PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline

Fri Jul 4 09:56:21 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>

  <CAOcsBiFUZYo7uQys=6S6JV3x6yC_VJ5WzmC9npO9dyQbxM7_bg at mail.gmail.com>,<A3F91D20-0A4A-4D2B-9CE5-67D42572954E at craigellachie.us>
In-Reply-To: <A3F91D20-0A4A-4D2B-9CE5-67D42572954E at craigellachie.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [99.14.201.175]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02622CEF0A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(24454002)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(107886001)(21056001)(87936001)(2351001)(77096002)(46102001)(19625215002)(85306003)(93886003)(106116001)(106356001)(109986002)(88552001)(83072002)(89122001)(16236675004)(19627405001)(15395725005)(36756003)(85852003)(76482001)(75432001)(101416001)(80022001)(66066001)(50986999)(64706001)(4396001)(81342001)(81542001)(86362001)(19580405001)(74662001)(20776003)(79102001)(92566001)(95666004)(105586002)(2656002)(2171001)(15975445006)(15202345003)(54356999)(92726001)(74502001)(99286002)(83322001)(31966008)(99396002)(19580395003)(16297215004)(76176999)(217873001);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_140448218240755199lsuedu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: lsu.edu

--_000_140448218240755199lsuedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As for me, I am not arguing the case of the subscription system on its meri=
ts.  It functioned well in its day.  I am arguing the case on its brutal ec=
onomics.  The subscription system is not financially efficient.  It costs a=
 lot to publish a journal, and editors are forcing authors to remain within=
 size limits due to cost factors.  Even then costs sky rocket because the p=
ublication universe is exponentially expanding.

On the other hand, computer space has become very cheap.  I have a nephew w=
orking for EMC, which makes and sells computer space.  It started making mo=
ney hand over fist, and its stock went through the roof, enriching me.  Whe=
n I asked him why, he said that its product became very cheap, and the comp=
any was able to reduce drastically the price on its product, exponentially =
expanding it sales.  That is when a company really makes money.

The logic here is to base the scientific information system not on publicat=
ion and journals but on computer space, which seems to be infinite and chea=
p.  That is what is done by open access institutional repositories, which a=
re now feasible because the Google search engine can efficiently index them=
 and retrieve from them.  Technology has made the journal not only technolo=
gically outmoded but economically inefficient.  As for scientometrics, ever=
ything human socially stratifies, and institutional repositories will also =
do this, and the game can go on.

Stephen J. Bensman, Ph.D.

Louisiana State University

USA

________________________________
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU=
> on behalf of David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 8:11 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Dec=
line

I agree that bibliometrics research is a case where universal access is des=
ireable, although perhaps not necessary, but that is not the case that I ob=
jected to. Note that the bibliometrician does not need access in order to a=
ctually read the two million or so papers published each year, as that is i=
mpossible. If you want to argue that the journal system should be reorganiz=
ed, so that subscriptions disappear, in order to serve bibliometrics, be my=
 guest. It is not a strong argument, certainly not strong enough to make th=
e subscription system unsustainable, which is the issue here.

I do not understand your PS so perhaps you did not understand my prior poin=
t.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

On Jul 4, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM>=
 wrote:

> How can there be a tiny but broad research institution?

Well -- we  scientometricians all need access to huge numbers of papers for=
 decent analyses. And I can immediately list a couple of really tiny resear=
ch institutions (tiny compared to universities) in our field: ScienceMetrix=
; SciTech Strategies; iFQ...,  not to mention freelance researchers like my=
self.

Perhaps the Institute for Advanced Studies (of Einstein and G=F6del fame) m=
ight serve as another example. Germany has tons of research institutes of t=
his sort (I worked at one, and we collaborated with a bunch of them).

-- Andreas

PS:   Your statement reminds me of the apocryphal linguist who claimed that=
 there existed no human language in which a double affirmative serves as ne=
gation - when someone from the audience snickered:  yeah, right.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us<mail=
to:dwojick at craigellachie.us>> wrote:
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/

--_000_140448218240755199lsuedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none"></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"OWAFontStyleDivID" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;backgro=
und-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>As for me, I am not arguing the case of the subscription system on its m=
erits.  It functioned well in its day.  I am arguing the case on =
its brutal economics.  The subscription system is not financially effi=
cient.  It costs a lot to publish a journal, and
 editors are forcing authors to remain within size limits due to cost facto=
rs.  Even then costs sky rocket because the publication universe is ex=
ponentially expanding.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the other hand, computer space has become very cheap.  I have a =
nephew working for EMC, which makes and sells computer space.  It star=
ted making money hand over fist, and its stock went through the roof, enric=
hing me.  When I asked him why, he said that
 its product became very cheap, and the company was able to reduce dra=
stically the price on its product, exponentially expanding it sales.  =
That is when a company really makes money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The logic here is to base the scientific information system not on =
publication and journals but on computer space, which seems to be infinite =
and cheap.  That is what is done by open access institutional rep=
ositories, which are now feasible because the Google
 search engine can efficiently index them and retrieve from them.  Tec=
hnology has made the journal not only technologically outmoded but eco=
nomically inefficient.  As for scientometrics, everything human social=
ly stratifies, and institutional repositories will
 also do this, and the game can go on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stephen J. Bensman, Ph.D.</p>
<p>Louisiana State University</p>
<p>USA</p>
<p> </p>
<p>  </p>
<p></p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"width: 98%; display: inline-block;">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Calib=
ri, sans-serif" style=3D"font-size: 11pt;"><b>From:</b> ASIS&T Special =
Interest Group on Metrics <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of =
David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 04, 2014 8:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Fac=
tor Decline</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://we=
b.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
<div>I agree that bibliometrics research is a case where universal access i=
s desireable, although perhaps not necessary, but that is not the case that=
 I objected to. Note that the bibliometrician does not need access in order=
 to actually read the two million
 or so papers published each year, as that is impossible. If you want to ar=
gue that the journal system should be reorganized, so that subscriptions di=
sappear, in order to serve bibliometrics, be my guest. It is not a strong a=
rgument, certainly not strong enough
 to make the subscription system unsustainable, which is the issue here.</d=
iv>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not understand your PS so perhaps you did not understand my prior=
 point. <br>
<br>
David</div>
<a href=3D"http://insidepublicaccess.com/">http://insidepublicaccess.com/</=
a>
<div><br>
On Jul 4, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.C=
OM> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://we=
b.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
<div dir=3D"ltr">> How can there be a tiny but broad research institutio=
n?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well -- we  scientometricians all need access to huge numbers of =
papers for decent analyses. And I can immediately list a couple of really t=
iny research institutions (tiny compared to universities) in our field: Sci=
enceMetrix; SciTech Strategies; iFQ...,
  not to mention freelance researchers like myself. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps the Institute for Advanced Studies (of Einstein and G=F6del fa=
me) might serve as another example. Germany has tons of research institutes=
 of this sort (I worked at one, and we collaborated with a bunch of them).<=
/div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- Andreas</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PS:   Your statement reminds me of the apocryphal linguist who cl=
aimed that there existed no human language in which a double affirmative se=
rves as negation - when someone from the audience snickered:  yeah, ri=
ght.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Wojick <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">
<<a href=3D"mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us" target=3D"_blank">dwojick at c=
raigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; paddi=
ng-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px=
; border-left-style: solid;">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<div>How can there be a "tiny but broad" research institution? Ea=
ch researcher's field is very narrow. If there are a tiny number of researc=
hers then their journal needs are equally tiny, not all journals. Even Harv=
ard 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/" target=3D"_blank">http://insidep=
ublicaccess.com/<br>
<br>
</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_140448218240755199lsuedu_--