Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Other
First published online April 26, 2010
Request permissions

New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment

Maria Cassella and Licia CalviView all authors and affiliations
Volume 36, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359559

Abstract

Open access combined with Web 2.0 networking tools is fast changing the traditional journal’s functions and framework and the publisher’s role. As content is more and more available online in digital repositories and on the web, an integrated, interconnected, multidisciplinary information environment is evolving and Oldenburg’s model disintegrates: the journal is no longer the main referring unit for scholarly output, as it used to be, for Scientific, Technical, and Medical disciplines, but scholars’ attention is now more focused on the article level. New journals models are thus evolving. The first part of this paper discusses these new experimental journal models, i.e. overlay journals, interjournals and different levels journals. The second part directs readers’ attention to the role commercial publishers could play in this digital seamless writing arena. The authors consider that publishers should concentrate much more on value-added services for authors, readers and libraries, such as navigational services, discovery services, archiving and evaluation services.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access
1.
1. ‘‘It was not until the year 1752 that the Royal Society of London adopted a review process such as the one that had been previously used by the Royal Society of Edinburgh as early as 1731’’. Cf. Ray Spier (2002).
2.
2. On this topic see the thoughtful article by Stephen G. Nichols (2009).
3.
3. Brody et al. (2007) are even more optimistic. They calculated that 15 percent of all academic journals articles were already available via open access in 2007. In some disciplines, however, the percentage can be much higher: Bergstrom and Lavaty (2007) report, for instance, that an Internet search turned up freely available versions of 90 percent of articles in the top 15 economics journals.
4.
4. All adopted mandates are registered in the ROARMAP http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ It should be remarked that most of them also mandate the deposit of the refereed postprint.
5.
5. A plethora of projects is actually concentrating scholarly attention on the article level: i.e. the Article of the Future, a project launched in July 2009 by Cell Press and Elsevier http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/ authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01279; the Article-level Metrics led by PloS http://everyone. plos.org/2009/05/27/article-level-metrics-at-plos/; the Usage Factor study sponsored by the United Kingdom Serials Group to explore articles downloads as a basis for a new quantitative metrics, and its strictly correlated project Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (PIRUS) whose aim is ‘‘to develop COUNTER-compliant standards and usage reports at the individual article level that can be implemented by any entity (publisher, aggregator, repository, etc.) that hosts online journal articles and will enable the usage of research outputs to be recorded, reported and consolidated at a global level in a standard way’’. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/ pirusfinalreport.aspx
6.
6. See on this topic Maron and Smith, 2008.
7.
7. To follow the ongoing theoretical debate on the new journal forms see Paolo Dall’Aglio (2006).
8.
8. http://www.earlham.edu/∼peters/fos/guide.htm
9.
9. David Shulenburger’s proposal (2007) for scholarly monographs is very similar to Ginsparg’s idea. For those volumes which do not find market distribution channels Shulenburger suggests that ‘‘scholarly societies should form peer-review bodies to examine such work of minor pecuniary value and to certify their scholarly worth’’.
10.
10. A very early overlay journal used to be Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, which provided only certification. Later on it has become a traditional journal. http://www.intlpress.com/ATMP/ archive/volume04-1.html
11.
11. http://www.emis.famaf.unc.edu.ar/journals/SIGMA/ about.html#overlay
12.
12. http://naboj.com/
13.
13. http://www.lu.se/forskning
14.
14. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja/
15.
15. ‘‘An application programming interface (API) is a set of routines, data structures, object classes and/or protocols provided by libraries and/or operating system services in order to support the building of applications.’’ Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Api
16.
16. http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs
17.
17. http://www.eprints.org/
18.
18. 4012 astrophysicists were also investigated in a community survey conducted for the project. 683 responses were received (a 17 percent return). ‘‘Preliminary findings indicate that researchers are, in general, sympathetic to the overlay model, albeit with concerns about the long-term accessibility of the research material, and the quality of the certification process.’’ (Press, 2007)
19.
19. A survey conducted by Mayur Armin, an Elsevier consultant, on the usage of journals in Science Direct, found that while researchers in physics and mathematics use massively journals within their discipline (70 percent or more), researchers’ usage of journals in other disciplines, including chemistry and environmental sciences, is at less than half that level. [URL no longer functioning]
20.
20. http://eiop.or.at/eiop
21.
21. http://www.interjournal.org/
22.
22. http://philica.com/about.php
23.
23. http://www.bepress.com/bejte/ratingsystem.html
24.
24. As a matter of fact commercial publishers control certification but the function is really performed by scholars who do not receive a remuneration for their work, with a very few exceptions. Costs for peer-review are really shifted to the scientific community, to the institutions scholars work for and to the general public.
25.
25. A community review model has been adopted for the conference EclipseCON 2006 http://www.eclipsecon. org/2006/Home.do
26.
26. The idea developed by Rodriguez, Bollen and Van de Sompel (2005) is very innovative: ‘‘a deconstructed publication model in which the peer review process is mediated by an OAI-compliant peer-review service. This peer-review service uses a social-network algorithm to automatically determine potential reviewers for a submitted manuscript and for weighting the influence of each participating reviewer’s evaluations.’’
27.
27. We agree with Roosendaal and Geurts’ statement (1997) that ‘‘value is not anymore in information proper but in its effective and efficient communication’’.
28.
28. Publishers are already involved in many different long term preservation projects i.e. Portico, CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, E-Depot. In the digital environment publishers share with libraries, foundations, and authors the responsibility for the long term preservation of the digital memory.
29.
29. http://precedings.nature.com/
30.
30. http://www.livingreviews.org/
31.
31. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/About/concept.html
32.
32. In the literature, peer review is often referred to as a form of ex-ante qualitative evaluation and bibliometric analysis as a form of ex-post quantitative evaluation of scholarly works.
33.
33. According to Mark Ware’s survey on peer review (2008) peer review is widely supported by the different scholarly communities: 93 percent of scholars surveyed disagreed that peer review is unnecessary.
34.
34. See on this topic the whole Nature debate on peer review, 2006 and McCormack, 2009.

References

Armbruster, Chris. ( 2007) Moving out of Oldenburg’s long shadow: what is the future for society publishing? Learned Publishing, 20 (4) 259-266. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2007/00000020/00000004/art00004 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Bergstrom, Ted C.; Lavaty, Rosemarie. ( 2007) How often do economists self-archive? Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/69f4b8vz (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Björk, Bo-Christer; Roos, Annikki and Lauri, Mauri. ( 2009) Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research, 14 (1). Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html (accessed 30 November 2009).
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Brody, Tim; Carr, Les; Gingras, Yves; Hajjem, Chawki; Harnad, Stevan and Swan, Alma. ( 2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web. CTWatch Quarterly. 3 (August). Available at http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/incentivizing-the-open-access-research-web/ (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Casati, Fabio; Giunchiglia, Fausto and Marchese, Maurizio. ( 2007) Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. ACM Ubiquity, 8 (3). Available at http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001086/01/066.pdf (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Cope, Bill; Kalantzis, Mary. ( 2009) Sign of epistemic disruption: transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14 (4-6 April). Available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2309/2163 (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Dall’Aglio, Paolo. ( 2006) Peer review and journal models. ArXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Schwartzman, Simon; Nowotny, Helga; Trow, Martin and Scott, Peter. ( 1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Ginsparg, Paul. ( 1996) Winners and losers in the global research. Electronic Publishing in Science. Paris, UNESCO HQ, 19-23 February 1996. Available at: http://arXiv.org/blurb/pg96unesco.html (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Ginsparg, Paul. ( 2001) Creating a global knowledge network. Electronic Publishing in Science. Paris, UNESCO HQ, 19-23 February 2001. Available at: http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/∼ginsparg/blurb/pg01unesco.html (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Goldschmidt-Clermont, Luisella. (1965) Communications patterns in high energy physics. Republished in HEP Libraries Webzine. ( 2002) March. Available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/445/ (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Guédon, Jean-Claude. ( 2001) In Oldenburg’s long shadow. Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Proceedings ARL Membership Meeting, 23-25 May 2001. Available at: http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Harnad, Stevan. ( 2005) Fast-forward to the green road to Open Access: the case against mixing up Green and Gold. ARIADNE, 42 (January). Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/harnad/ (accessed 11 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Hultman Özek, Yvonne. ( 2005) Lund Virtual Medical Journal makes self-archiving attractive and easy for authors. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (October). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october05/ozek/10ozek.html (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Maron, Nancy L.; Smith, K. Kirby. ( 2008) Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka for the Association of Research Libraries . Association of Research Libraries. Available at: http://www.arl.org/bm∼doc/current-models-report.pdf (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
McCormack, Nancy. ( 2009) Peer review and legal publishing: What law libraries need to know about open, single blind and double blind reviewing. Law Library Journal, 101. 59-70. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1339227 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Nature debate on peer-review. (2006). Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Nichols, Stephen G. ( 2009) Time to change our thinking: dismantling the silo model of digital scholarship. ARIADNE, 58 (January). Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue58/nichols/ (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Polydoratou, Panayiota; Moyle, Martin. ( 2008) Publishing scientific research: is there ground for new ventures? In: ELPUB2008. Open Scholarship: Authority, community, and sustainability in the age of Web 2.0 (eds. L. Chan and S. Mornati). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Toronto, Canada 25-27 June 2008. Available at: http://elpub.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=079_elpub2008&sort=DEFAULT&search=%2ftype%3a%22normal%20paper%22&hits=151 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Press, Gil. ( 2007) In brief. EMC heritage trust project awards. D-Lib Magazine. 13 (September/October). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/09inbrief.html (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Marko; Bollen, Johan and Van de Sompel, Herbert. ( 2005) The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process. Journal of Information Science, 32 (2) 149-159. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0504084 (accessed 30 November 2009).
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Roosendaal, Hans E.; Geurts, Peter A. Th. M. ( 1997) Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. Presented in: Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics: CRISP 97, Oldenburg, Germany 31 August-4 September 1997. Available at: http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/crisp97/roosendaal.html (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Rowlands, Ian; Nicholas, Dave. ( 2005) New journal publishing models: an international survey of senior researchers: a Ciber report for the Publishers Association and the International Association of STM Publishers. 22 September 2005. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Shulenburger, David. ( 2007) University research publishing or distribution strategies? ARL Bimonthly Report, 252/253 (august). Available at: http://www.arl.org/news/pr/univ-pub-27nov07.shtml (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Smith, Arthur P. ( 2000) The journal as an overlay on preprint databases. Learned Publishing, 13 (1), 43-48. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2000/00000013/00000001 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Spier, Ray. ( 2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20 (8), 357-358.
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
Suber, Peter. ( 2009) Open Access in 2008. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12 (February). Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;cc=jep;rgn=main;view=text;idno=3336451.0012.104 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, 2009. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ (accessed 11 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Van de Sompel, Herbert; Payette, Sandy; Erickson, John; Lagoze, Carl and Warner, Simeon. ( 2004) Rethinking scholarly communication: building the system that scholars deserve. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (September). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html (accessed 4 December 2009).
Google Scholar
Ware, Mark. ( 2008) Peer-review: perceptions, benefits and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium. Summary report available at: http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf (accessed 30 November 2009).
Google Scholar
Warner, Simeon. ( 2005) The transformation of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing 18 (3), 177-185. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2005/00000018/00000003/art00003 (accessed 4 December 2009).
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar

Also from Sage