The most comprehensive study of the motivations for publishing in the ‘paper’ age was conducted in 1993 by B.R.Coles in the “STM Information System in the UK”, our study re-visits those questions. What the researcher was asked was what was their most important motivation for publishing, and then also their second most important motivation. Those bars coloured in dark blue are the first most important motivation for publishing and those in light blue the second most important motivation. Clearly, dissemination is the most significant factor, with 57% indicating it is the most important reason. Examining motivations can be a difficult matter. Individuals are not always as forthright as they might be. You can overcome this by thinking of the first order motivations as the overt motivations, and the second order motivations, as the covert and possibly most important motivations. Once you view dissemination in this context you can see that Furthering my career and securing future funding are key differentiators.
We’ll now look at the results from 2005. Those bars coloured in red and orange are from the 2005 study. When comparing the two studies it is worth noting that the 1993 study was conducted in the UK, in contrast our survey was global, so any conclusions are indicative rather than definitive. However, that said, we did examine the UK data from the 2005 study and saw little difference comparative to the global data In the 10 year period between the studies, an era in which internet usage has increased in both in terms of quantity and the maturity of use, motivations remain largely consistent Dissemination is still most significant factor, with 73% indicating it is the most important motivation, and furthering my career and securing future funding are still the key second order differentiators.s If we examine the differences more closely we see….
Transcript of "0920 wed lomond mabe"
Why hasn’t the journal changed more as a result of the internet? Michael A Mabe CEO, STM & Visiting Professor, Information Science, University College, London
Not alone in wondering why notmuch change…• Michael Clarke – Scholarly Kitchen 4 Jan 2010 • Why hasn’t scientific publishing been disrupted more?• Joe Esposito – Posts and articles (Logos 21.13-19, 2010) • Publishing After the Apocalypse• Geoff Bilder – Presentations • Digital Incunabula
The Digital Incunabula ArgumentPre 1450: Post 1450: incunabulumhand written illuminated mss printed book with hand Illumination (Gutenberg Bible)
Invention of scientific journal by Oldenburg AD 1665 AD 100 Invention of the Codex“Digital incunabula”
Pre-Classical and Classical Classical Scrolls Wax tablet note books continuous linear access random access Late antiquity and mediaeval Codex: manuscript book random access
First revolution • Scrolls: – Linear, continuous First reason for lack of change: – No pages – Single scroll: “Pages” and “book structure” are deeply embedded in volumen the culture of reading and are reader friendly Two millenia of habit and utility take some undoing • Books: Even when all file types are offered–(and they mostly Random access are) downloads of PDFs predominate – Chapters – Paragraphs – Pages
Prof. Sir D’Arcy WentworthThompsonOn Growth and FormFirst Published 1917
From this... ...to this... No article structure Highly structured
Fundamental needs of researchers (I)AUTHOR MODE• To be seen to report an idea first• To feel secure in communicating that idea• [For empirical disciplines] To persuade readers that their results are general and arise from enactment of the scientific method• To have their claim accepted by peers• To report their idea to the right audience• To get recognition for their idea• To have a permanent public record of their work
Fundamental Needs of Researchers (II)READER MODE• To identify relevant content• To select based on trust and authority• To locate and consume it• To cite it• To be sure it is final and permanent
Functions of the journal à la Oldenburg• Date stamping or priority via registration• Quality stamping (certification) through peer-review• Recording the final, definitive, authorised versions of papers and archiving them• Dissemination to targeted scholarly audience• [Added later] For readers, search and navigation – Achieved via creation and then management of the “journal brand” 15
Evidence of researcher needs 2nd CERTIFICATION 1st 6th QUALITY 5th & 8th SPEED 7th REGISTRATION 4th 3rdData from 63,384 Authors; 0= unimportant10= very important Source: Elsevier Author Feedback Programme 2009
Motivations for Publishing100% 1993. B. R. Coles: “STM Information System in the UK”. Royal Society/ ALPSP/ British Lib.80%60% 57% 40%40% 27% 20% 18%20% 15% 13% 8% 2% 3% 0% Disseminate Further my Future funding Recognition Establish results career precedence 1st most important motivation (93) 2nd most important motivation (93)
Motivations for Publishing100% 1993. B. R. Coles: “STM Information System in the UK”. Royal Society/ ALPSP/ British Lib.80% 2005. Elsevier/NOP study 73% What would you say are the two most important motivations for publishing? Base: (6344)60% 57% 40%40% 27% 26% 25% 20% 20% 18%20% 15% 16% 13% 13% 11% 8% 5% 5% 4% 2% 3% 0% Disseminate Further my Future funding Recognition Establish results career precedence 1st most important motivation (93) 2nd most important motivation (93) 1st most important motivation (05) 2nd most important motivation (05)
Similarities• Form follows function... ... and function follows need• At fundamental level – researcher human needs change little over time... ... so functions remain constant ... and gross form remains stable
Form follows function• Relatively short articles• Author names prominent• Dates of submission, acceptance, publication present• Registration, certification, dissemination and archive achieved simultaneously via the act of formal publication• Branded by journal title
Generational Change?Second reason for lack of change:• Mass market versus scholarly market• Expected age effects are not foundstatic,Fundamental needs of researchers are remarkablywith little change as a result of digitisation• Young scholars more conservative than older peersThese needs are like evolutionary selection pressureWhen Elsevier Core Trends studythey hardly change – animals fit an unchanging niche 2005 – Tenopir on Astronomers & Engineers 2003-7There are NEW tools but they serve OLD purposes – RIN/CIBER study on scholarly behaviour 2009 – Berkeley Study on scholarly behaviour 2010 “When I was a child, I spake as a child...: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” — Corinthians 13:11
Information Ecology• Communication Niches – Mode • 1:1, 1:many, many:many – Directionality • unidirectional, interactive – Delivery regime • oral, written – Temporality • Live or recorded – Register: • private, public, informal, formal – Enhancement: • local, at a distance
Information Ecology: Talk Niche• Case of an oral presentation (like this!) – Mode: one-to-many – Directionality: unidirectional (except for Q&A) – Delivery regime: oral – Temporality: live – Register: public, formal – Enhancement: in the lecture hall none • but technology allows development to “at a distance” – broadcast, but reduced directionality – webcast, no reduced directionality
Delivery Mode Instances Digital technology Local Live Third reason for lack ofDistance change: Recorded Talk VOIP There are only so many information niches 1:1 Phone call AudiofileOral Each one is occupied by communication instances Lecture Webcast which are not changed by technology merely 1:many enhanced Broadcast Videofile Note Little change in human senses: most options remain 1:1 E mail READ, WRITE, SPEAK, LISTEN LetterWritten Notice 1:many E publication Publication Many:many Wiki
Future Change• Formal scholarly publishing system has evolved to satisfy – Human needs of researchers – Philosophical requirements of knowledge generation ...and to occupy its – Information ecological niches• Needs and niches are relatively constant over time• Conservatism of form reflects this constancy• Technology enables greater efficiency – New tools, but new tools for old purposes