Re: Does More Mean More?

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

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