WILL PUBLISHING SURVIVE
AS WE KNOW IT?
CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
Robert Campbell
Senior Publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
1 May 2007
The Traditional Role of a Journal
•
•
•
•
As established by Henry Oldenburg secretary of the
Royal Society and founder of Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (1665)
Registration
Dissemination
Archive
Certification
•
•
•
•
And the modern researcher wants
Speed
Quality
Readership
Permanence
2 Cardiff Seminar
Reason for choosing last journal
Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas. New Journal Publishing Models: An international survey of
Senior Researchers. A CIBER Report for the Publishers Association and International
Association of STM Publishers. 2005
3 Cardiff Seminar
The rise, fall and rise in circulation
7000
6000
5000
Circulation
4000
3000
2000
HARD COPY ONLY
1000
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
4 Cardiff Seminar
1995
2000
2005
2010
Percentage of researchers who rate different
kinds of digital resource provided by their
institutional library as “very useful”
From Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and their Services:
Commissioned by RIN/CURL. 2007
5 Cardiff Seminar
Journals Overview
Global Revenues:
c.$6.5billion
Growth rate:
3.5% p.a. by article
No of titles:
c.25,000 peer reviewed active
learned journals
No of publishers:
c.2000 journal publishers of whom
top 20 represent 64% of articles
(Wiley-Blackwell produces10.5% of articles and is no. 2 after
Elsevier at 24%)
6 Cardiff Seminar
Research and Development
Global Expenditure:
$1,000 billion
Growth rate:
3.5%pa in OECD areas
No of researchers:
5.5 million
No of articles:
1.6 million
7 Cardiff Seminar
Greater funding - greater accountability
• Funders need to be able to track output
• Dissemination and public access added to mission
• Scholarly or research communication emerging as a
subject, eg Research Information Network (RIN - UK),
Publishing Research Consortium (PRC), International
Congress on Peer Review
• Wider government and community interest
8 Cardiff Seminar
Open Access Movement
Open Access (OA) is free, permanent online access to the
full text of research articles for anyone, worldwide.
Driven by:
Claims of a ‘serials crisis’ (libraries cannot afford rising
prices of journals)
View that research can be accelerated by OA
Political pressure to make results of research funded by
tax payer freely available
The ‘expectations’ revolution
9 Cardiff Seminar
Two roads to Open Access
‘Golden Road’
Basically pay-to-publish. Journals provide OA by charging
the author/institution. Some publishers simply make their
online edition free for all.
‘Green Road’
Authors archive their articles in an Institutional Repository
or a Subject Repository for free access over the internet.
Publishers usually set an embargo (eg article can be selfarchived no sooner than 12 months after publication)
although there is pressure to reduce the length of embargo.
10 Cardiff Seminar
Pay-to-Publish
•
•
•
•
•
May lead to lower standards
Barrier to authorship
Apart from Wellcome Trust funding uncertain
14 publishers offer this option within “hybrid” model
Sustainability?
11 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
“Tax payers have the right to access
research they have already paid for.
Indeed they do. They can look at
exactly what they have paid for – which
is research up to the stage of pre-prints.
They have not, however, paid for peerreview, copy editing, composition or any
other value that a publisher adds.”
Peter Banks (26/1/07)
12 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
Is an embargo of 6 months sustainable?
a) 53% (rising to 81% in the next five years) of librarians surveyed
saw availability of content via OA archives as an important or very
important factor in determining cancellation.
Ware, Mark. ALPSP survey of librarians on factors in journal
cancellations (2006)
b) Self-archiving and Journal Subscriptions; Co-existence or
Competition?
An International Survey of Librarians’ Preferences
Chris Beckett & Simon Inger funded by PRC (Publishing Research
Consortium)
http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/PRCweb/PRCweb.nsf/e63
7be326ce8018380256ad20058e462/8e87fcd6bb8573f680257220
005836ee!OpenDocument
13 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
Finding 1
The majority of librarians will cancel if 100% of
content is OA on publication and even with an
embargo of 6 months.
14 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
The share of preference for a paid-for-final-published article versus an Open Access article
assuming 100% of content is available on archives (where 40% of articles are available by
Open Access on publication 43% as opposed to 27% of librarians’ preference is for the paid
for journal).
Paid for; Final published article
Open Access Article
Embargo period
Immediate
6 months
12 months
24 months
0%
25%
50%
Preference share
15 Cardiff Seminar
75%
100%
Self-archiving
Finding 2
Peer reviewed content is strongly preferred.
Widely available pre-prints do not threaten
subscriptions but the author’s copy of the post
peer review articles does.
16 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
The effect of the Version of Content in an OA Archive on the
change in Preference Share
2%
Change in preference
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
-16%
-18%
Author's Manuscript
17 Cardiff Seminar
Author's Copy of
Accepted, PeerReviewed Manuscript
(base)
Author's Copy of
Final Published Article
Accepted, PeerReviewed and Corrected
Manuscript
Self-archiving
Is there a difference between the author's post peer
review copy of an article and the final published
version?
18 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
Are there real differences between the author’s
version of an article and the publisher’s version. An
analysis of the copy-editing function Edwards Wates
& Robert Campbell in Learned Publishing (vol 20,
121-129, 2007)
189 articles were reviewed from 23 journals
19 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
Average number of typographical changes and other
major changes to proofs, together with the average
number of changes to the copy-editing.
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Av. no. minor proof
changes
20 Cardiff Seminar
Av. no. major proof
changes
Av. no. changes to
c/edit
Self-archiving
Analysis of the types of change made by authors in
response to 110 copy-editor queries
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Substantive
Minor
Reference Missing data Changes to
text
grammatical
queries
units
changes
changes
21 Cardiff Seminar
22 Cardiff Seminar
Author details
Abstract
Headings
Fig/Tab Cite
Footnotes
Tab/Fig + A/D
Sent_Rewrite
Para + A/D
Sent + A/D
References
Total number
First Look at Economics
Breakdown of 'major' differences (15 papers)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Self-archiving
Perhaps users care
JISC Disciplinary Differences Report
Rightscom. 2005.
23 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
“What is the single most essential resource you use, the
one that you would be lost without?”
UMBRELLA GROUP
Medical and
biological
sciences
Physical
sciences and
engineering
Social
sciences
Languages
and area
studies
Arts and humanities
Pre-prints
5.8%
1.4%
1.0%
Post-prints
6.3%
.9%
3.9%
71.6%
69.3%
5.8%
.5%
.6%
1.4%
9.2%
50.0%
35.9%
4.3%
3.4%
7.8%
2.0%
2.9%
Journal articles
90.7%
Conference proceedings
Books
Datasets
Technical reports
Govt or NGO reports
28.0%
27.2%
1.0%
1.0%
1.2%
2.3%
Legal sources
.5%
Other textual
3.7%
10.0%
14.6%
.5%
2.0%
8.7%
Non-textual
Other
Total
24 Cardiff Seminar
.6%
2.5%
4.8%
4.1%
8.0%
4.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Self-archiving
Some detail
Journal
Article
Pre-print
Post-article
Physics
65%
9%
6%
Pure Mathematics
33%
44%
11%
Computer Science
49%
-
20%
Economists
55%
18%
9%
25 Cardiff Seminar
Conference
Proceeding
15%
Self-archiving
And more subject variation
26 Cardiff Seminar
Self-archiving
Patterns of downloading articles after publication
Averaged scaled issue access
1.8
1.6
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
TRA
0.2
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
(A molecular journal)
Months past release
Averaged scaled issue access
(A philosophy journal)
4.5
4
3.5
Access
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Months past release
27 Cardiff Seminar
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
5
3
1
0
7
PHIN
5
3
0
1
Access
1.4
1.2
It’s in the stars - productive co-existence exists
Articles from four core astronomy journals Dec 2004, published 4 months
after the arXiv e-print. Reads per paper from Aug 2004 to Jun 2006
28 Cardiff Seminar
Will Institutional and Subject Repositories
replace Journals?
IRs
Unlikely as status and peer review issues
SRs
eg PubMed Central linked to peer review run by societies
Could become part of the picture but funding issues
29 Cardiff Seminar
Researchers’ perceptions of the usefulness of
institutional repositories
From Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and their Services:
Commissioned by RIN/CURL. 2007
30 Cardiff Seminar
New Models (enhanced scholarly publishing)
• NSF driven “Cyberinfrastructure”, similar to e-science in
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Europe. “Will advance discovery, learning and innovation…”
RIOJA – repository interface for overlaid journal archives. Will
support automated interactions between journals and public
repositories. JISC funded
SURFshare incorporating research data into the literature with
articles becoming a form of metadata of the published research
results
StORe: Source-to-Output Repositories – a UK project linking
journals to data repositories
NVO – National Virtual Observatory with John Hopkins linking
articles, data and images
BioLit – Open Source tools for integrating biological literature
and databases. University of California – San Diego
SWAN – Semantic Web Applications in Neuromedicine, claims
that their “knowledge bases” will replace journals
Neurocommons – mines PubMedCentral abstracts for genes,
proteins and compound relationships. Treats the literature
itself as data.
31 Cardiff Seminar
Conclusion
• Journals are thriving
• Pay-to-publish models could become part of the hybrid
•
•
•
•
model
Mandated self-archiving on or near publication could
destabilize the publishing process more quickly in some
subjects than others
Journals may develop new services/features for funding
bodies, ie adapt to a new stakeholder
Journals should evolve, eg to be read by machines (text
mining) and interface with data repositories
Models for who will pay how need to keep pace with
journal development
32 Cardiff Seminar
Descargar

Publication Title - Cardiff University