Commercial Digest, a once a week digest of messages containing
informational content from commercial bodies (i.e., publishers,
vendors, agents, etc.)
This week's digest contains 3 messages:
1) In the next 10 years, Article Metrics will be more important than
Impact Factors say Library & Information Science Scholars
2) More than a quarter of Library and Information Science authors
would prefer an alternative to the academic paper as the main output
of research
3) Two New Publishers Join Portico's E-Journal Preservation Service
---------------
Message #1:
Subject: In the next 10 years, Article Metrics will be more
important than Impact Factors say Library & Information Science
Scholars
From: "Oosman, Aalia" <Aalia.Oosman@tandf.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:07:30 +0000
As celebrations for OA continue at the offices of Taylor &
Francis, we have now further analysed over 17,000 responses to the
OA survey to reveal findings in relation to metrics.
Impact Factors vs Article Metrics
Half of the sample survey by Taylor & Francis were asked what
they thought would happen over the next 10 years in relation to
metrics, the other half were questioned about what they would like
to happen over the next 10 years.
Key findings
· The proportion of authors who think Impact Factors will still be
the primary metric was higher than the proportion who would like
this to happen.
· The proportion of authors who would like Article Metrics to be
given more importance than Impact Factors in assessing the value of
research was higher than those who think this will be the case.
· The proportion of authors who would like Impact Factors to be used
alongside Article Metrics is the same as the number of authors who
think this will happen.
Subject Variations
Library and Information scholars are the most inclined of any
subject to think Article Metrics will become more important in the
next ten years (41%) and the least inclined to think Impact Factors
will prevail (12%).
Regional Variations
More than 60% of academics based in both Africa and Asia rate the
provision of Article Metrics as 4 or more out of 5 on the importance
scale, and Asian academics are the most likely to have decided
definitively between Article Metrics and Impact Factors.
This bulletin is accompanied by Supplement 6 to the original report
– which examines the subject, regional and country-level variations
for each question regarding authors’ attitudes to metrics in full:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-supp6.pdf
The basic results from the full survey and a copy of the
questionnaire can be found here and is available under a Creative
Commons Attribution licence:
www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf
Follow us on Twitter for the latest news on the survey @TandFOpen
(#oasurvey).
Visit our newsroom at: http://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com
For more information, please contact:
Aalia Oosman, Library Marketing & Communications Manager, Taylor
& Francis Group Journals
email: aalia.oosman@tandf.co.uk
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey
---------------
Message #2:
Subject: More than a quarter of Library and Information Science
authors would prefer an alternative to the academic paper as the
main output of research
From: "Oosman, Aalia" <Aalia.Oosman@tandf.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:58:48 +0000
Taylor & Francis investigated author’s values and attitudes
surrounding research communication. 9 in 10 authors are in favour of
academic papers remaining the principal outputs of academic research
with no statistically significant variation between those answering
from the perspective of what they think will happen those asked to
select what they would like to happen.
Subject Variations
Analysing the responses regarding future types of research output by
subject reveals a startling degree of homogeneity. With one
exception, no subject across both the Science, Technical and Medical
sphere and the Humanities and Social Science sphere varies by more
than 5% from the all-subject average – both in terms of what authors
think the future of academic papers is and what they would like it
to be.
The only significant variation in responses came from the Library
and Information Science authors: more than a quarter of whom said
they would like an alternative to academic papers to become the main
output of research. Although, even amongst these authors, the
proportion who said they think this will happen was only 4% above
the average for Humanities and Social Science authors.
Unlike all the other subjects, there is no majority view amongst
Library and Information Science authors, with the proportion who
responded by saying journals will remain the primary output down to
just one-third (31% think and 34% like). To counter this, the
proportion who think the future comprises a mixture of journals and
repositories (44%) is more than double the Humanities and Social
Science average (19%), just as the proportion who would like a
mixture future (35%) is also more than double the Humanities and
Social Science average (15%).
Regional Variations
Regionally, there is also very little variation in the preferred
future direction of publication outlets, except in Australasia where
there is a slightly higher propensity for authors to think that
traditional journals will prevail, in the Middle East where slightly
more think something new will emerge and China where a quarter of
authors think that a significant proportion of research papers will
be published only in repositories in the future.
This bulletin is accompanied by Supplement 7 to the original report
– which examines the subject, regional and country-level variations
for each question regarding authors’ attitudes to metrics in full:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-supp7.pdf
The basic results from the full survey and a copy of the
questionnaire can be found here and is available under a Creative
Commons Attribution licence:
www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf
Follow us on Twitter for the latest news on the survey @TandFOpen
(#oasurvey).
Visit our newsroom at: http://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com
For more information, please contact:
Aalia Oosman, Library Marketing & Communications Manager, Taylor
& Francis Group Journals
email: aalia.oosman@tandf.co.uk
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey
---------------
Message #3:
Subject: Two New Publishers Join Portico's E-Journal Preservation
Service
From: Marita LaMonica <Marita.LaMonica@ithaka.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:52:36 -0400
Two New Publishers Join Portico's E-Journal Preservation Service
Portico is pleased to announce the following publishers are now
preserving their e-journals with Portico:
University
of Huddersfield Press to preserve e-journals with Portico.
The Journal
of Neurosurgery Publishing Group to be preserved with Portico.
The Portico archive is certified as a "trustworthy digital
repository" by the Center for Research Libraries; nearly 17,000
e-journals, more than 220,000 e-books, and 72 d-collections have
been entrusted to it. For a complete list of Portico-related facts
and figures, please visit Portico
Archive Facts & Figures.