Some economic aspects of the scholarly journal system

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Volumn 45, Issue , 2011, Pages 295-366

  King, Donald W ^a   Tenopir, Carol ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877103466     PISSN: 00664200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450114     Document Type: Article

References (272)

1. Adams, A. A. (2009, May 10). Those who criticise must understand what they are criticising. a-cubed info (blog). Message posted to blog.a-cubed.info/index.php
2. Adams, J. (2007). Bibliometrics, assessment and UK research. Serials, 20, 188-191.
3. Anglada, L., & Comellas, N. (2002). What's fair Pricing models in the electronic era. Library Management, 23, 227-233.
4. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact College & Research Libraries, 65, 372-382.
5. Bailey, C. W. (2006). What is open access In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford, UK: Chandos. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/WhatIsOA.htm
6. Bailey, C. W. (2009). Scholarly electronic publishing bibliography. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/sepb.html
7. Bailey, C. W. (2010). Institutional repository bibliography. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from digital-scholarship.org/irb/irb.html
8. Baldwin, C. (2004). What do societies do with their publishing surpluses Worthing, UK: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.
9. Barschall, H. H. (1986). The cost of physics journals. Physics Today, 39(12), 34-36.
10. Barschall, H. H. (1988). Cost-effectiveness of physics journals. Physics Today, 41(7), 56-59.
11. Baser, O., & Pena, E. (2003). The return of publications for academic faculty. Economics Bulletin, 1(1), 1-13.
12. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html
13. Beckett, C., & Inger, S. (2006). Self-archiving and journal subscriptions: Co-existence or competition London: Publishing Research Consortium.
14. Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 93-158.
15. Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Library News, 68(5). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crlnews/backissues2007/may07/eigenfactor.cfm
16. Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2004a). Can "author pays" journals compete with "reader pays" Nature, Web Focus: Access to the Literature. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/22.html
17. Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2004b). The costs and benefits of library site licenses to academic journals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 897-902.
18. Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2006). The economics of ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 488-495.
19. Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). Free labor for costly journals Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/jeprevised.pdf
20. Bergstrom, T. C., & Lavaty, R. (2007). How often do economists self-archive Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Economics, University of California Santa Barbara (Paper 2007a). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a
21. Bishop, A. P., & Star, S. L. (1996). Social informatics of digital library use and infrastructure. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, 301-401.
22. Bjørk, B.-C. (2007). A model of scientific communication as a global distributed information system. Information Research, 12(2), paper 307. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from informationr.net/ir/12-2/paper307.html
23. Bjørk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2004). A formalised model of the scientific publication process. Online Information Review, 28(1), 8-21.
24. Bjørk, B.-C., Roos, A., & Lauri, M. (2008). Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/178_elpub2008.content.pdf
25. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e6022. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
26. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3-72.
27. Boyce, P., King, D. W., Montgomery, C., & Tenopir, C. (2004). How electronic journals are changing patterns of use. The Serials Librarian, 46, 121-141.
28. Braman, S. (2005). The micro-and macroeconomics of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 3-52.
29. Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/01/timcorr.htm
30. Brown, C. (2010). Communication in the sciences. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 287-316.
31. Brown, D. J., & Boulderstone, R. (2008). The impact of electronic publishing: The future of publishers and librarians. Mörlenbach, Germany: K.G. Saur.
32. Butler, D. (2006). Open-access journal hits rocky times. Nature, 441(914). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441914a.html
33. Cambridge Economic Policy Associates. (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. London: Research Information Network.
34. Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2005). Keystroke economy: A study of the time and effort involved in self-archiving. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688
35. Clarke, R. (2007). The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing. First Monday, 12(12). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.rogerclarke.com/EC/JP-CP.html
36. Cockerill, M. (2009). Why have a central open access fund CILIP Library & Information Update, 7(3), 30.
37. Coles, B. R. (1993). The scientific, technical and medical information system in the UK. London: Royal Society.
38. Cooper, M. D. (1973). The economics of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 8, 5-40.
39. Cooper, M. D. (2006). The costs of providing electronic journal access and printed copies of journals to university users. Library Quarterly, 76, 323-351.
40. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009a). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14(4). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2309/2163
41. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009b). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 13-61). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
42. Cope, B., & Phillips, A. (Eds.). (2009). The future of the academic journal. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
43. Cox, J. (1998). The changing economic model of scholarly publishing: Uncertainty, complexity and multi-media serials. INSPEL, 32, 69-78.
44. Cox, J. (2003). Value for money in electronic journals: A survey of the early evidence and some preliminary conclusions. Serials Review, 29, 83-88. doi:10.1016/S0098-7913(03)00041-8
45. Cox, J., & Cox, L. (2008). Scholarly publishing practice: Academic journal publishers' policies and practices in online publishing (third survey). Brighton, UK: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.
46. Craig, I. (2006). The effect of self-archiving and open access on citations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Internal Report.
47. Craig, I. D., & Ferguson, L. (2009). Journals ranking and impact factors: How the performance of journals is measured. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 153-193). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
48. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 239-248.
49. Creaser, C., Maynard, S., & White, S. (2006). LISU annual library statistics 2006: Featuring trend analysis of UK public and academic libraries 1995-2005. Leicestershire UK: Loughborough University.
50. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1275-1278.
51. Crossick, G. (2007). Journals in the arts and humanities: Their role in evaluation. Serials, 20, 184-187.
52. Davies, J. E. (2009). Libraries and the future of the journal: Dodging the crossfire in the e-revolution, or leading the charge In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 214-223). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
53. Davis, D. (2007). Library networks, cooperatives and consortia: A national survey. Chicago: American Library Association.
54. Davis, P. M. (2002). Patterns in electronic journal usage: Challenging the composition of geographic consortia. College & Research Libraries, 63, 484-497.
55. Davis, P. M. (2006). Letter to the editor. College & Research Libraries, 67(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/2006/mar/mar06_ltr.cfm
56. Davis, P. M. (2009a). Studies on access: A review. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from arxiv.org/abs/0912.3953
57. Davis, P. M. (2009b). Author-choice open-access publishing in the biological and medical literature: A citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 3-8.
58. Davis, P. M., & Fromerth, M. J. (2007). Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles Scientometrics, 71(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from arxiv.org/pdf/cs.DL/0603056
59. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ, 337(7665), 343-345.
60. Dominguez, M. (2006). Economics of open access publishing. Serials, 19, 52-60.
61. Donovan, B. (1998). The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing, 11, 179-184.
62. Drott, M. C. (2006). Open access. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 79-109.
63. Duplantis, R. M., Haar, D. E., Silberman, S. D., Van Gieson, H., & Warren-Boulton, F. R. (2005). Merger without markets: Do mergers among publishers of academic journals affect prices Washington, DC: Microeconomic Consulting and Research Associates, Inc.
64. Eckert, H. M. (1982). Statistics of library networks and cooperative organizations. 1977-1987. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
65. Electronic Publishing Services, Ltd. (2006). Market monitor: Legal, tax and regulatory (LTR) information: Market trends and industry performance. New York: The Service.
66. Evans, J. A. (2008). Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science, 321, 395-399.
67. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040157
68. Fisher, J. H. (2008). Scholarly publishing re-invented: Real costs and real freedoms. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.204
69. Fox, P. (2002). Archiving of electronic publications: Some thoughts on cost. Learned Publishing, 15, 3-5.
70. Frazier, K. (2001). The librarians' dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal." D-Lib Magazine, 7(3). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html
71. Friedlander, A., & Bessette, R. S. (2003). The implications of information technology for scientific journal publishing: A literature review. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03323/pdf/nsf03323.pdf
72. Friend, F. J. (2002). Library consortia in the electronic age. Alexandria, 14(1), 17-24.
73. Gannett, E. K. (1973). Primary publication systems and services. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 8, 243-275.
74. Garvey, W. D., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1975, October). Scientific communication as an interactive social process. Paper presented at the U.S./U.S.S.R Symposium, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
75. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1963). The American Psychological Association's project on scientific information exchange in psychology. Report no. 9. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
76. Gentil-Beccot, A., Mele, S., & Brookes, T. C. (2009). Citing and reading behaviours in high energy physics: How a community stopped worrying about journals and learned to love repositories. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.arxiv.org/abs/0906.5418
77. Getz, M. (2005a). Open scholarship and research universities (Working paper 05-17). Nashville, TN: Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/0517.html
78. Getz, M. (2005b). Open-source scholarly publishing in economic perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 42(1), 1-39.
79. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Forces, 1(1), 10-11.
80. Griffiths, J.-M. (1982). The value of information and related systems, products, and services. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 17, 601-610.
81. Griffiths, J.-M., & King, D. W. (1993). Special libraries: Increasing the information edge. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
82. Griffiths, J.-M., & King, D. W. (2008). InterConnections: The IMLS national study of the use of libraries, museums, and the internet. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.interconnectionsreport.org
83. Griffiths, J.-M., & King, D. W. (2009a). A national study of the future of academic librarians in the workforce. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from libraryworkforce.org/tiki-index.php
84. Griffiths, J.-M., & King, D. W. (2009b). A national study of the future of special librarians in the workforce. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from libraryworkforce.org/tiki-index.php
85. Grimshaw, S. (2000). Library consortia and publishers: Partnerships for the new millennium. Assignation, 18, 29-32.
86. Hahn, K. L. (2005). Tiered pricing: Implications for library collections. portal: Libraries & the Academy, 5, 151-163.
87. Hahn, K. L. (2008). Research library publishing services: New options for university publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
88. Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison on the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(4), 39-47.
89. Halliday, L. L., & Oppenheim, C. (1999). Economic models of the digital library. Loughborough, UK: UKOLN. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/ukoln/emod-diglib/final-report.pdf
90. Halliday, L. L., & Oppenheim, C. (2000). Comparison and evaluation of some economic models of digital-only journals. Journal of Documentation, 56, 660-673.
91. Hannay, T., & Spencer, H. (2007). Document sharing speeds up research. Research Information, 33, 25-26.
92. Harnad, S. (1994). Scholarly journals at the crossroads: A subversive proposal for electronic publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
93. Harnad, S. (2009a). The post-Gutenberg open access journal. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 125-137). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
94. Harnad, S. (2009b, July 16). Reply to Anthony Watkins' entry. Open Access Archivangelism Blog. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from openaccess.eprints.org
95. Harnad, S. (2009c). Validating multiple metrics as substitutes for expert evaluation of research performance. Nature, 457(785). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from openaccess.eprints.org/index.php/archives/508-quid.html
96. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html
97. Harwood, P., & Prior, A. (2008). Testing usage-based ejournal pricing. Learned Publishing, 21(2), 133-139.
98. Hedlund, T., Gustafsson, T., & Bjørk, B.-C. (2004). The open access scientific journal: An empirical study. Learned Publishing, 17, 199-209.
99. Hendley, T. (1998). Comparison of methods and costs of digital preservation (British Library Research and Innovation Report 106). London: British Library Research and Innovation Centre.
100. Hills, P. J. (1983). The scholarly communication process. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 18, 99-125.
101. Hindle, A., & Raper, D. (1976). The economics of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 11, 27-54.
102. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569-16572.
103. Hitchcock, S. (2006). The effect of open access downloads ("hits") on citation impact: A bibliography of studies. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
104. Holmstrom, J. (2004). The cost per article reading of open access articles. D-Lib Magazine, 10(1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/january04/holmstrom/01holmstrom.html
105. Houghton, J. W. (2009a). Costs and benefits of alternative publishing models. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Elektroniske Fag og Forskningsbibliotek.
106. Houghton, J. W. (2009b). Open access-What are the economic benefits A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University.
107. Houghton, J. W., de Jonge, J., & van Oploo, M. (2009). Costs and benefits of research communication: The Dutch situation. Utrecht, The Netherlands: SURFfoundation.
108. Houghton, J. W., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P. J., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., Creaser, C., et al. (2009). Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. Report to the Joint Information Systems Committee. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University & Loughborough University. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport. aspx
109. Houghton, J. W., & Sheehan, P. (2006). The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University.
110. Houghton, J. W., & Sheehan, P. J. (2009). Estimating the potential impacts of open access to research findings. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 127-142.
111. Houghton, J. W., Steele, C., & Henty, M. (2003). Changing research practices in the digital information and communication environment. Canberra, Australia: Australian Department of Science, Education, and Training.
112. Houghton, J. W., Steele, C., & Sheehan, P. (2006). Research communication costs in Australia: Emerging opportunities and benefits. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2004A
113. Hurd, J. M. (1996). Models of scientific communications systems. In S. Y. Crawford, J. M. Hurd, & A. C. Weller (Eds.), From print to electronic: The transformation of scientific communication (pp. 9-33). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
114. Inger, S., Kusma, T., & Allen, B. M. (2000). The pricing implications of site and consortia licensing into the next millennium. Serials Librarian, 38, 219-224.
115. Jaschik, J. (2009, June 4). Split over open access. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/04/open
116. Jones, D. Y. (2007). How much do the "best" colleges spend on libraries College & Research Libraries, 68, 343-351.
117. Journal value project. (2005). Retrieved June 19, 2010, from math.library.wisc.edu/reserves/JVP/JVP-SLA03.ppt
118. Jubb, M., Look, H., & Sparks, S. (2007). Researchers' use and perceptions of discovery services. Learned Publishing, 20, 147-153.
119. Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC. (2005). The facts about open access: A study of the financial and non-financial effect of alternative business models for scholarly journals. Brighton, UK: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.
120. Kenney, A. R. (2005, July). The Cornell experience: arXiv.org. Paper presented at the DCC/DPC Workshop on Cost Models for Preserving Digital Assets, London.
121. Key Perspectives, Ltd. (2002). Library consortia research. In A. Pearce (Ed.), The consortia site license: Is it a sustainable model (pp. 79-118). Oxford, UK: Ingenta Institute.
122. King, C. J., Harley, D., Earl-Novell, S., Arter, J., Lawrence, S., & Perciali, I. (2006). Scholarly communication: Academic values and sustainable models. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. University of California. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from cshc.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/scholarlycommreports.pdf
123. King, D. W. (2004). Should commercial publishers be involved in the model for open access through author payment D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/king/06king.html
124. King, D. W. (2006). Discussion of the bottom-up approach to examining economic impacts of open access: Annex III. In D. Prosser & J. Houghton (Eds.), Roundtable on economic impacts of open access. Washington, DC: Open Society Institute. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.cfses.com/documents/king.pdf
125. King, D. W. (2007). The cost of journal publishing: A literature review and commentary. Learned Publishing, 20, 85-106.
126. King, D. W. (2010). An approach to open access author payment. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/king/03king.html
127. King, D. W., Aerni, S., Brody, F., Herbison, M., & Knapp, A. (2004a). Comparative costs of the University of Pittsburgh electronic and print library collections. Pittsburgh, PA: The Sara Fine Institute for Interpersonal Behavior and Technology.
128. King, D. W., Aerni, S., Brody, F., Herbison, M., & Knapp, A. (2004b). The use and outcomes of university library print and electronic collections. Pittsburgh, PA: The Sara Fine Institute for Interpersonal Behavior and Technology.
129. King, D. W., Aerni, S., Brody, F., Herbison, M., & Kohberger, P. (2004). A comparison of the cost of print and electronic journal collections. Pittsburgh, PA: The Sara Fine Institute for Interpersonal Behavior and Technology.
130. King, D. W., & Alvarado-Albertorio, F. M. (2008). Pricing and other means of charging for scholarly journals: A literature review and commentary. Learned Publishing, 21, 248-272. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315108X356680
131. King, D. W., Boyce, P. B., Montgomery, C. H., & Tenopir, C. (2003). Library economic metrics: Examples of the comparison of electronic and print journal collections and collection services. Library Trends, 51, 376-400. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from hdl.handle.net/2142/8476
132. King, D. W., & Griffiths, J.-M. (1987). Survey of library networks and cooperative library organizations. Washington, DC: King Research, Inc. for Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
133. King, D. W., Lancaster, F. W., McDonald, D. D., Roderer, N. K., & Wood, B. L. (1976). Statistical indicators of scientific and technical information communication (1960-1980). Report to the National Science Foundation C-878 (GPO 083-000-00295-3). Washington, DC: King Research, Inc., Center for Quantitative Sciences.
134. King, D. W., McDonald, D. D., & Olsen, C. (1978). A survey of readers, subscribers and authors of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Available from the author.
135. King, D. W., McDonald, D. D., & Roderer, N. K. (1981). Scientific journals in the United States: Their production, use, and economics. Stroudsburg, PA: Academic Press.
136. King, D. W., & Montgomery, C. H. (2002). Comparing library and user related costs of print and electronic journal collections. D-Lib Magazine, 8(10). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/montgomery/10montgomery.html
137. King, D. W., & Tenopir, C. (2001). Using and reading scholarly literature. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 423-477.
138. King, D. W., & Tenopir, C. (2008). Scholarly journal and digital database pricing: Threat or In J. K. MacKie-Mason & W. P. Lougee (Eds.), Economics and usage of digital libraries: Byting the bullet. Ann Arbor, MI: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library. Retrieved June 19, 2010, from quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/textidxc=spobooks;idno=5621225.0001.001
139. King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Choemprayong, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Scholarly journal informationseeking and reading patterns of faculty at five U.S. universities. Learned Publishing, 22, 95-113.
140. King, D. W., Tenopir, C., & Clarke, M. (2006). Measuring total reading of journal articles. D-Lib Magazine, 12(10). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/october06/king/10king.html
141. King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Montgomery, C. H., & Aerni, S. E. (2003). Patterns of journal use by faculty at three diverse universities. D-Lib Magazine, 9(10). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html
142. King, D. W., & Xu, H. (2002a). An appraisal of the consortium licensing model. In A. Pearce (Ed.), The consortia site license: Is it a sustainable model (pp. 163-167). Oxford, UK: Ingenta Institute.
143. King, D. W., & Xu, H. (2002b). The role of library consortia in electronic journal services. In A. Pearce (Ed.), The consortia site license: Is it a sustainable model (pp. 10-76). Oxford, UK: Ingenta Institute.
144. Kingma, B. (1996). Economics of access versus ownership: The costs and benefits of access to scholarly articles via interlibrary loan and journal subscriptions. New York: Haworth Press.
145. Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2002). Electronic journals, the internet, and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 127-177.
146. Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43, 27-43.
147. Kyrillidou, M. (2006). The impact of electronic publishing on tracking research library investments in serials. ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Library Issues and Actions, 249, 6-7.
148. Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2008). ARL statistics: 2006-2007. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
149. Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2009). ARL statistics: 2007-2008. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
150. Lamberton, D. M. (1984). The economics of information and organization. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 19, 3-30.
151. Lin, N., Garvey, W. D., & Nelson, C. E. (1970). A study of the communication structure of science. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 23-60). Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.
152. Liu, Z. M. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing & Management, 39, 889-898.
153. Luther, J. (2008). University investment in the library: What's the return A case study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (white paper). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/0108/lcwp010801.html
154. Mabe, M. (2003). Growth and number of journals. Serials, 16, 191-197.
155. Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51, 147-162.
156. Mabe, M. A., & Amin, M. (2002). Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: Author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings, 54, 149-157.
157. Machlup, F. (1997). Uses, value, and benefits of knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, and Utilization, 1, 62-81.
158. MacKie-Mason, J. K., & Jankovich, A. L. L. (1997). PEAK: Pricing library access to knowledge. Library Acquisitions, Practice, and Theory, 21, 281-295.
159. Maynard, S., & Davies, J. E. (2001). The cost of copyright compliance in further and higher education institutions. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University, LISU.
160. McCabe, M. J. (2002). Journal pricing and mergers: A portfolio approach. American Economic Review, 92, 259-269.
161. McCabe, M. J. (2004). Information goods and endogenous pricing strategies: The case of economic journals. Economics Bulletin, 12, 1-11. Retrieved June 19, 2010, from mccabe.people.si.umich.edu/EB.pdf
162. McCabe, M. J. (2005). Merging West and Thomson: Pro-or anti-competitive Law Library Journal, 97(3), 4.
163. McCabe, M. J., Nevo, A., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2006). The pricing of academic journals. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Program in Law and Economics.
164. McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2004). The best business model for scholarly journals: An economist's perspective. Nature, Web Focus: Access to the Literature. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate
165. Mezick, E. M. (2007). Return on investment: Libraries and student retention. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 561-566.
166. Mick, C. K. (1979). Cost analysis of information systems and services. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 14, 37-64.
167. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of "open access" upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.citeulike.org/user/janrito/article/1338912
168. Morris, S. (2005). The true costs of scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 18, 115-126.
169. Morris, S. (2007). Will the parasite kill the host Are institutional repositories a fact of life-and does it matter Serials, 20, 172-179.
170. Morris, S. (2009). The tiger in the corner: Will journals matter to tomorrow's scholars In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 379-385). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
171. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Library cooperatives survey: Fiscal year 1997. Washington, DC: Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
172. Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2002). Results and analysis from a pilot quantitative analysis of web log data. In A. Pearce (Ed.), The consortia site license: Is it a sustainable model (pp. 187-215). Oxford, UK: Ingenta Institute.
173. Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2006). Digital journals: Are they really used Interlending and Document Supply, 34, 74-77.
174. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Dobrowolski, T., & Rowlands, I. (2006). Ideas on creating a consumer market for scholarly journals. Learned Publishing, 19, 245-249.
175. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2006). Obtaining rich use and user data on virtual scholars: A deep log analysis of ScienceDirect authors. London: University College.
176. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Tenopir, C. (2006). OhioLINK: Ten years on: What deep log analysis tells us about the impact of Big Deals Journal of Documentation, 62, 482-508.
177. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Watkinson, A. (2003). Digital journals, big deals, and online searching behavior: A pilot study. Aslib Proceedings, 55, 84-109.
178. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Watkinson, A. (2005). Scholarly journal usage: The results of deep log analysis. Journal of Documentation, 61, 248-280.
179. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Huntington, P., Clark, D., & Jamali, H. R. (2009). Ejournals: Their use, value and impact. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.rin.ac.uk/useejournals
180. Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 609-642.
181. Nisonger, T. E. (2004). The benefits and drawbacks of impact factor for journal collection management in libraries. Serials Librarian, 47, 57-75.
182. Okerson, A. S. (1999). The LIBLICENCE project and how it grows. D-Lib Magazine, 5(9). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/september99/okerson/09okerson.html
183. Okerson, A. S. (2000). Strength in numbers: Library consortia in the electronic age. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/strengthnumbers.html
184. Okerson, A. S., & McDonnell, J. J. (1995). Scholarly journals at the crossroads: A subversive proposal for scholarly publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
185. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Digital broadband content: Scientific publishing. Paris: The Organisation. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf
186. Outsell, Inc. (2008). Scientific, technical & medical information: 2008 market forecast and trends report, volume 2. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.outsellinc.com/store/products/772
187. Outsell, Inc. (2009). An open access primer: Market size and trend. Burlingame, CA: Outsell, Inc.
188. Oxford University Press. (2006). Determining the impact of open access: A deep log analysis of Nucleic Acids Research. London: University College London, Center for Publishing. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uczciro/nar.pdf
189. Page, G., Campbell, R., & Meadows, J. (1997). Journal publishing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
190. Peek, R. P., & Pomerantz, J. P. (1998). Electronic scholarly journal publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33, 321-356.
191. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glasov, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
192. Phillips, A. (2009). Business models in journals publishing. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 83-103). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
193. Phillips, M. E. (2005). Selective archiving of web resources: A study of acquisition costs at the National Library of Australia. RLG DigiNews, 9(13). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.rlg.org/en/page.phpPage_ID320666#article0.
194. Pinfield, S. (2007). Can open access repositories and peer-reviewed journals coexist Serials, 20, 163-171.
195. PIRA International. (2003). The EU publishing industry: An assessment of competitors. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
196. Primary Research Group, Inc. (2008). Survey of academic and research library journal purchasing practices. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/661631/the_survey_of_academic_and_research_library
197. Pringle, J. (2007). What impact Whose value Citation metrics in a work-flow perspective. Serials, 20, 192-198.
198. Public Library of Science. (2004). Publishing open-access journals. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.plos.org/downloads/oa_whitepaper.pdf
199. Public Library of Science. (2009). Publication fees for PLoS journals. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php
200. Quandt, R. E. (2003). Scholarly materials: Paper or digital Library Trends, 51, 349. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.thefreelibrary.com/Scholarly+materials:+paper+or+digital%3F+%28Academic+Libraries%29-a0102270882
201. Rae, V., & Rowland, F. (2006). Is there a viable business model for commercial open access publishing Serials, 19, 188-194.
202. RAE2008. (2008). Research assessment exercise: Quality profiles. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.rae.ac.uk/results
203. Regazzi, J. J. (2004). The shifting sands of open access publishing: A publisher's view. Serials Review, 30, 275-280.
204. Repo, A. J. (1987). Economics of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 22, 3-35.
205. Research Information Network. (2009). Ejournals: Their use, value, and impact. London: Research Information Network. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from informationr.net/ir/reviews/revs337.html
206. Revill, D. (2002). LISU annual library statistics 2001, featuring trend analysis of UK public and academic libraries 1990-2000. New Library World, 103(6), 236-238.
207. Rightscom. (2005). Business models for journal content: Bristol report to JISC. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/events/2005/06/hugh_look.pdf
208. Rowland, F. (1996). The need for management of electronic journals. In R. P. Peek & G. B. Newby (Eds.), Scholarly publishing: The electronic frontier (pp. 243-250). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
209. Rowland, F. (1999). Electronic publishing: Non-commercial alternatives. Learned Publishing, 12, 209-217.
210. Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15, 247-258.
211. Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behavior: A review of recent research. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 369-396. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.03.005
212. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2006). The changing scholarly communication landscape: An international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19, 31-55.
213. Sage. (2008). Meeting the challenges: Societies and scholarly communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
214. Sanville, T., & Winters, B. (1998). A method out of madness: OhioLINK's collaborative response to the serials crisis. Serials Librarian, 34, 125-139.
215. Saxby, C. (2006). NAR author and reader survey. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
216. Scholarly Publishing Roundtable. (2010). Report and recommendations from the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspxid.10044
217. Schonfeld, R. C., King, D. W., Okerson, A. S., & Fenton, G. E. (2004). The non-subscription side of periodicals: Changes in library operations and costs between print and electronic journals. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub127/contents.html
218. Schreiber, M. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-Index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-Index, the A-Index and the R-Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1513-1522.
219. Schroter, S., Tite, L., & Kassem, A. (2006). Financial support at the time of paper acceptance: A survey of three medical journals. Learned Publishing, 19, 291-297. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2006/00000019/00000004/art00008
220. Scigliano, M. (2002). Consortium purchases: Case study for a cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28, 393-399.
221. Sheehan, P., & Houghton, J. (2009). Estimating the potential impacts of open access to research findings. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.eap-journal.com.au/download.phpfile.696
222. Shepherd, P. T. (2007). Final report on the investigation into the feasibility of developing and implementing journal usage factors. Oxon, UK: United Kingdom Serials Group. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/FinalReportUsageFactorProject.pdf
223. SHERPA/RoMEO. (2008). Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.
224. Shieber, S. M. (2009). Equity for open-access journal publishing. PLoS Biology, 7(8). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000165
225. Shotton, D. (2009). Semantic publishing: The coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 22, 85-94.
226. Shreeves, S. L. (2009). Cannot predict now: The role of repositories in the future of the journal. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 197-211). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
227. Siebenberg, T. R., Galbraith, B., & Brady, E. E. (2004). Print versus electronic journal use in three sci/tech disciplines: What's going on here College & Research Libraries, 65, 427-438.
228. Society of College, National and University Libraries. (2008). Statistics tables. London: The Society.
229. Spence, A. M. (1974). An economist's view of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 9, 57-78.
230. Spiller, D., Creaser, C., & Murphy, A. (1998). Libraries in the workplace. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University LISU.
231. SQW Limited. (2004). Costs and business models in scientific research publishing: A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. London: The Wellcome Trust. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd003184.pdf
232. Standing Committee for Research on Academic Libraries. (2008). SCREAL report: Results of a survey on information access and ejournal usage of researchers and graduate students. Chiba, Japan: The Committee. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.screal.org/apache2-default/Publications/122308SCREAL_summary_eng.pdf
233. Stern, D. (2005, March 5). Open access or differential pricing for journals: The road best traveled Information Today, 29(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.infotoday.com/online/mar05/Stern.shtml
234. Suber, P. (2006). Open access overview. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
235. Sutherland, K. (2009, April 30). Those who disseminate ideas must acknowledge the routes they travel. Times Higher Education. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspsectioncode.26&storycode.406309
236. Swan, A. (2008). The business of digital repositories. In K. Weenink, L. Waaijers, & K. van Godtsenhoven (Eds.), A DRIVER's guide to European repositories. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from plip.eifl.net/eifl-oa/training/reading/business-digital/downloadFile/file/The_business_of_digital_repositories.pdfnocache.1213643889.27
237. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Truro, Cornwall: Key Perspectives Ltd.
238. Taylor-Roe, J. (1997). Consortia: What makes a negotiating unit Serials, 10, 307-312.
239. Tenopir, C. (2003). Information metrics and user studies. Aslib Proceedings, 55(1), 13-17.
240. Tenopir, C., Hitchcock, B., & Pillow, A. (2003). Use and users of electronic resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120
241. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
242. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2002). Reading behavior and electronic journals. Learned Publishing, 15, 259-265.
243. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communications patterns of engineers. New York: Wiley.
244. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2007). Perceptions of value and value beyond perceptions: Measuring the quality and value of journal article readings. Serials, 20, 199-207.
245. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2009). The growth of journals publishing. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal (pp. 105-123). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
246. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Patterns of journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib Magazine, 9(5). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.dlib.org/dlib/may03/king/05king.html
247. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., & Bush, A. (2004). Medical faculty's use of print and electronic journals: Changes over time and in comparison with scientists. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 233-241.
248. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Clarke, M. T., Kyoungsik, N., & Xiang, Z. (2007). Journal reading patterns and preferences of pediatricians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95, 56-63.
249. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W., Edwards, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61, 5-32.
250. Tenopir, C., Love, A., Park, J., Wu, L., Kingma, B., & King, D. W. (2010). Return on investment of the grant process in academic libraries. San Diego, CA: Elsevier: Library Connect.
251. Todd, P. A., & Ladle, R. J. (2008). Citations: Poor practices by authors reduce their value. Nature, 451(244). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from doi:10.1038/451244b
252. U.K. Office of Fair Trading. (2002). The market for scientific, technical, and medical journals: A statement by the Office of Fair Trading. London: The Office.
253. Universities UK. (2007). Policy briefing: Publishing research results: The challenges of open access. London: Universities UK.
254. Van Orsdel, L. C., & Born, K. (2009). Reality bites. Library Journal, 36-40. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6651248.html
255. Varian, H. R. (1996). Differential pricing and efficiency. First Monday. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from 131.193.153.231/www/issues/issue2/different/index.html.
256. Vorndran, A., & Botte, A. (2008). An analysis and evaluation of existing methods and indicators for quality assessment of scientific publications. Hamburg, Germany: European Educational Research Quality Indicators.
257. Walker, T. J. (2004). Open access by the article: An idea whose time has come Nature: Web Focus. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/13.html
258. Waltham, M. (2005). JISC: Learned society open access business models. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.marywaltham.com/JISCReport.pdf
259. Waltham, M. (2006). Learned society business models and open access: Overview of a recent JISC-funded study. Learned Publishing, 19, 15-30.
260. Wang, P. (2001). Methodologies and methods for user behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 53-99.
261. Ware, M. (2006). Open archives and their impact on journal cancellations. Learned Publishing, 19, 226-228.
262. Ware, M. (2009). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspectives of the scholarly community: An international study. Bristol, UK: Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf
263. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. West Sussex, UK: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_Press_Release_The_STM_Report.pdf
264. Watson, S. (2007). Authors' attitudes to, and awareness and use of, a university institutional repository. Serials, 20, 225-230.
265. Weller, A. C. (2000). Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51, 1328-1333.
266. Wheatley, P., Ayris, P., Davies, R., McLeod, R., & Shenton, H. (2007, October). LIFE: Costing the digital preservation lifecycle. Paper presented at the iPRES Annual Conference, Beijing, China.
267. White, S., & Creaser, C. (2007). Trends in scholarly journal prices, 2000-2006. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
268. Willer, M., Buzina, T., Holub, K., Zajec, J., Milinovic, M., & Topolscak, N. (2008). Selective archiving of web resources: A study of processing costs. Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems, 42, 341-364.
269. Williamson, A. (2002, April). What happens to peer review Paper presented at the ALPSP International Learned Journals Seminar, London. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www.alpsp.org/wil120402.ppt
270. Willinsky, J. (2003). Scholarly associations and the economic viability of open access publishing. Journal of Digital Information, 4(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/104
271. Wilson, J. H., Jr. (1972). Costs, budgeting, and economics of information processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 7, 39-67.
272. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63, 373-401.