PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline
Stephen J Bensman
notsjb at LSU.EDU
Thu Jul 3 16:19:22 EDT 2014
<97914bd0a71946d0b82c7426a25869b5 at CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
<8D164DEDAA437B6-1DC4-3C4D4 at webmail-d164.sysops.aol.com>
<1B5F272E-9FEE-4378-A122-EF7CDF806891 at uu.nl>
<6.2.0.14.2.20140703153037.042ee980 at pop.craigellachie.us>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20140703153037.042ee980 at pop.craigellachie.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.39.62.17]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 0261CCEEDF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(24454002)(14014003)(13464003)(189002)(199002)(479174003)(377454003)(107886001)(107046002)(19625215002)(85306003)(74316001)(21056001)(19300405004)(77096002)(76482001)(77982001)(93886003)(46102001)(106116001)(88552001)(106356001)(83072002)(16236675004)(89122001)(85852003)(87936001)(15395725005)(101416001)(80022001)(75432001)(66066001)(50986999)(81342001)(64706001)(81542001)(19609705001)(76576001)(86362001)(19580405001)(74662001)(20776003)(79102001)(92566001)(95666004)(2171001)(2656002)(15198665003)(105586002)(33646001)(31966008)(15975445006)(15202345003)(54356999)(99286002)(99396002)(83322001)(74502001)(19580395003)(76176999)(108616002)(24736002)(217873001)(10090945008);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:CO1PR06MB173;H:CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;MLV:sfv;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_d6ddf9d4213349158eadf1c558775907CO1PR06MB174namprd06pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: lsu.edu
--_000_d6ddf9d4213349158eadf1c558775907CO1PR06MB174namprd06pro_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If there is nothing unsustainable about the subscription model, then why ar=
e libraries cancelling so much. The University of Montreal cancelled =BE o=
f its Wiley science collection. By your logic libraries could cancel every=
thing, and the system would still work. But where would the publishers get=
their money if not from libraries? From individual subscriptions at $15,0=
00 a pop.
SB
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.=
UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:38 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Dec=
line
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 ne=
ed access to all journals.
Note too that a researcher can always get a copy of any article they are in=
terested in simply by asking the author for it. That is why the author's em=
ail 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:
Albert,
Although as a librarian I would like to support your statement and claim mo=
re money from my institution I think the unsustainability of the subscripti=
on model is more fundamental and not a consequence of discrete policy or ac=
tions of stakeholders. It is caused by the unique value of each and every p=
ublication combined with ever growing publication volumes. Consider a tiny =
but broad research institution. To carry out top research they would need a=
ccess to all journals, which is simply impossible to afford under the subsc=
ription model of access provision, thus preventing optimal research. The pr=
oblem is becoming more apparent because of price increases that are at leas=
t partly due to increasing publication volumes. Any lasting solution should=
make it possible for anyone to access all published research. That means e=
ither a pay-per-view system or open access. The pay-per-view approach is no=
t ideal because determining whether something is relevant requires full tex=
t access. That leaves open access as the only long term sustainable solutio=
n. 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" <chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM<mailt=
o:chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM> > het volgende geschreven:
y not financially feasible anymore," it is because universities chose to de=
cimate library spending. Beginning around 1970, they began to shift the fin=
ancial burden of what Vennevar Bush called "conserving the knowledge" from =
universities to individual readers. Open Access has shifted it further -- t=
o authors.
The decision to promote financial inputs for research, which creates journa=
l articles, while demoting support for the output may have enhanced univers=
ity 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 bei=
ng published in more specialized, well-targeted media. I wonder how many PL=
OS ONE articles were first rejected by editors elsewhere.
Best wishes,
Albert Henderson
former editor, Publishing Research Quarterly
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at LSU.EDU<mailto:notsjb at LSU.EDU>>
To: SIGMETRICS < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK=
.EDU>>
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:59 am
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Dec=
line
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 somethin=
g 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 tim=
e not
of the open access journal but the open access institutional repository. T=
he
scientific journal system is probably not financially feasible anymore, giv=
en
high cancellation rates by academic libraries, and the open access institut=
ional
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: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Dec=
line
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 " =
|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---|
Hari M. Gupta, Jos=E9 R. Campanha, and Rosana A. G. Pesce, "Power-Law
Distributions for the Citation Index of Scientific Publications and Scienti=
sts",
"Brazilian Journal of Physics", vol. 35, no. 4A, December, 2005
claimed:
"[. . .]
Table I: Citations of the 20 most cited physicists from January 1981 to Jun=
e
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 the=
m
(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.
[. . .]"
--_000_d6ddf9d4213349158eadf1c558775907CO1PR06MB174namprd06pro_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
tt
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If there is nothing unsus=
tainable about the subscription model, then why are libraries cancelling so=
much. The University of Montreal cancelled =BE of its Wiley
science collection. By your logic libraries could cancel everything,=
and the system would still work. But where would the publishers get =
their money if not from libraries? From individual subscriptions at $=
15,000 a pop.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">SB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"=
;Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-=
size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> ASIS&a=
mp;T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Wojick<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Fac=
tor Decline<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsub=
scribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk.edu=
/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">How can there be a "tiny but broad" resear=
ch 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 j=
ournals. Even Harvard does not need access to
all journals. <br>
<br>
Note too that a researcher can always get a copy of any article they are in=
terested in simply by asking the author for it. That is why the author's em=
ail address is always provided.<br>
<br>
There is nothing unsustainable about the subscription model.<br>
<br>
David Wojick<br>
<a href=3D"http://insidepublicaccess.com/">http://insidepublicaccess.com/<b=
r>
<br>
</a>At 02:47 PM 7/3/2014, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsub=
scribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk.edu=
/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<br>
Albert,<br>
<br>
Although as a librarian I would like to support your statement and claim mo=
re money from my institution I think the unsustainability of the subscripti=
on model is more fundamental and not a consequence of discrete policy or ac=
tions of stakeholders. It is caused
by the unique value of each and every publication combined with ever growi=
ng publication volumes. Consider a tiny but broad research institution. To =
carry out top research they would need access to all journals, which is sim=
ply 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 a=
t 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 a=
ccess as the only long term sustainable
solution. Giving more money to libraries, and thus sticking with the subsc=
ription model, is not a long term solution.<br>
<br>
Jeroen Bosman<br>
Utrecht University Library<br>
<br>
Op 3 jul. 2014 om 16:05 heeft "Al Henderson" <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM">chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM</a> > het volgende ge=
schreven:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsub=
scribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk.edu=
/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<span style=3D"font-size:13.5pt">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 s=
hift the financial burden of what Vennevar Bush
called "conserving the knowledge" from universities to individua=
l readers. Open Access has shifted it further -- to authors.<br>
<br>
The decision to promote financial inputs for research, which creates journa=
l articles, while demoting support for the output may have enhanced univers=
ity profitability. But it fails to serve the basic goals of research.<br>
<br>
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 bei=
ng published in more specialized, well-targeted media. I wonder how many PL=
OS ONE articles were first rejected
by editors elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Albert Henderson<br>
former editor, Publishing Research Quarterly<br>
</span><span style=3D"font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial","=
sans-serif""><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Stephen J Bensman <<a href=3D"mailto:notsjb at LSU.EDU">notsjb at LSU.ED=
U</a>><br>
To: SIGMETRICS <<a href=3D"mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU"> SIGMETRI=
CS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>><br>
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:59 am<br>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Dec=
line<br>
<br>
</span><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","=
sans-serif""><br>
</span><tt><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt">Adminstrative info for SIGMETRI=
CS (for example unsubscribe):</span></tt><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;fo=
nt-family:"Courier New""><br>
<tt><a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk=
.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a></tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I understand that it costs $3500 to have an article published in PLOS O=
NE. </tt>
<br>
<tt>Times have been tough economically in the world, and this may have some=
thing to
</tt><br>
<tt>do with the drop in submissions and publication. You can post on =
arXiv for </tt>
<br>
<tt>nothing, and Google will get you there. Google Scholar metrics sh=
ow high </tt>
<br>
<tt>retrieval rates from certain subject categories in arXiv. T=
his is the time not
</tt><br>
<tt>of the open access journal but the open access institutional repository=
. The
</tt><br>
<tt>scientific journal system is probably not financially feasible anymore,=
given
</tt><br>
<tt>high cancellation rates by academic libraries, and the open access inst=
itutional
</tt><br>
<tt>repository will probably replace it.. </tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.</tt><br>
<tt>LSU Libraries</tt><br>
<tt>Lousiana State University</tt><br>
<tt>Baton Rouge, LA 70803</tt><br>
<tt>USA</tt><br>
<tt> </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>-----Original Message-----</tt><br>
<tt>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [<a href=3D"mailto:S=
IGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU?"> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>]
</tt><br>
<tt>On Behalf Of Paul Colin Gloster</tt><br>
<tt>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:51 AM</tt><br>
<tt>To: <a href=3D"mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU">SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.=
UTK.EDU</a></tt><br>
<tt>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor=
Decline</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):</tt><br>
<tt><a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk=
.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a></tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Philip Davis sent:</tt><br>
<tt>|----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------|</tt><br>
<tt>|"Can the recent drop in February PLOS ONE publication figures be =
explained by|</tt><br>
<tt>|a decline in their Impact Factor last June? &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; |</tt><br>
<tt>| &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; |</tt><br>
<tt>|see: =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
|</tt><b=
r>
<tt>|PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline  =
; &n=
bsp; |</tt><br>
<tt>| <a href=3D"http://wp.me/pcvbl-9sV">http://wp.me/pcvbl-9sV</a> "&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; |</tt><br>
<tt>|----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------|</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Hari M. Gupta, Jos=E9 R. Campanha, and Rosana A. G. Pesce, "Power-=
Law </tt><br>
<tt>Distributions for the Citation Index of Scientific Publications and Sci=
entists",
</tt><br>
<tt>"Brazilian Journal of Physics", vol. 35, no. 4A, December, 20=
05</tt><br>
<tt>claimed:</tt><br>
<tt>"[. . .]</tt><br>
<tt>Table I: Citations of the 20 most cited physicists from January 1981 to=
June </tt>
<br>
<tt>1997 [. . .] Table II: Citations of the 20 most cited chemists from Jan=
uary 1981
</tt><br>
<tt>to June 1997 [. . .] [. . .] It is interesting to note that only two of=
them </tt>
<br>
<tt>(P.W. Anderson, and K. A. Muller, at the 13th and 17th places, respecti=
vely),
</tt><br>
<tt>out of the 20 most cited physicists, and six (J. A. Pople, R. R. Ernst,=
J. M.
</tt><br>
<tt>Lehn, R. E. Smalley, E.</tt><br>
<tt>J. Corey, and K. Tanaka, at the 2nd, 4th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 20th pl=
aces, </tt>
<br>
<tt>respectively), out of the 20 most cited chemists, are Nobel laureates.<=
/tt><br>
<tt>[. . .]"</tt></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_d6ddf9d4213349158eadf1c558775907CO1PR06MB174namprd06pro_--
More information about the SIGMETRICS
mailing list