PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline

Stephen J Bensman notsjb at LSU.EDU
Tue Jul 8 11:19:23 EDT 2014

You are right--the main problem is the lack of authority structure.  But it should also be pointed out that WoS also suffers from the same problem of the lack of authority structure with problems with homonyms, etc.  The only place where ISI maintains some authority structure is in the JCR, but I am on record with disagreeing with the way the JCR defines a journal, which is contrary to Library of Congress practice.

I have been doing research that shows Google Scholar is pretty good at semantically defining relevant sets.  If you are interested, go to the following URLs:

Here I am following John L. Lewis' dicturm: "He who tooteth not his own horn, that same shall not be tooteth."  However, there is going to have to be a way of building an authority structure into this system.  That problem is being worked upon.

I am something of an expert on authority structure, having been certified as a RDA NACO cataloger by the Library of Congress.  That means I define the way the name of a person or institution has to be entered into the Library of Congress Catalog, the OCLC World Catalog, and the National Authority File according to the new Resource Description & Access (RDA) cataloging rules.  That same is being tooteth.


Stephen J. Bensman, Ph.D.
Louisiana State University

  This can overcome a lot of the authority problems but definitely not all.  There is going to 
-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of K S Chudamani
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline

We are discussing OA repository. The pros and cons of OA Repository should be examined thoroughly keeping in view classified research. In addition, millions of OA Repositories get installed whos3e access becomes chaotic (similar to internet) as against the current organised literature of journals (say, 20000). Libraries can cooperate in different manner to reduce their journal budgets.


On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Stephen J Bensman wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> <1404482182407.55199 at>,< at pop.
> In-Reply-To: < at>
> Accept-Language: en-US
> Content-Language: en-US
> X-MS-Has-Attach:
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> x-originating-ip: []
> x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
> x-forefront-prvs: 02638D901B
> x-forefront-antispam-report: 
> SFV:NSPM;SFS:(6009001)(479174003)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(24454002)
> (51704005)(20776003)(19580405001)(74662001)(92566001)(79102001)(863620
> 01)(74502001)(95666004)(105586002)(81542001)(81342001)(15202345003)(31
> 966008)(99396002)(76176999)(19580395003)(83322001)(99286002)(92726001)
> (54356999)(2656002)(2171001)(15975445006)(46102001)(77096002)(56194400
> 3)(77982001)(93886003)(85306003)(107046002)(107886001)(21056001)(87936
> 001)(15395725005)(66066001)(85852003)(101416001)(80022001)(75432001)(4
> 396001)(2351001)(50986999)(64706001)(36756003)(76482001)(83072002)(106
> 116001)(109986002)(89122001)(106356001)(88552001)(217873001);DIR:OUT;S
> FP:;SCL:1;SRVR:CO1PR06MB173;;F
> PR:;MLV:sfv;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;LANG:en;
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-OriginatorOrg:
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by 
> id s65C8NKq009522
> David,
> Thank you for giving my ideas serious consideration.
> I am not sure how this thing is going to work, because it is very complex.  My model is arXiv, but there are other open access models.  LSU is establishing a repository to give its faculty's research broader accessibility and post data for replication purposes as required by the NIH.  I like the idea, because you can store and cite you own data online.  The variables and procedures for an institutional depository are complex.
> There could be mixed models with publishers providing access to repositories for their titles.  That seems to be the logic of some of these subscription contracts.  The library provides a fixed sum based prior years' subscriptions, and the publisher gives access to its entire list beyond this core.  That maintains cash flow but is open access in certain respects.  We have access to Scientometrics on this basis.
> The basic idea is that computer space is cheap and unlimited, and you can get more bang for the buck by incorporating this concept.  That kicks open the way for the expansion of the system which was being strangled by the journal system.  The publishers were selling less and charging more, and that is the road to financial disaster.
> If you are interested in how this being done in business, here is the WWW site for EMC:
> What makes the open access institutional repository workable is the Google search engine, which replaces traditional indexing and cataloging, making the repositories accessible.
> All I can tell you is that LSU Libraries is waiting for next year's budget, and, if it is what is being predicted, we are going to slash the hell out of our serials budget.  But this no longer the big disaster it once was due to Google accessing Web sites and the efficiency of our ILL, which can get any article in 24 hours.
> SB
> ________________________________________
> 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 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact 
> Factor Decline
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> Dear Stephen, that is an interesting possibility, one of many in fact, 
> but possibilities for change are not evidence of the unsustainability 
> of the present system. In fact subscription revenues are still growing.
> Regarding your specifics, (1) I do not see how cheap computer space 
> works selectively against subscription journals, as they can use it 
> too. (2) Does your repository model eliminate journals altogether? If 
> so then you face the loss of (a) peer review and (b) ranking by 
> rejection, both of which are thought to be values added by journals, among others.
> But the relative merits of the many various OA models being tried out 
> today are not really the issue here. Every proposal has merit or it 
> would not be being tried out. I just see no evidence that any of them 
> is about to replace the subscription system. Ironically their 
> multiplicity is probably an obstacle in itself.
> David
> At 09:56 AM 7/4/2014, you wrote:
>> 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

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list