The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2015, Pages

  Larivière, Vincent ^a,b   Haustein, Stefanie ^a   Mongeon, Philippe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING;

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84936871088     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. de Solla Price DJ. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.
2. Haustein S. Multidimensional journal evaluation. Analyzing scientific periodicals beyond the impact factor. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Saur; 2012.
3. Tenopir C, King DW. (2009). The growth of journals publishing. In Cope B, Phillips A, editors. The Future of the Academic Journal. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2009. pp. 105-123.
4. Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science - institutionalisation, structure and functions of referee systems. Minerva. 1971; 9(1): 66-100.
5. Harmon JE, Gross AG. The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2007.
6. Meadows AJ. The Scientific Journal. London: Aslib; 1979.
7. Meadows AJ. Access to the results of scientific research: developments in Victorian Britain. In Meadows AJ, editor. Development of Science Publishing in Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing; 1980. pp. 43-62.
8. Meadows AJ. Communication in Science. Butterworths: Seven Oaks; 1974.
9. Larivière V, Archambault É, Gingras Y, Vignola-Gagné É. The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2006; 57(8): 997-1004.
10. Brock WH. (1980). The Development of Commercial Science Journals in Victorian Britain. In Meadows AJ, editor. Development of Science Publishing in Europe, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1980. pp. 95-122.
11. Kaufman P. (1998). Structure and crisis: Markets and market segmentation in scholarly publishing. In: Hawkins BL, Battin P, editors. The Mirage of Continuity: Reconfiguring Academic Information Resources for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: CLIR and AAU; 1998. pp. 178-192.
12. Tenopir C, King DW. Trends in Scientific Scholarly Journal Publishing in the U.S. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 1997; 28(3): 135-170.
13. Office of Fair Trading. The market for scientific, technical and medical journals. A statement by the OFT. Report OFT396; 2002. Available: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/-tedb/Journals/oft396.pdf. Accessed on: 2015 January 5.
14. Borgman CL. From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: Access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 2000.
15. Borgman CL. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 2007.
16. Kling R, Callahan E. Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2003; 37: 127-177. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440370105
17. Tenopir C, King DW. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers. Washington, D. C.: Special Libraries Association; 2000.
18. Odlyzko AM. Tragic loss or good riddance: The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1995; 42(1): 71-122.
19. Keller A. Elektronische Zeitschriften. Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag; 2005.
20. Mierzejewska BI. The Eco-system of Academic Journals. Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences. Bamberg: Difo-Druck; 2008.
21. Mackenzie Owen J. The scientific article in the age of digitization. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. 22.
22. Abramson A. Solutions for Delivering Digital Content in the New Academic Enterprise. Library Hi Tech News. 2000; 17(1).
23. McGuigan GS, Russell RD. The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. 2008; 9(3). Available: http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan-g01.html.
24. Solomon DJ. Talking past each other: making sense of the debate over electronic publication. First Monday. 2002; 7(8). Available: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/978/899.
25. Lyman P, Chodorow S. (1998) The Future of Scholarly Communication. In Hawkins BL, Battin P, editors. The Mirage of Continuity: Reconfiguring Academic Information Resources for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: CLIR and AAU; 1998. pp. 87-104.
26. Halliday L, Oppenheim C. Developments in digital journals. Journal of Documentation, 2001; 57(2): 260-283.
27. Munroe, M.H. (2007). The academic publishing industry: a story of merger and acquisition. Available: http://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/
28. Larivière V, Archambault É, Gingras Y. Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008; 59(2): 288-296.
29. Archambault É, Vignola-Gagné É, Côté G, Larivière V, & Gingras Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics. 2006; 68(3): 329-342.
30. Chen L. Best of the biggest: How profitable are the world's largest companies? Forbes. 13 May 2014. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2014/05/13/best-of-the-biggest-how-profitable-are-the-worlds-largest-companies/. Accessed 2015 January 5.
31. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2012. Available: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012-12-11-STM-Report-2012.pdf.
32. Cope B, Kalantzis M. Signs of epistemic disruption: transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. In B Cope, A Phillips, editors. The Future of the Academic Journal. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2009. pp. 11-61.
33. McCabe MJ. Journal Pricing and Mergers: A Portfolio Approach. American Economic Review. 2002; 92(1): 259-269.
34. Meier M. Returning Science to the Scientists. Der Umbruch im STM-Zeitschriftenmarkt unter Einfluss des Electronic Publishing. München: Peniopel 2002.
35. Shapiro C, Varian HR. Information Rules. A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
36. Linde F, Stock WG. Information Markets. A Strategic Guideline for the I-Commerce. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Saur; 2011.
37. Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing. 2002; 15(4): 247-258.
38. Ingelfinger F. Definition of "sole contribution". New England Journal of Medicine.1969; 281: 676-677. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196909182811208 PMID: 5807917
39. Harnad S. (2000). Ingelfinger over-ruled. The Lancet. 2000. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6
40. Weimer DL, Vining AR. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Pearson: Prentice Hall; 2011.
41. Bergstrom TC, Courant PN, McAfee RP, Williams MA. Evaluating big deal journal bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014; 111(26): 9425-9439. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403006111 PMID: 24979785
42. Cook G. Why scientists are boycotting a publisher. The Boston Globe. 12 February 2012. Available: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/02/12/why-scientists-are-boycotting-publisher/9sCpDEP7BkkX1INfakn3NL/story.html. Accessed 2015 January 5.
43. Jha A. Academic spring: how an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution. The Guardian. 9 April 2012. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/09/frustrated-blogpost-boycott-scientific-journals. Accessed 2015 January 5.
44. Howard J. U. of California tries just saying no to rising journal costs. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 8 June 2010. Available: http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-Tries-Just/65823/. Accessed 2015 January 5.
45. Sample I. Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices. The Guardian. 24 April 2012. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices. Accessed 2015 January 5.
46. University of Konstanz. More expensive than science allows. Press release No. 28 of 26 March 2014. Available: http://www.aktuelles.uni-konstanz.de/en/presseinformationen/2014/28/. Accessed 2015 January 5.
47. Vogel G. German University tells Elsevier 'no deal'. Science Insider. 27 March 2014. Available: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/03/german-university-tells-elsevier-no-deal. Accessed 2015 January 5.
48. Schmitt J. Academic journals: The most profitable obsolete technology in history. The Huffington Post Blog. 23 December 2014. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-schmitt/academic-journals-the-mos-1-b-6368204.html. Accessed 2015 January 5.