PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline

Thu Jul 3 15:38:16 EDT 2014

How can there be a "tiny but broad" research institution? Each researcher's 
field is very narrow. If there are a tiny number of researchers then their 
journal needs are equally tiny, not all journals. Even Harvard does not 
need access to all journals.

Note too that a researcher can always get a copy of any article they are 
interested in simply by asking the author for it. That is why the author's 
email address is always provided.

There is nothing unsustainable about the subscription model.

David Wojick
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 02:47 PM 7/3/2014, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>Albert,
>
>Although as a librarian I would like to support your statement and claim 
>more money from my institution I think the unsustainability of the 
>subscription model is more fundamental and not a consequence of discrete 
>policy or actions of stakeholders. It is caused by the unique value of 
>each and every publication combined with ever growing publication volumes. 
>Consider a tiny but broad research institution. To carry out top research 
>they would need access to all journals, which is simply impossible to 
>afford under the subscription model of access provision, thus preventing 
>optimal research. The problem is becoming more apparent because of price 
>increases that are at least partly due to increasing publication volumes. 
>Any lasting solution should make it possible for anyone to access all 
>published research. That means either a pay-per-view system or open 
>access. The pay-per-view approach is not ideal because determining whether 
>something is relevant requires full text access. That leaves open access 
>as the only long term sustainable solution. Giving more money to 
>libraries, and thus sticking with the subscription model, is not a long 
>term solution.
>
>Jeroen Bosman
>Utrecht University Library
>
>Op 3 jul. 2014 om 16:05 heeft "Al Henderson" 
><<mailto:chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM>chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM> het volgende 
>geschreven:
>
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>If "the scientific journal system is probably not financially feasible 
>>anymore," it is because universities chose to decimate library spending. 
>>Beginning around 1970, they began to shift the financial burden of what 
>>Vennevar Bush called "conserving the knowledge" from universities to 
>>individual readers. Open Access has shifted it further -- to authors.
>>
>>The decision to promote financial inputs for research, which creates 
>>journal articles, while demoting support for the output may have enhanced 
>>university profitability. But it fails to serve the basic goals of research.
>>
>>The drop in PLOS ONE impact factor ratings probably has many causes, but 
>>it seems to me authors seeking readers may have found better results from 
>>being published in more specialized, well-targeted media. I wonder how 
>>many PLOS ONE articles were first rejected by editors elsewhere.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Albert Henderson
>>former editor, Publishing Research Quarterly
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen J Bensman <<mailto:notsjb at LSU.EDU>notsjb at LSU.EDU>
>>To: SIGMETRICS 
>><<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
>>Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:59 am
>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor 
>>Decline
>>
>>
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>>I understand that it costs $3500 to have an article published in PLOS ONE.
>>Times have been tough economically in the world, and this may have 
>>something to
>>do with the drop in submissions and publication.  You can post on arXiv for
>>nothing, and Google will get you there.  Google Scholar metrics show high
>>retrieval rates  from certain subject categories in arXiv.  This is the 
>>time not
>>of the open access journal but the open access institutional 
>>repository.  The
>>scientific journal system is probably not financially feasible anymore, 
>>given
>>high cancellation rates by academic libraries, and the open access 
>>institutional
>>repository will probably replace it..
>>
>>
>>Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.
>>LSU Libraries
>>Lousiana State University
>>Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>>USA
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics 
>>[<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU?>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]
>>On Behalf Of Paul Colin Gloster
>>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:51 AM
>>To: <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor 
>>Decline
>>
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>>
>>Philip Davis sent:
>>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>|"Can the recent drop in February PLOS ONE publication figures be 
>>explained by|
>>|a decline in their Impact Factor last 
>>June?                                  |
>>| 
>>|
>>|see: 
>>|
>>|PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor 
>>Decline                        |
>>| 
>><http://wp.me/pcvbl-9sV>http://wp.me/pcvbl-9sV" 
>>|
>>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>
>>Hari M. Gupta, José R. Campanha, and Rosana A. G. Pesce, "Power-Law
>>Distributions for the Citation Index of Scientific Publications and 
>>Scientists",
>>"Brazilian Journal of Physics", vol. 35, no. 4A, December, 2005
>>claimed:
>>"[. . .]
>>Table I: Citations of the 20 most cited physicists from January 1981 to June
>>1997 [. . .] Table II: Citations of the 20 most cited chemists from 
>>January 1981
>>to June 1997 [. . .] [. . .] It is interesting to note that only two of them
>>(P.W. Anderson, and K. A. Muller, at the 13th and 17th places, 
>>respectively),
>>out of the 20 most cited physicists, and six (J. A. Pople, R. R. Ernst, 
>>J. M.
>>Lehn, R. E. Smalley, E.
>>J. Corey, and K. Tanaka, at the 2nd, 4th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 20th places,
>>respectively), out of the 20 most cited chemists, are Nobel laureates.
>>[. . .]"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140703/02a086a1/attachment.html>