visible. (The print book will be replaced in a day or so.)
The book and final spreadsheet for Gold Open Access 2026 are now available:
Book:
Lulu, $12 (includes color graphs)
https://www.lulu.com/shop/walt-crawford/gold-open-access-2026/paperback/product-84d2vkv.html
free PDF: https://waltcrawford.name/goa26.pdf
Spreadsheet:
Figshare: Gold Open Access 2026
direct: https://waltcrawford.name/g26_figshare.xlsx
Expect Diamond OA 2026 in a few weeks.
NOTE: The preliminary spreadsheet will go away in a few days. There are no changes in the gathered data, but a handful of journals that have articles in 2024 (or 2025 in one case) and were incorrectly assigned “bi” as a code have been changed to “a.” No aggregated counts should be affected.
NOTE 2: Lulu’s prices are increasing slightly as of June 1. The price shown here will continue to be valid, but others may rise slightly.
NOTE 3{ Probably not relevant to anybody here, but I will be deleting the Cites & Insights annual paperbacks in a few weeks, as promised last year.
]]>Of these:
Excluding exclusions leaves 21,174 journals that will be reflected in the book and tables, of which:
After a day or two to decompress, I’ll do some data manipulation (NOT changing data, but preparing derived data) and start on the books. The first book is likely to take around a month–maybe more, maybe a bit less.
At that point, I’ll also load the dataset to Figshare with a copy on my own website (waltcrawford.name) and proceed to do the Diamond OA book.
Meanwhile, an unofficial dataset–unlikely to change unless something odd occurs–is available for your use at waltcrawford.name/share26.xlsx. NOTE: The initial version of share26 had the yearly columns reversed (oldest first, which is how they will be for the working dataset). I’ve reverted them back to newest-first and replaced the dataset.
]]>
None of these numbers is final. After
r more frequent updates, follow #goa26 on “the Fediverse” (Mastodon et al) or follow me on Mastodon
Addendum: In all, 2,697 journals will be rechecked–including all the xx and xm (but not xx2 or xm2) cases, and others where it seemed plausible that more 2025 articles would have been added. Chances are, a few of those 2,697 will have been removed from DOAJ.
]]>