THE FUNCTION OF THE JOURNAL
Developing a predictive model for
scholarly communication
Michael Mabe
Visiting Professor
City University, London and
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
System Drivers
• Major drivers
– Researcher behaviour as authors
– Human factors: ego, recognition, renown
• Amplifying factors
– Professional environment
• Reward mechanisms
– Institutional environment
• Tenure and support
– Governmental and societal factors
• Resource justification and allocation
First Scientific Journal
• 6th March 1665
Philosophical
Transactions of the
Royal Society
Ed. Henry Oldenburg
Secretary of the Royal
Society
• First true scholarly
journal
• Published for profit at
Oldenburg’s expense
Inventing the Journal: Oldenburg’s Letters
• [We must be] very careful of registring as well the person and
time of any new matter.., as the matter itselfe; whereby the
honor of ye invention will be inviolably preserved to all
posterity.
[Oldenburg, 24 November 1664]
• all Ingenious men will be thereby incouraged to impart their
knowledge and discoveryes
[Oldenburg, 3 December 1664]
• [I should not] neglect the opportunity of having some of my
Memoirs preserv’d, by being incorporated into a Collection,
that is like to be as lasting as usefull
[Boyle, 1665]
• [Phil. Trans. should be] licensed under the charter by the
Council of the Society, being first reviewed by some of the
members of the same.”
[R.Soc. Order in Council 1/3/1665]
Peer Reviewed Journal Growth 1665-2001
No of titles launched and still extant 2001
Journalof
growth
M A Mabe The growth and number
journals Serials 16(2).191-7, 2003
10000
Data from Ulrich’s International
Total
number of active refereed
Periodicals Directory on CD-ROM
learnedSummer
journals2001
in 2004:
17,700
Edition
cagr 3.46%
R2 = 0.9877
100
1
1665
1765
1865
Year
1965
Article Growth 1981-2002
900000
850000
800000
750000
Articles
700000
~3% p.a.
650000
600000
550000
ISI Data
500000
450000
400000
Art icles
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
472350
490560
506400
509087
541880
559031
552821
573181
597410
612408
625308
662094
663787
710844
746886
760567
756540
794638
808879
810588
830139
826403
Year
Journals & Researcher Growth
Index (1981=1.00)
1.6
R&D Workers, Journals and Articles
US r&d
workers
journals
1.2
articles
0.8
1980
1985
Year
1990
1995
More researchers ⇒ more journals
Source data:
NSF, Ulrich’s
& ISI
Current Environment
• 2,000+ journal publishers
– 600 commercial, 1400+ not for profit
•
•
•
•
18,000 active, peer reviewed journals
1.2-1.4 m articles published yearly
~1 m unique authors each year
~10-15 m readers
f in
al
ev
ie
w
pe
er
r
pu
bl
ic
communication type
fo
rm
al
ed
Scientific Communication Units
pre-print
web-posting
X
oral presentation
X
proceedings paper
?
X
technical report
?
X
?
PhD thesis
X
X
X
journal article
X
X
X
monograph
X
X
?
reference work
X
X
?
?
X
pre-print db
institutional repository
learned journal
self-archiving
arc
hi v
e
tio
mi
na
di s
se
ati
on
rtif
ic
ce
r eg
istr
ati
on
n
Scientific Communication Vehicles
? ?
? X
X X X X
How do Authors Choose a Journal?
• They already know the subject coverage of their
research paper and its quality and approach
• They select the set of most appropriate journals
in terms of subject coverage
• They match the general quality of their paper
(best, good, ok) to a class of journals (top,
middling, run-of-the-mill) with the same subject
and approach
• From that class they select a specific journal
based upon experience
How do Authors Choose a Journal?
Key Factors:
Marginal Factors:
Which Category?
Which Journal?
Journal Hierarchy
Impact Factor
Track Record
J
Reputation
Editorial Standard
Publication speed
?
Access to Audience
J
International
Coverage
Self Evaluation
A J
J
J
J B
?
A&I Coverage
Society Link
J
J
J
J
J
C
?
?
Quality/Colour
Illustrations
Service Elements, e.g.
author instructions,
quality of proofs,
reprints, etc
Experience as Referee
Co
l
le
ag
ue
s
Reason for choice
e
be
ro
O
th
er
25
fs
oc
ie
ty
n
et
y
kn
ow
so
ci
he
r
de
la
y
pu
bl
is
m
re
fe
re
es
em
el
y
M
UK
Ti
jo
ur
na
l
e
al
iza
t io
n
sa
m
e
Pr
es
tig
pu
bl
ica
tio
n
Sp
ec
i
in
ou
s
rk
no
wn
Le
ar
ne
d
he
d
Li
k
pu
bl
is
Pr
ev
i
Ed
ito
% Response
Main reasons for choice of journal for publication
Choice of Journal (Coles 93)
45
40
35
30
1st Choice
2nd Choice
20
15
10
5
0
Authors’ Reasons for Choosing the Last
Journal to Publish in (Ciber 2004)
0 = no influence, 100 = strongest influence
Targeted
Impact factor
Editorial board
Circulation
Speed
E-version
Hard copy
A&I coverage
Easy to get in
Journal price
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
What matters most to Authors?
2=
1
6
QUALITY
&
SPEED
5
7
8
4
2=
Data from 36,188 Authors;
0= unimportant
10= very important
Elsevier
survey data
presented at
Fiesole 2003
What do modern researchers want
as authors?
• REGISTRATION: to register a discovery as
theirs and made by them on a certain date
– to assert ownership and achieve priority
• CERTIFICATION: To get their research (and by
implication, themselves) quality stamped
by publication in a journal of known quality
– to establish a reputation, and get reward
• DISSEMINATION: To let their peers know what
they have done
– to attract recognition and collaboration
• ARCHIVE: To leave a permanent
record of their research
– renown, immortality
What do modern researchers want
as readers?
• Reassurance as to its status and quality
– prestige and authority ⇒ CERTIFICATION
• Material that is appropriate to their
research interest
– Specialisation
and relevance ⇒ DISSEMINATION
• Tools that allow the material to be
located and browsed
– browsing and
indexing ⇒ NAVIGATION
• Availability of sources over time
– persistence and
continuity ⇒ ARCHIVE
A Functional/Behavioural Model for the
Journal
Needs
READERS
• constant citation
• authority
• specialisation
• continuity
• navigation
Functions
JOURNAL
• registration
• certification
• dissemination
• archive
• navigation
Needs
AUTHORS
• ownership
• reputation
• recognition/audience
• renown
Provided by the publishing entity through
–
–
–
–
third party authority (rhetorical independence)
brand identity management
long-term management of continuity
technology
Brand Identity & Its Management
Research
Community
Monitoring and
feedback
EDITOR & BOARD
QUALITY SPEED COLLECTION
PUBLISHER
Testing the Model: Content
Nature of content
Objective knowledge
about external facts in the world
Subjective knowledge
about internal critical processes
All authors equally
able to make “discoveries”
Each author has his
own critical faculties
Credit goes to who is “first”
Each author’s “discoveries”
can only be his
Priority and speed of
publication paramount
Very
strong
sciences
Priority and speed unimportant
Registration function
Very
humanitiesweak
Testing the Model: Discipline
Subject variation
Small to Medium Scale
Experimental/Empirical
Many
investigators
Co-authorship
low
Theoretical
& V Large Scale Experimental
Small fields
where quality of
each researchers’
THEORETICAL
work
is known
PHYSICS
personally
to peers
MOLECULAR &
MATHS
Theoretical
paper,
ATOMIC & SOLID
COMPUTER
“Right” or “Wrong”
STATEas
PHYSICS
Peer review
methodological
SCIENCE
by
inspection
CHEMISTRY
and
quality filter
LIFE SCIENCES
HIGH
Co-authorship
high
MATERIALS SCIENCE
ENERGY
Very ENGINEERING
PHYSICS Very
Certification
function
GEOLOGY
strong
weak
Where/when the model breaks
down…
Unimportant
Pre-print or
self-archiving
culture?
Ave
co-authorship
level 2003
Registration
Certification
Traditional journal culture
High Energy Physics
Crucial
1
4
Level of Co-authorship
100s
Is Co-authorship Rising?
4.50
4.00
From:
Mabe
&Science
AminCitation
ASLIB
Proc. 54(3).149-175, 2002
Data
from ISI
Index
3.98
No of Authors or Papers
3.50
3.03
3.00
Authorships per
Paper
2.50
2.00
Authorships per
Unique Author
1.50
Papers per Unique Author
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.00
1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
The Future: A Tentative Prediction
• Journal model will remain
– Drivers unchanged, human factors same as 1665
– Paradigm collapse by coauthor expansion doesn’t
seem likely for 50-100+ years
• Technology used will develop
– Delivery technology has changed
– unrecognisable from 10 years ago; paper to www
– Unrecognisable in the future?
• Economic models evolve
– Business models are constantly changing
– Models can feedback in unexpected ways