Search results

The purpose of this research is to show how the self‐archiving of journal papers is a major step towards providing open access to research. However, copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) that are signed by an author prior to publication often indicate whether, and in what form, self‐archiving is allowed. The SHERPA/RoMEO database enables easy access to publishers' policies in this area and uses a colour‐coding scheme to classify publishers according to their self‐archiving status. The database is currently being redeveloped and renamed the Copyright Knowledge Bank. However, it will still assign a colour to individual publishers indicating whether pre‐prints can be self‐archived (yellow), post‐prints can be self‐archived (blue), both pre‐print and post‐print can be archived (green) or neither (white). The nature of CTAs means that these decisions are rarely as straightforward as they may seem, and this paper describes the thinking and considerations that were used in assigning these colours in the light of the underlying principles and definitions of open access.

Detailed analysis of a large number of CTAs led to the development of controlled vocabulary of terms which was carefully analysed to determine how these terms equate to the definition and “spirit” of open access.

The paper reports on how conditions outlined by publishers in their CTAs, such as how or where a paper can be self‐archived, affect the assignment of a self‐archiving colour to the publisher.

The colour assignment is widely used by authors and repository administrators in determining whether academic papers can be self‐archived. This paper provides a starting‐point for further discussion and development of publisher classification in the open access environment.

The purpose of this research is to investigate: how many journal titles are both in LOCKSS and in Portico?; what is the relationship of small publishers to LOCKSS/CLOCKSS and Portico?; and what is the relationship of large publishers to LOCKSS/CLOCKSS and Portico?

The paper describes how data from Portico, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS were cleaned and analyzed using Perl programs to discover duplications.

The findings show a significant overlap among the archiving systems. They also show that Portico has no prejudice against small publishers and that large publishers are as willing to choose the LOCKSS software as to choose Portico. LOCKSS does, however, archive many more small and arguably endangered publishers and may be the only economically viable choice for them.

The push for greater transparency has made more and more data available. Both LOCKSS and Portico deserve commendation for providing the detailed lists of titles and publishers on which this paper was based. Such data give the library community an opportunity to build decisions about the long‐term digital future on firm and verifiable ground.

The future possible roles of the publisher in industry markets are considered, especially for firms close to high technology. It is forecast that the Internet will become the dominant business space for firms. Even in physical manufacturing the advances of the Internet are becoming important with changes in supply and distribution patterns. In order to meet the new era of opportunity three scenarios are presented. Firstly, continuation of the current one with the publisher as information provider. Secondly, the publisher may become an orchestrator of interactivity. Hence they can be the hub of a new intelligence facility for firms to know their external environment better. This also would be an appropriate response to the expected steep increase in requests for more customised sources of information. Lastly, the publisher can go a stage further and become a consultant or facilitator of the agile enterprise based on the Internet. This would enable the client company to become a more adaptive and proactive entity afterwards. Recommendations are made for assisting the shift for these further scenarios to become possible.

While the number of hybrid journals has increased with the conversion from subscription journals, article processing charges (APCs) have not been examined as frequently as gold open access journals. This study compared the factors affecting APCs for hybrid and gold open access journals by formulating a charge equation.

This study examined the APCs for 1,354 hybrid and gold open access journals in the Springer imprint. Using the ordinary least squares method, it investigated the determinants of charges, including the relationship between subscription prices and APCs for hybrid journals.

The results revealed that the charges set by hybrid journals were higher than those set by gold open access journals by US$1,620, after controlling for other variables. A reason could be the oligopolistic market structure of the leading publishers. Although the publisher imprint set the APCs based on the journal characteristics, the difference in the determinants of the charges between the two journal types may be due to the business models specific to the journal types.

The findings suggested that policymakers must consider the market power of leading publishers to establish a healthy scholarly communication market.

This study examined the relationship between subscription prices and charges for hybrid journals as well as the determinants of charges for both journal types, considering various characteristics of individual journals.

How to obtain a list of the 100 largest scientific publishers sorted by journal count? Existing databases are unhelpful as each of them inhere biased omissions and data quality flaws. This paper tries to fill this gap with an alternative approach.

The content coverages of Scopus, Publons, DOAJ and SherpaRomeo were first used to extract a preliminary list of publishers that supposedly possess at least 15 journals. Second, the publishers' websites were scraped to fetch their portfolios and, thus, their “true” journal counts.

The outcome is a list of the 100 largest publishers comprising 28.060 scholarly journals, with the largest publishing 3.763 journals, and the smallest carrying 76 titles. The usual “oligopoly” of major publishing companies leads the list, but it also contains 17 university presses from the Global South, and, surprisingly, 30 predatory publishers that together publish 4.517 journals.

Additional data sources could be used to mitigate remaining biases; it is difficult to disambiguate publisher names and their imprints; and the dataset carries a non-uniform distribution, thus risking the omission of data points in the lower range.

The dataset can serve as a useful basis for comprehensive meta-scientific surveys on the publisher-level.

The catalogue can be deemed more inclusive and diverse than other ones because many of the publishers would have been overlooked if one had drawn from merely one or two sources. The list is freely accessible and invites regular updates. The approach used here (webscraping) has seldomly been used in meta-scientific surveys.

Book piracy represents a threat to the publishing industry, while for the society, book piracy provides some benefits. The purpose of this study is to examine views of readers, authors and publishers in Lithuania on book piracy’s benefits to society.

This study uses phenomenography to examine readers’, authors’ and publishers’ reflections on book piracy’s potential social benefits. The authors collected research data via semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 10 participants from each group (readers, authors and publishers – a total of 30 interviews).

Six qualitatively different categories of attitudes were revealed, namely, that book piracy provides easier and more convenient access to books, helps readers save money, pushes readers to read more, helps for authors to gain more popularity, provides wider access to books and provides consumers with moral satisfaction. The similarities between readers’, authors’ and publishers’ views on benefits of book piracy outweigh the differences.

Theoretical background indicates that stakeholders’ explicitly stated attitudes towards book piracy contribute to their book piracy intentions. This study hopes to help publishers in Lithuania confront the challenge of book piracy and develop effective strategies to attenuate a normative framework with four actionable recommendations to help professionals in the publishing industry to better address book piracy.

Book piracy continues to perplex publishers, in part because they lack a clear understanding of the social and psychological underpinnings of book piracy. This study aims to develop such an understanding by filling gap in the literature on book piracy: the lack of work on readers’, authors’ and publishers’ perceptions of book piracy’s individual and social benefits.

The American trade‐book industry offers a rather unique challenge for the application of theories and principles of competitive strategy. Despite the mergers with and acquisitions by publishing and entertainment conglomerates: (a) publishing housing (and their imprints, or divisions) continue to be small; (b) profit margins are low; (c) the synergy that was expected by the mergers into multimedia and entertainment companies has not been achieved; and, (d) the trade‐book industry continues to defy the predictions that electronic and other media will totally absorb and eclipse physical books.

It is proposed that public libraries have a duty to collect material from alternative publishers (in both fiction and non‐fiction and in all media) to better reflect the diversity of their communities. This paper aims to investigate the links between alternative publishing and public libraries in Scotland.

Two surveys (based on the 1979 Alternative Acquisitions Project) were carried out of alternative publishers and public libraries in Scotland. Questions were based on those in the 1979 survey, except where updated to accommodate new technologies. A literature review was also carried out to contextualise survey findings.

While alternative publishers and public libraries were aware of each other, alternative publishers faced many hurdles in getting their material in public libraries. For their part, public libraries were constrained by budgets but wanted to extend support for alternative publishing.

This paper re‐uses a previously tried and tested methodology to create a comparable and up to date study of an area of publishing often overlooked. Alternative publishing is revealed as a flourishing area, despite trends towards fewer and larger publishing outlets. Public libraries are seen as having a vital role to play in giving an outlet to alternative publishing.

The aim of this study is to analyse the disciplinary coverage of Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index database focusing on publisher presence, impact and specialisation.

The authors conducted a descriptive study in which they examined coverage by discipline, publisher distribution by field and country of publication, and publisher impact. For this purpose the Thomson Reuters' subject categories were aggregated into 15 disciplines.

Humanities and social sciences comprise 30 per cent of the total share of this database. Most of the disciplines are covered by very few publishers mainly from the UK and USA (75.05 per cent of the books), in fact 33 publishers hold 90 per cent of the whole share. Regarding publisher impact, 80.5 per cent of the books and chapters remained uncited. Two serious errors were found in this database: the Book Citation Index does not retrieve all citations for books and chapters; and book citations do not include citations to their chapters.

There are currently no studies analysing in depth the coverage of this novel database which covers monographs.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.

The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.

Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.

The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.