[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Does More Mean More?



We seem to have an interesting dispute on our hands.

Joe Esposito argues that, "The number of publications does not rise with the amount of research but with the size of the acquisition budgets." while Tony McSean echos Michael Mabe's position that, "It appears that the number of journals and the number of papers follows very closely the number of active scientific researchers."

Both are partially right, but are arguing from different sides of the economic spectrum -- Joe from the consumer side, and Tony from the production side. The most plausible explanation (as supported from the data) is that the number of active researchers is the best predictor of the number of journals. The article measuring the output of a researcher, and the journal serving as a container of this output. More scientists means more articles, which means more journals.

On the other hand, the consumer market has an influences on what publishers can charge. I would beg to differ with Joe that the library acquisitions budget does not determine the *number* of publications, but the *price* of those journals. This interpretation seems to support anecdotal experience. Serials prices increased at phenomenal rates during a period when libraries were getting regular increases. Serial inflation (in comparison) appears to be relatively small at present, echoing a static acquisitions budget.

As a final note, Tony's explanation of a constant growth rate is incorrect. 3.5% annual inflation (when compounded) is in fact an explosion, or in technical terms, a exponential increase. It only appears steady when the author plots them on a logarithmic scale. Put the data on regular graph paper and it takes off like a rocket.

--Phil Davis