Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:57:42.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Journals and the Production of Knowledge: A Publishing Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2010

Patrick McCartan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stand-alone paper copies of journals have occupied academic library shelves largely unchanged for hundreds of years. Despite the prevalence of perverse incentives and market imperfections acknowledged in the business model for journals, the industry was characterized by durable relationships and institutions. Digitization and the internet revolution have transformed the landscape, giving rise to new institutional models and possibilities to challenge existing market inefficiencies in competition and distribution. However, digital information goods themselves guarantee neither appropriate incentives nor social efficiency. This article considers the collision of the new digital economy with an established, imperfect market for journals. It looks at some key changes that are now irreversible and their consequences for publishing in political science.

Type
Fortieth Anniversary Contribution
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 237 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mabe, Michael, ‘The Function of the Journal’, available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10873.pdf, accessed 17 March 2010.Google Scholar

2 Phillips, Angus, ‘Business Models in Journals Publishing’, in Bill Cope and Angus Phillips, eds, The Future of the Academic Journal (Oxford: Chandos, 2009), pp. 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Goodin, Robert E., ‘The Career of a Generalist Journal’, British Journal of Political Science, 40 (2010), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Cairncross, Frances, ‘Survey of e-management’, The Economist, 18 September 2000, 1–52, p. 1.Google Scholar

5 Morris, Sally, ‘The Tiger in the Corner: Will Journals Matter to Tomorrow’s Scholars’, in Cope and Phillips, eds, The Future of the Academic Journal, pp. 379–385, at p. 379.Google Scholar

6 Odlyzko, Andrew, ‘The Future of Scientific Information’ (AT&T Labs – Research, available at http://www.research.att.com/_amo).Google Scholar

7 Hazen, Dan, ‘Rethinking Collections in the Harvard College Library: A Policy Framework for Straitened Times, and Beyond’ (Discussion Paper and Action Plan, June 2009), p. 3.Google Scholar

8 Hazen, , ‘Rethinking Collections in the Harvard College Library’, p. 2.Google Scholar

9 Waltham, Mary, The Future of Scholarly Journals Publishing among Social Science and Humanities Associations (Report on a study funded by a Planning Grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2009; available at: http://www.nhalliance.org/bm~doc/hssreport.pdf).Google Scholar

10 Quah, Danny, ‘Digital Goods and the New Economy’ (Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper 563, London School of Economics and Political Science, March 2003), p. 13.Google Scholar

11 Quah, , ‘Digital Goods and the New Economy’, p. 26.Google Scholar

12 Berstrom, Carl T. and Bergstrom, Theodore C., ‘The Economics of Ecology Journals’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4 (2006), 488–495, at p. 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Berstrom and Bergstrom, ‘The Economics of Ecology Journals’, p. 493.Google Scholar

14 Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing (a report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, 2003).Google Scholar

15 The Impact Factor is the most widely used of the quantitative tools for evaluating journals. It is produced in the Journal Citation Report (JCR), a product of Thomson Reuters.

16 Waltham, The Future of Scholarly Journals Publishing among Social Science and Humanities Associations.Google Scholar

17 Cope, Bill and Phillips, Angus, ‘Introduction’, in Cope and Phillips, eds, The Future of the Academic Journal, pp. 1–9, at p. 4.Google Scholar

18 Ellison, Glenn, ‘Is Peer Review in Decline?’(National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13272, 2007), pp. 1–38, at pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

19 Ellison, , ‘Is Peer Review in Decline?’ p. 25.Google Scholar

20 Odlyzko, Andrew, ‘Peer and No-peer Review’ (Digital Technology Center, University of Minnesota), see http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/peer.review.txt.Google Scholar

21 Hazen, ‘Rethinking Collections in the Harvard College Library’.Google Scholar

22 Hazen, ‘Rethinking Collections in the Harvard College Library’.Google Scholar

23 Cairncross, , ‘Survey of e-management’, p. 9.Google Scholar

24 Crossref website. Available at: http://www.crossref.org/01company/02history.html.

25 UKSG Serials-eNews. Available at: http://www.ringgold.com/UKSG/si_pd.cfm?AC=8560&Pid=10&Zid=5205&issueno=214.

26 Odlyzko, Andrew, ‘Reprint: The Economics of Electronic Journals’, Journal of Electronic Publishing, 4 (1998). Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0004.106.Google Scholar

27 Cope, and Phillips, , ‘Introduction’, p. 6.Google Scholar