The economics of scholarly journals: a case study on a society‐published journal

This article re‐examines the economics of publishing scholarly journals and illustrates the dilemma of publisher identity and publication format with a case study of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's Media Management and Economics division. The study investigates the perceived interest and demand for a society‐published journal for the field of media management and economics and the preferred format for that journal – print or online. Results showed a divided opinion on the support of a society‐published journal and no consideration of the benefits or harms of journal publishing to the society. The print journal, though a desirable format for authors, is deemed uneconomical. The online journal is viewed as a feasible publication outlet, but its status as a prestigious journal is doubtful. Applications of scholarly journal publishing and economic models to the case are discussed.     

Scholarly publishing and open access in the Nordic countries

This study examines aspects of scholarly journal publishing in the Nordic countries. On average half of Nordic journals publish online. In most Nordic countries, commercial publishers predominate; however, in Finland the majority are society publishers. The number of open access journals is low, in line with international figures. There is concern to maintain local languages in journal publishing. A majority of the journals publishing in local languages are within social science, humanities, and arts; the STM sector publishes in English. English‐language publications are favoured in research assessments, international recognition, and impact, while the visibility of local‐language scholarly journals in international databases is low. The Nordbib program supports Nordic scholarly journals and fosters co‐operation with publishing companies and learned societies over migration to e‐publishing; it also supports open access. The article discusses future challenges for journal publishing, pointing out the problems of small journal publishers and the need for co‐operation between stakeholders.     

Is the answer still in the machine: do publishers need digital rights management?

Has the challenge of unauthorized digital reproduction and distribution of copyright works been met by the use of so‐called ‘digital rights management’ (DRM) technology – and what role will DRM play in publishing, including scholarly journal and learned publishing? This article explores the legal and commercial issues surrounding DRM from its analogue origins through to the latest market developments. It argues that the implementation of DRM in other media sectors provides valuable lessons to publishers. Acknowledging the practical challenges that DRM has faced, the article suggests that whilst DRM will offer an answer to ‘the machine', it must form part of a flexible solution that adapts to the requirements of electronic publishing.     

No such thing as a mature journal

This article looks at the general idea of developing journals by adding value. It focuses in particular on the notion of the ‘mature journal’ – possibly a mythical beast, but one which most publishing houses will have at least one of (even if they don't know it yet). The article touches on some run‐of‐the‐mill journal issues such as obesity, sex, and death, but will hopefully also throw new light on a corner of the publishing world previously thought of as ‘dull’.     

What societies want from a publishing partner

Societies, whose publishing programmes are primarily mission‐driven, play a unique role in funding and disseminating research. But by their nature – often small and with limited resources – they are particularly prone to the turbulence currently affecting scholarly publishing. BMJ Journals is itself a society publisher but also publishes under contract for other societies. During 2008, we carried out research to assess societies' evolving needs from their publishing partnerships. The changing expectations and behaviours of the next generation of researchers are considered to be as much of a threat as declining revenues. Societies are planning to expand professional development activities and to maximise their use of emerging technologies to help maintain and grow membership. Although surplus is a low priority for societies and, accordingly, for their publishing programmes, a high financial return is nonetheless a key criterion when choosing publishing partners – as are reputation, technological innovation, and individual title development.     

Choosing a publishing partner: advice for societies and associations

For societies and associations seeking a publishing partner, the healthy competition between publishers means that the deals on offer have never been better. The problem for the society is distinguishing a good short‐term deal (say, an attractive financial offer) from the partnership that will actually be in the better long‐term interests of the journal. This article, based on the author's experience as a publisher‐turned‐consultant advising societies, offers a framework for selecting a partner based on a careful analysis of what the society needs from its publisher in the long term. Underlying the performance of the best publisher partners are a good understanding of the needs of societies and their journals; a strong service orientation; and an ability to plan strategically for each journal on the basis of facts and data.     

The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models

This article presents an up‐to‐date portrayal of the greatly changed landscape of scholarly journal publishing and identifies the emerging trends characterizing it. We consider the attributes, novelty, and disruptive potential of different models, which range from improvements to the extant model to attempts at reconfiguration and transformation. We propose that journal transition can be seen as falling into three categories. The first is enhanced models of the traditional scholarly journal, which typically afford enriched functionality that breaks the bonds of the printed page whilst otherwise remaining wholly traditional in their offerings. The second category is innovative models of the traditional scholarly journal, which aim at supporting the journal in performing its traditional roles through convention‐altering ways. The third category is the possible alternatives to the traditional journal, which represent a move towards alternative modes of knowledge dissemination. This review shows that each of the models identified makes contributions to enriching the reporting and showcasing of scholarly output. They also make it more effective and more efficient. However, we conclude that none of the possible alternatives being discussed can serve as a full‐fledged alternative to the journal.     

Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance

Many scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This is caused by the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today's highly diverse world of science. The most promising way to improve matters is a two‐stage (or multi‐stage) publication processes with interactive peer review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals. A concept for such interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its applicability is demonstrated by the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.     

Production and content management implications for archival projects: a snapshot in May 2005

The British Library, under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Legal Deposit's sub‐committee for e‐journals, is conducting a pilot project to lay the groundwork for possible legislation for the legal deposit of electronic journals. One component of the project has been to understand the production environment that governs the creation of the published data, the content management systems that publishers have deployed and the ways in which publishers are able to distribute content to their partners. This work is a snapshot of a cross‐section of the UK journal‐publishing industry taken in May 2005.     

Threats to the Survival of the Author-Pays-Journal to Publish Model

While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model.     

Authors and open access publishing

Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of ‘self‐archiving’ was less. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self‐archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to.     

An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’

The issue of ‘predatory publishing’, and indeed unscholarly publishing practices, affects all academics and librarians around the globe. However, there are some flaws in arguments and analyses made in several papers published on this topic, in particular those that have relied heavily on the blacklists that were established by Jeffrey Beall. While Beall advanced the discussion on ‘predatory publishing’, relying entirely on his blacklists to assess a journal for publishing a paper is problematic. This is because several of the criteria underlying those blacklists were insufficiently specific, excessively broad, arbitrary with no scientific validation, or incorrect identifiers of predatory behavior. The validity of those criteria has been deconstructed in more detail in this paper. From a total of 55 criteria in Beall's last/latest 2015 set of criteria, we suggest maintaining nine, eliminating 24, and correcting the remaining 22. While recognizing that this exercise involves a measure of subjectivity, it needs to advance in order to arrive – in a future exercise – at a more sensitive set of criteria. Fortified criteria alone, or the use of blacklists and whitelists, cannot combat ‘predatory publishing’, and an overhaul of rewards-based academic publishing is needed, supported by a set of reliable criteria-based guidance system.     

Biomedical Publications and the Web: Status Report

Most biomedical peer-reviewed journal publishers today follow two policies that significantly affect how information is disseminated: reject redundant (or duplicate) publications and embargo information until the day of publication. Electronic information technology has created communication methods that far exceed the traditional paper journal for scientists communicating with peers, the media, and the public. These electronic methods (e.g. the Web and on-line archives) conflict with the publishers' policies regarding redundant publication and embargoed information. However, the biomedical publishing world is changing very rapidly as a result of many forces, including scientists themselves, libraries, budgets, and technology. This paper notes recent changes in publications policies, the ramifications of these policies for different audiences, and future directions for biomedical scholarly publishing.     

Economics as if science mattered: the BioOne business model and the transformation of scholarly publishing

The BioOne database of scholarly journals in the biological and ecological sciences was established in the belief that broad and enduring access to scholarly literature is essential not just to the health of the scientific enterprise but also to the health of the wider society in which science is practiced. The prevailing model of profit-based journal publishing – in which high prices are impeding access – is harming the interests of the very scientists who provide its life-blood. The BioOne business model seeks to meet the interlocking goals of providing broad and enduring access, supporting the publishing enterprise of scholarly societies, and assuring that BioOne will keep pace with changes in technology and scientific communication.     

网络电子期刊出版模式及其对传统期刊的挑战

总结了网络电子期刊3种类型9种形式的出版模式,分析了网络电子期刊出版模式对传统期刊稿件组织、编辑出版和管理监督的十大挑战.     

Author perceptions of journal quality

One of the most important issues facing scholarly communication today is what constitutes quality in the publishing and dissemination of research findings; the aim of this exploratory research study was to investigate author‐perceived quality characteristics of science, technology and medicine journals. We triangulated data from a small number of volunteer full‐time faculty members of Long Island University, using three different research techniques: (1) questionnaire survey, (2) focus groups, and (3) semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews. The study identified some significant differences by discipline, gender, and tenure status. Overall, the three most important attributes were the reputation of the journal, the estimated length of time to article publication, and the readership of the journal. Our findings bring new insight into this area for the scholarly research community as a whole.     

Do we need to move from communication technology to user community? A new economic model of the journal as a club

Much of the argument around reforming, remaking, or preserving the traditions of scholarly publishing is built on economic principles, explicit or implicit. Can we afford open access (OA)? How do we pay for high‐quality services? Why does it cost so much? In this article, we argue that the sterility of much of this debate is a result of failure to tackle the question of what a journal is in economic terms. We offer a way through by demonstrating that a journal is a club and discuss the implications for the scholarly publishing industry. We use examples, ranging from OA to prestige journals, to explain why congestion is a problem for club‐based publications, and to discuss the importance of creative destruction for the maintenance of knowledge‐generating communities in publishing.     

The Research Library as Digital Curator at Virginia Tech

Research libraries provide a significant portion of the open access materials available on the Internet, and an examination of the efforts of one such library will illustrate the role of these institutions in creating the current information environment. The Virginia Tech University Libraries established the Scholarly Communications Project (SCP) even before the Gopher protocol opened up databases housed at research libraries to librarians with Internet access. The SCP was primarily intended to take advantage of evolving technologies to produce and distribute academic journals without the costs associated with traditional publishing, and that journal archive, the EJournals, is still at the heart of what has become the Digital Library and Archives (DLA).     

Token‐curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities?

In this paper, we propose a novel framework for a scholarly journal – a token‐curated registry (TCR). This model originates in the field of blockchain and cryptoeconomics and is essentially a decentralized system where tokens (digital currency) are used to incentivize quality curation of information. TCR is an automated way to create lists of any kind where decisions (whether to include N or not) are made through voting that brings benefit or loss to voters. In an academic journal, TCR could act as a tool to introduce community‐driven decisions on papers to be published, thus encouraging more active participation of authors/reviewers in editorial policy and elaborating the idea of a journal as a club. TCR could also provide a novel solution to the problems of editorial bias and the lack of rewards/incentives for reviewers. In the paper, we discuss core principles of TCR, its technological and cultural foundations, and finally analyse the risks and challenges it could bring to scholarly publishing.