共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 531 毫秒
1.
受最近Science网站的一则报道“科学家揭开期刊订阅的秘密”的启发,介绍目前传统纸质版、数字化和移动平台的期刊订阅模式,阐述捆绑式订阅价格差异较大的秘密是为了盈利,也是为了保护引用率少的期刊免遭淘汰.认为:模糊的我国专业期刊订阅盈利模式成为阻碍期刊发展的瓶颈,但其经营模式也出现了新的趋向;因此,寻找一种成熟、合理、适合自己期刊发展的经营模式,对于专业期刊既是挑战,也是机遇. 相似文献
2.
The Chinese government initiated a policy of 'corporatization of cultural entities' in 2003. Most Chinese book publishing houses were required to complete this transformation by 2006 and journal publishers by 2012. Chinese academic publishers, who no longer receive any general subsidies and allowances from government, have struggled to survive since then. During the reform process, many Chinese journals charged their authors page fees, and academic book publishers raised the prices of their publications. The continuing existence of other subsidies, however, means that there is still a degree of dependency in the Chinese system, and it will take time for its academic publishers to grow into real market players and to enhance their competitiveness. 相似文献
3.
Mark WARE 《Learned Publishing》2008,21(1):22-28
For societies and associations seeking a publishing partner, the healthy competition between publishers means that the deals on offer have never been better. The problem for the society is distinguishing a good short‐term deal (say, an attractive financial offer) from the partnership that will actually be in the better long‐term interests of the journal. This article, based on the author's experience as a publisher‐turned‐consultant advising societies, offers a framework for selecting a partner based on a careful analysis of what the society needs from its publisher in the long term. Underlying the performance of the best publisher partners are a good understanding of the needs of societies and their journals; a strong service orientation; and an ability to plan strategically for each journal on the basis of facts and data. 相似文献
4.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries. 相似文献
5.
This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies' peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland. We also studied the share of learned societies' open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724. Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies' outputs were OA. This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities. 相似文献
6.
Matthew HOWELLS Ashleigh BELL Nicholas EVERITT Jennifer McMILLAN 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(2):109-112
There are enormous quantities of information available to researchers on the Internet, of varying levels of quality. Now, more than ever, it is important that academic publishers make best use of their journals and provide their readers with access to this high‐value content, in a form that can be easily found and used. To that end, Taylor & Francis have taken up the challenge of satisfying researchers' need to have all relevant content available at their fingertips, by digitizing their older journal content, creating subject‐based collections of backfiles and putting them online. This article provides an insight into the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the process of digitization of Taylor & Francis's journal archives. The fact that these online backfiles are being requested, purchased, and used demonstrates the added value that publishers may hold in their archives. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
The essence of text mining and data mining is that a machine and software are used for content analysis of large digital corpora. The Publishing Research Consortium commissioned a study on content mining of scholarly journal articles with 29 expert interviews and an international survey among publishers. The main results are: (i) content mining developments appear to be accelerating with more applications in more areas; (ii) third‐party demand for content mining is widespread but still at low levels of frequency; (iii) publishers' permissions for content mining are quite liberal, especially for research‐driven mining requests; (iv) half of the publisher respondents undertake mining of their own content; and (v) content mining is on the rise – publishers and third parties both report an increase in planned mining activities. As content mining of journal articles spreads and intensifies, cross‐publisher solutions can better help facilitate content mining. The study investigated the interest and willingness of publishers to support a set of different solutions, from one shared content mining platform to commonly agreed access terms for mining and standardization of mining‐friendly content formats. 相似文献
10.
Simon Inger 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(4):279-285
The British Library, under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Legal Deposit's sub‐committee for e‐journals, is conducting a pilot project to lay the groundwork for possible legislation for the legal deposit of electronic journals. One component of the project has been to understand the production environment that governs the creation of the published data, the content management systems that publishers have deployed and the ways in which publishers are able to distribute content to their partners. This work is a snapshot of a cross‐section of the UK journal‐publishing industry taken in May 2005. 相似文献
11.
12.
Has the challenge of unauthorized digital reproduction and distribution of copyright works been met by the use of so‐called ‘digital rights management’ (DRM) technology – and what role will DRM play in publishing, including scholarly journal and learned publishing? This article explores the legal and commercial issues surrounding DRM from its analogue origins through to the latest market developments. It argues that the implementation of DRM in other media sectors provides valuable lessons to publishers. Acknowledging the practical challenges that DRM has faced, the article suggests that whilst DRM will offer an answer to ‘the machine', it must form part of a flexible solution that adapts to the requirements of electronic publishing. 相似文献
13.
This study examines aspects of scholarly journal publishing in the Nordic countries. On average half of Nordic journals publish online. In most Nordic countries, commercial publishers predominate; however, in Finland the majority are society publishers. The number of open access journals is low, in line with international figures. There is concern to maintain local languages in journal publishing. A majority of the journals publishing in local languages are within social science, humanities, and arts; the STM sector publishes in English. English‐language publications are favoured in research assessments, international recognition, and impact, while the visibility of local‐language scholarly journals in international databases is low. The Nordbib program supports Nordic scholarly journals and fosters co‐operation with publishing companies and learned societies over migration to e‐publishing; it also supports open access. The article discusses future challenges for journal publishing, pointing out the problems of small journal publishers and the need for co‐operation between stakeholders. 相似文献
14.
Bhaskar MUKHERJEE 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(1):21-32
This paper examines the characteristics of 462 open access (OA) journals being published in India under the green, gold and hybrid models. The sample of journals was selected from DOAJ, IndianJournal.com and Open J‐Gate. Journal characteristics were measured in terms of growth, subjects, publishers, and citations under each model. While characteristics such as growth, subject, and publisher have been identified by exploring the journal's website only, the citation count of these journals has been calculated by using Google Scholar and the Indian Citation Index. The gold road is now the most popular form of OA publishing in the subcontinent. There is a great variation in the size of OA journals and in their publishers. One publisher has more than 77 journals, but 264 publishers publish a single journal only. Overall, the OA journal landscape is greatly influenced by a few key publishers and journals. While 43% of journals charge publication fees and the fees vary from as low as US$10 to as high as US$400, the highest impact factor of the gold OA journals has been noted as 0.58. The data presented here suggest that publication fees are not a major barrier to authorship within the fields of computer science, pharmacy, and medicine. 相似文献
15.
This study examines the extent of concentration in the journal publishing industry. A number of aspects are considered: publishers, journal impacts, countries, and languages. For journals indexed in JCR from 1997 to 2009, just 0.2% of publishers produce 50% of journals and articles, and 0.3% of publishers account for the top 50% of citations, impact factors and immediacy indices. More than a half of publishers in JCR are from four countries: USA, UK, Germany and Japan. In addition, more than a half of journals come from the USA and UK. Examining the publishers' interactions in terms of buying and selling journals shows the extent of change by acquisition, and the acquisition links between publishers. The findings confirm that the international market of journal publishing is essentially dominated by a few publishers. 相似文献
16.
How can a new publisher and new publication survive in today's climate, where ‘Big Deal’ bundling arrangements and cuts in library budgets are squeezing out smaller publishers and publications? That is a key question for TheScientificWorldJOURNAL. The Journal's innovative editorial approaches together with a new business model combine to present part of the answer, and enable a new journal to make a significant difference. 相似文献
17.
18.
Surveys of academic staff in six universities in the UK provide insights for publishers into scholarly article and book reading patterns of academics and differences based on personal characteristics of readers. These surveys were part of the 2011 UK Scholarly Reading and the Value of the Library Study funded by JISC Collections and based on studies conducted by Tenopir and King since 1977. Scholarly articles, especially those obtained from the library's e‐journal collections, are a vital part of academic work. Reading patterns of books are quite different than articles; books most often come from personal print collections. Book readings are still important for research and teaching, however, especially for humanists. Academics come into contact with multiple sources of information every day and therefore, convenience and easy access are important factors. Knowing more about academic reading patterns helps publishers and librarians design more effective journal systems and services now and into the future. 相似文献
19.
Michael Upshall 《Learned Publishing》2003,16(2):129-133
Despite the dot‐com downturn, content management software continues to grow in popularity. What began as a niche product for publishers, or as a means of managing large websites, has become touted as a universal panacea for every kind of organization that creates, holds or disseminates content – and since a website is a form of publication, this means pretty much any organization. How relevant is content management to journal publishers? With over 150 competing content management products available in the UK, content and document management systems are not difficult to find (although perhaps difficult to choose). But do they meet a need? Do they provide a clear return on investment? Or are they simply the latest in a long line of management and business fads, the next big thing? To answer these questions, the author created a questionnaire for journal publishers, and then carried out follow‐up interviews with key people in the relevant organization. His aim was to discover if content management software was felt relevant to journal publishers, and exactly what their interest was. 相似文献
20.
Jill O'Neill 《Learned Publishing》2000,13(2):105-109
The journal impact factor, as a metric developed in the mid‐1960s by Dr Eugene Garfield and Dr Irving Sher, represents the influence that an ‘average article’ published in a specific journal has on the scholarly discipline and audience that it serves. Originally intended to serve as an equalizer for use by the Institute for Scientific Information® (ISI®) in making comparative evaluations of large and small journals in a particular discipline, the impact factor now has numerous applications for publishers, librarians, and researchers. Ideally, the journal impact factor should be seen by publishers as a useful tool in gauging the effectiveness of their publication product in serving the needs of a particular scholarly community. The significance of a journal impact factor, its appropriate usage by the scholarly publishing community and its extension into the electronic environment are discussed. 相似文献