RE: Does More Mean More?

["Mcsean, Tony (ELS)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>]

Fred infers something that is widely believed but not borne out=20
by the data. In fact the growth of peer-reviewed scholarly=20
journals has been astonishingly consistent since 1820, with=20
annual growth in titles always very close indeed to the trend=20
growth line of 3.5%*.  The figures expose the "information=20
explosion" theory as a myth It appears that the number of=20
journals and the number of papers follows very closely the number=20
of active scientific researchers.  Which makes a simple sense and=20
puts Fred and me back in agreement with each other.

My own explanation for this is that what happened in the late 60s=20
early 70s is that the volume of publication tipped over the edge=20
of what the indexing tools then available could cope with.  But I=20
acknowledge that this is one of those comfortingly unverifiable=20
hypotheses and do not offer it for examination here.

Tony

Tony McSe=E1n
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier
+44 7795 960516
+44 20 7611 4413

* See:  Michael Mabe's Serial article from 2003, which uses Ulrich's data.
www.ucrg.org.uk/contact/branches/bbo/events/Mabeopenaccess.ppt


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: 30 January 2006 01:09
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Does More Mean More?

It is ironic that publishers are now claiming to be the guardians=20
of quantity. Since World War 2 the number of journals published=20
by subscription publishers has increased dramatically. Anyway the=20
main driver for quantity of publication is not the business model=20
but the quantity of research undertaken by the academic=20
community.

Fred Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
---2071850956-264831643-1138680233=:23585--