The future of academic publishing: Application of the long-tail theory

Publishing Research Quarterly

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 232-245

  Gould, Thomas Hp ^a  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic rank and tenure; Anderson; Collaboration; E reserves; Editorial boards; Long Tail Theory; Online academic publishing; Peer bias; Peer review; Ratings; Software; University library; User generated content

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869442907     PISSN: 10538801     EISSN: 19364792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12109-009-9134-y     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anderson C. "The Long Tail: forget squeezing millions from a few megahits at the top of the charts. The future of entertainment is in the millions of niche markets at the shallow end of the bitstream", Wired, 2004;12(10).
2. Mogge D. "Seven years of tracking electronic publishing: the ARL Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists", Library Hi Tech. 1999;17(1).
3. Johnson RK, Luther J. The e-only tipping point for journals: what's ahead in the print-to-electronic transition zone. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries; 2007.
4. Palmer B. Ongoing crisis in academic-journal pricing is the focus of recent colloquium: attendees agree high costs of subscriptions are unsustainable and electronic distribution has radically changed publishing. San Francisco: Stanford News Service; 2006.
5. Tenopir C, King DW. Trends in scientific scholarly journal publishing. J Sch Publ. 1997;28(3):135-70.
6. Lesk M. Books, bytes and bucks: practical digital libraries. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc; 1997.
7. Dillon IF, Hahn K. Are researchers ready for the electronic-only journal collection?: results of a survey at the University of Maryland. Libr Academy. 2002;2(3):375-90.
8. Ware M. E-Only journals: is it time to drop print? Learn Publ. 2005;18(3):193-9.
9. Palmer JP, Sandler M. What do faculty want? Libr J. 2003;128(1):s26-9.
10. The National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy. Available from: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/. 2008.
11. The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review, House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. Available from: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13105/1/399we23.htm. 2008.
12. McCabe MJ. Journal pricing and mergers: a portfolio approach. Am Econ Rev. 2002;92:259-690.
13. Varian HR. The future of electronic journals. J Electron Publ. 1998;4(1).
14. Clarke R, Kingsley D. Publishing's impacts on journals and journal articles. J Internet Commerce, 2007;6(4).
15. Loughner W. Top ten science publishers take 76 percent of science budget. Newsl Ser Pricing. 1999;221.
16. Stubbs K. Lies, damned lies.and ARL statistics?, Minutes of the 108th meeting of the Association of Research Libraries. Minneapolic: Association of Research Libraries; 1986.
17. Nisonger TE. Evaluation of library collections, access and electronic resources: a literature guide and annotated bibliography, Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT and London. 1999.
18. Kyrillidou M. Research library trends: ARL statistics. JAcad Librariansh. 2000;26:427-36.
19. Kyrillidou M, Crowe W. "In Search of New Measures", ARL: A Bimonthly Report, no. 197.1998.
20. Hitchcock S, Carr L, Hall W. Web journals publishing: a UK Perspective. Serials. 1997;10(3):285-98.
21. Willinsky J. The nine flavours of open access scholarly publishing. J Postgrad Med (online). 2003;49(3):2008-267. Available from: http://www. jpgmonline.com/text.asp?2003/49/3/263/1146.
22. Chan L. Nurturing online journal publishing. Can J Commun. 2004;29(3):250-2.
23. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of publishing articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;5:187-255.
24. Wennerás C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. In: Wyer M, Giesman D, Barbercheck M, Ozturk H, Wayne M, editors. Women, science, and technology. Routledge; 2001. p. 46-52.
25. Dalton R. Peers under pressure. Nature. 2001;413(6852):103.
26. Jefferson T. Peer review and publishing: it's time to move the agenda on. Lancet. 2005;366(9482):283-5.
27. Mahone MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res. 1977;1(1):161-75.
28. Neff BD, Olden J. Is peer review a game of chance? Bioscience. 2006;56(4):333-42.
29. Peters J. "The hundred years war started today: an exploration of electronic peer review ". Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy. 1995;5(1):3-10.
30. Shulenburger D. On scholarly evaluation and scholarly communication. College Res Libr News. 2001;62(8):808.
31. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000;123(9):1964-70.
32. Horrobin D. Opinion: something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2001;22(2).
33. Goodstein D. "How Science Works", U.S. federal judiciary reference manual on evidence. 2000. p. 66-72.
34. Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
35. Tipler FJ. Refereed journals: do they insure quality or enforce orthodoxy? 2003.
36. Berezin A, Gordon R, Hunter G. Lifting the pernicious veil of secrecy. New Sci. 1995;1964:46.
37. Brown HM. "Peer review should not be anonymous", BMJ 2003;326:824 (April 12) (Letters). Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/ content/extract/326/7393/824/b.
38. "Bad Peer Reviewers", Nature, 2001:413(6852):93.