Authors publication strategies in scholarly publishing

Dubini, Paola and Galimberti, Paola and Micheli, Maria Rita Authors publication strategies in scholarly publishing., 2010 . In ELPUB 2010 International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Helsinki (Iceland), 16-18 June 2010. [Conference paper]

[img]
Preview
 PDF
dubini_galimberti_micheli.pdf
Download (181kB) | Preview

English abstract

In this exploratory study, we analyze publishing patterns of authors from different disciplines, as part of a broader analysis of the transformation of the scholarly publishing industry. Although a growing body of literature analyses the author’s role within the process of research production, validation, certification and dissemination, there is little systematic empirical research on publishing patterns; little therefore can be said on relevant issues within the current debate on the future of scholarly publishing such as authors’ responses to (or even awareness of) the growing array of publication possibilities or the speed of adaptation to the increasing series of incentives by funding agencies or academic institutions. On the basis of the analysis of three years of publications gathered in the institutional repository of Università degli Studi di Milano, we highlight trends of publication strategies and different responses to incentive systems. Preliminary results indicate that publication outcomes and intensity differ across disciplines, while similarities occur mainly in terms of choice of preferred outcomes by seniority. Open access is still uncommon among the authors in our sample and it is more utilized by relatively senior authors and active authors.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: scholarly publishing, publishing strategies, industry changes
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
Depositing user: P. Galimberti
Date deposited: 24 Aug 2010
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:17
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/14855

References

Cope, B., and Kalantzis, M. (2000). Designs for social futures. In B. Cope, and K. Mary (editors). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London:Routledge, pp. 203–234.

Cope B. and Kalantzis, M. (2009) Signs of epistemic disruption: transformation in the knowledge system of academic journals. First Monday, 14(4) http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2309/2163 (April 2010)

Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In: B. Cope, and M. Kalantzis (editors). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures.London: Routledge, pp. 153–161.

Weiss, Y. , and Lillard, L. (1982). Output Variability, Academic Labor Contracts, and Waiting Time for Promotion. Research in Labor Economics, 5 : 157-188.

O’ Neill G.P., and Sachis P.N. (1994). The importance of refereed publications in tenure and promotion decisions: A Canadian study. Higher Education, 28(4 ): 472-435.

Houghton, J. (2000). Economics of Scholarly Communication. Discussion paper. Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, available at http://www.caul.edu.au/cisc/EconomicsScholarlyCommunication.pdf (April 2010)

Guedon J. C. (2001) In Oldenburg’s long shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing, ARL. Available at: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/138guedon.shtml (April 2010)

Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Dasgupta, P. and David, P.A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Policy Research, 23(5) 487–521. available at http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v23y1994i5p487-521.html (April 2010).

Coe, R., & Weinstock, I. (1969). Evaluating journal publications: Perceptions versus reality. AACSB Bulletin, 1, 23-37

MacMillan, I. C., and Stern I. (1987), Delineating a forum for business policy scholars, Strategic Management Journal, 8: 183- 187.

MacMillan, I. C. (1991).The emerging forum for business policy scholars, Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2): 85-89.

Gordon, M. E., and Purvis, I.E. (1991). Journal publication records as a measure of research performance in industrial relations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(1): 194-201

Park, S. H., and Gordon, M.E. (1996).Publication records and tenure decisions in the field of strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 17(2): 109-128

Lowe, A., and Locke, J. (2005), Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics, Accounting, Organizations and Society 30(1): 81–98.

Baden-Fuller C., and Hwee Ang S. (2000). Building Reputations: The Role of Alliances in the European Business School Scene, Long Range Planning 34(6): 741–755

Doran, J.S., and Wright, C. (2007). So You Discovered an Anomaly… Gonna Publish It? An investigation into the rationality of publishing market anomalies. Working Paper. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=956105 (April 2010)

Kling, R., and Iacono, S. (1989) The institutional character of Computerized Information Systems. Office: Technologies and People 5 (1): 7-28.

Kling, R., and McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51: 1306- 1320.

Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly Research and Information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, 42: 299-316.

Curtis, K.L., Weller, A.C., & Hurd, J. (1997). Informationseeking behaviour of health sciences faculty: The impact of new information technologies. Bulletin of Medical Library Association, 85, 402-408.

Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovation. New York. Free Press.

Kling, R., and McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51: 1306- 1320.

Foster, N.S., and Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding Faculty to understand content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories. D-lib Magazine, 11(1). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html. (April 2010)

Talja, S., Vakkari, P., Fry, J., and Wouters, P. (2007). Impact of Research Cultures on the use of Digital Library Resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11): 1674-1685.

Bauer, K., and Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-lib Magazine, 11(9). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html (April 2010)

Clarke, R. (2005). A proposal for an open content licence for research paper (Pr)ePrints, First Monday, 10(8). Available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/18 7 (April 2010).

Bar – Ilan, J. (2008). Which H-index? A comparison of Wos, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2): 257-271.

Waldrop, M. (2009). Science 2.0: Great Tool or great risk?, Scientific American online. available at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-newtool-orgreat-risk&page=5 (April 2010)

Harnad, S. (2003),Maximizing University research impact trough selfarchiving. Available at http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/02/04/A020401/ (April 2010)

Schneiderman, B. (2007), Science 2.0, Science, 319: 1349-1350

Hooker B. (2006). The future of Science is Open. available at http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2006/10/the_future_of_s_1.html (April 2010)

Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty Salaries, Promotions, and Productivity at a Large University. American Economic Review, 63(3) : 469-477.

Weiss, Y. , and Lillard, L. (1982). Output Variability, Academic Labor Contracts, and Waiting Time for Promotion. Research in Labor Economics, 5 : 157-188.

MacMillan, I. C., and Stern I. (1987), Delineating a forum for business policy scholars, Strategic Management Journal, 8: 183-187.

Gordon, M. E., and Purvis, I.E. (1991). Journal publication records as a measure of research performance in industrial relations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(1): 194-201.

O’ Neill G.P., and Sachis P.N. (1994). The importance of refereed publications in tenure and promotion decisions: A Canadian study. Higher Education, 28(4 ): 472-435.

MacMillan, I. C. (1994).The emerging forum for business policy scholars, Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2): 85-89.

Park, S. H., and Gordon, M.E. (1996).Publication records and tenure decisions in the field of strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 17(2): 109-128.

Kingsley, D. A. (2008). PhD thesis. Australian National University.

Becher T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary culture. Studies 6(2). 109-122.

Becher T. (1984). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in higher education 19(2) 151-161.

Sparks S. (2005). JISC disciplinary differences. JISC Scholarly Communication Group [44] Walsh J. P. and Bayma T (1996). Computer network and scientific work. Social studies of Science 26(3), 661-703.

Whitley R. (1984) The intellectual and social organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press

Bergstrom, T. (2007) and Lavaty R. . How often do economists selfarchive?, EScholarship Repository. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a/ (April 2010).

Cozzarelli, Nicholas R., Kenneth R. Fulton, and Diane M. Sullenberger. "Results of a PNAS Author Survey on an Open Access Option for Publication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, no. 5 (2004): 1111. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/5/1111.pdf (April 2010)

Gadd E. at al. (2003) Romeo Studies 2: Haw academics want to protect their open access research papers. Journal of information science 29(5) 333-356.

Allen J. Interdisciplinary attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005180/ (april 2010)

Antelmann K. (2006) Self archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the Social Sciences. Learned publishing 19(2) 85-95.

Talja S. Et al. (2004) Field differences in the use and perceived usefulness of scholarly mailing lists. Information research 10(1).


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS