Re: Does More Mean More?

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

I seem to recall Michael Mabe of Elsevier reporting that, over 
very many years, every increase of 100 in the total quantum of 
articles produced tended to lead to the creation of a new journal 
(he could probably tell us the source of this data - possibly 
Tenopir and/or King?).  Both articles and journals (and, of 
course, the number of scientists) has risen by a more or less 
steady 3 percent per annum for a very long time.

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:09 AM
Subject: RE: Does More Mean More?

> I'm not sure there is any relation between the number of 
> articles being written/published and the number of journal 
> titles. Some journals publish thousands of articles a year, 
> others just a handful. Equally, I'm sure that there's no 
> relation between the number of researchers and journal titles.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
> Sent: 31 January, 2006 11:07 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: 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