Michael MabeVisiting Professor

City University, London andUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville

THE FUNCTION OF THE JOURNAL

Developing a predictive model for scholarly communication

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

Journal growth

cagr 3.46%

R2 = 0.9877

1

100

10000

1665 1765 1865 1965

Year

No

of

titl

es

lau

nch

ed

an

d s

till

ex

tan

t 20

01

Data from Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory on CD-

ROMSummer 2001 Edition

Total number of active refereed learned journals in 2004: 17,700

M A Mabe The growth and number of journals Serials 16(2).191-7, 2003

Article Growth 1981-2002

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

800000

850000

900000

Year

Art

icle

s

Articles 472350 490560 506400 509087 541880 559031 552821 573181 597410 612408 625308 662094 663787 710844 746886 760567 756540 794638 808879 810588 830139 826403

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

~3% p.a.

ISI Data

Journals & Researcher Growth

More researchers ⇒ more journals

R&D Workers, Journals and Articles

0.8

1.2

1.6

1980 1985 1990 1995Year

Inde

x (1

981=

1.00

) US r&dworkers

journals

articles

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

communication type form

al

public

peer r

evie

wed

final

pre-print

web-posting

oral presentation

proceedings paper

technical report

PhD thesis

journal article

monograph

reference work X

X

XX X

X

X

?

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

?

?

?

Scientific Communication Units

?

X

Scientific Communication Vehicles

regi

stra

tion

certi

ficat

ion

diss

emin

atio

n

arch

ive

pre-print db

institutional repository

learned journal

self-archiving

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?

Impact Factor

Reputation

Editorial Standard

Publication speed

Access to Audience

International Coverage

Self Evaluation

A&I Coverage

Society Link

Track Record

Quality/Colour Illustrations

Service Elements, e.g. author instructions, quality of proofs, reprints, etc

Experience as Referee

A

B

C

?

?

Marginal Factors:

Which Journal?

Key Factors:Key Factors:

Which Category?Which Category? Journal Hierarchy

J J

J J

J J

JJ

J

JJ

?

?

quality

colle

ctio

n

Choice of Journal (Coles 93)

Authors’ Reasons for Choosing the Last Journal to Publish in (Ciber 2004)

Journal price

Easy to get in

A&I coverage

Hard copy

E-version

Speed

Circulation

Editorial board

Impact factor

Targeted

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 = no influence, 100 = strongest influence

What matters most to Authors?

Data from 36,188 Authors; 0= unimportant10= very important

2=

1

6

5

7

8

4

2=

QUALITY&SPEED

Elsevier survey data presented at Fiesole 2003

What do modern researchers want as authors?

• REGISTRATION: to register a discovery astheirs and made by them on a certain date– to assert ownership and achieve priority

• CERTIFICATION: To get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality stampedby 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 permanentrecord 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 theirresearch interest– Specialisation

and relevance ⇒ DISSEMINATION

• Tools that allow the material to belocated 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

Provided by the publishing entity through– third party authority (rhetorical independence)

– brand identity management

– long-term management of continuity

– technology

Needs

AUTHORS• ownership• reputation• recognition/audience • renown

Brand Identity & Its Management

EDITOR & BOARD QUALITY SPEED COLLECTION

PUBLISHER

ResearchCommunity

Monitoring andfeedback

Testing the Model: Content

Nature of content

Objective knowledgeabout external facts in the world

Subjective knowledgeabout internal critical processes

All authors equallyable to make “discoveries”

Credit goes to who is “first”

Registration functionVery

strongVeryweak

Priority and speed ofpublication paramount

Each author has hisown critical faculties

Each author’s “discoveries”can only be his

Priority and speed unimportant

sciences humanities

Testing the Model: DisciplineSubject variation

Small to Medium ScaleExperimental/Empirical

Theoretical& V Large Scale Experimental

Peer review as methodologicaland quality filter

Certification functionVery

strongVeryweak

Theoretical paper,“Right” or “Wrong”by inspection

Small fieldswhere quality of each researchers’ work is known personally to peers

Manyinvestigators

Co-authorshiplow

Co-authorship high

MOLECULAR &ATOMIC & SOLIDSTATE PHYSICS

CHEMISTRYLIFE SCIENCES

MATERIALS SCIENCEENGINEERING

GEOLOGY

THEORETICALPHYSICS

HIGHENERGYPHYSICS

MATHSCOMPUTER

SCIENCE

Where/when the model breaks down…

1 Level of Co-authorship 100s

Crucial

Unimportant

Registration Certification

Traditional journal culture

4

Aveco-authorshiplevel 2003

Pre-print orself-archiving

culture?

High Energy Physics

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

No

of A

uth

ors

or

Pap

ers Authorships per

Paper

Authorships per Unique Author

Papers per Unique Author

Data from ISI Science Citation Index

Is Co-authorship Rising?

3.98

3.03

0.75

From: Mabe & Amin ASLIB Proc. 54(3).149-175, 2002

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