Posts Tagged ‘Elsevier’
Elsevier today announced the integration of Roche propriety reaction information within Reaxys, which will run on Roche’s infrastructure and inside the Roche firewall to provide high performance and security. Roche chemistry information will be securely searchable and discoverable by Roche scientists through the Reaxys user interface. The incorporation and discoverability of Roche proprietary information in Reaxys is anticipated to significantly improve Roche scientists’ productivity.
With this development Roche researchers will be able to launch a single search in Reaxys across integrated internal data and experimental data published in journals and patents, with results unified and organised in a context directly relevant to the researcher workflow. The announcement comes after many months of collaboration between teams from Roche and Reaxys.
Source: STM publishing news, 2nd of October 2012; Available from:
A very interesting annual report by Allen Press shows how some new trends on the american publishing industry could definitely change the business models of Big STM publishers…
“Budget cuts have become inevitable, forcing publishers to restrategize and libraries to make even tougher purchasing decisions. (…)
2012 journal prices increased but not at the levels seen in prior years… (…)
Pressure on Publishers:
- Publishers are also faced with the ongoing erosion of their subscription bases. Some institutions simply cannot make ends meet when it comes to their shrinking or flat budgets…
- Publishers are also struggling to get the advertising dollars they once did to help financially support their publications. (…) Online advertising has not proved to bring in revenue equitable to that of its print counterpart
- Increasing competition, especially from new Open Access and mega journals, has added to the struggle of publishers as well
Despite implementing cost-cutting actions, many libraries continue to struggle to keep up with increasing serials pricing. Libraries do not have the resources to continue to exist in a world of ever-increasing prices, nor can publishers survive without positive cash flow. (…)
The results indicated that in order to achieve budget goals, 78% of librarian respondents will likely cut print
journals for the next fiscal year and 86% of librarian respondents are likely to move print plus online subscriptions to online only. In 2010, approximately 27% of publishers surveyed reported a decline in their print business greater than 10%. (…)
Publishers need to be responding to the surge of such technology by making their content readily available on mobile devices. (…) Mobile technology allows library customers to connect to their local library’s virtual catalog for audiobooks and eBooks. Scientific journal content is also becoming more available with mobile options such as SciVerse Mobile from Elsevier and EBSCOhost Mobile from EBSCO Publishing. Opportunities to have information anytime and anywhere are constantly growing. (…)
We are now in the middle of a new transition where users demand the ability to consume content anywhere and at all times. Online access is a necessity rather than a novelty or add-on. Content is still key, but it is moving mobile. Libraries, publishers, and users can all benefit, but only if pricing becomes sustainable. (…)
New models suggestion:
We live in a time where library patrons want immediate access to even more journal content, and libraries are searching for ways to meet these demands with even tighter budgets. Thus, pay-per-view (PPV) or transactional access may be the way of the future for some as an alternative to Big Deals. (…) It’s not seen as a replacement, but rather as a supplement to other existing models. Traditional subscriptions still make sense and are the most cost-effective choice for high-usage title (…)
Another emerging option is the read-only short-term loan or article rental. It has a low cost and offers 24-hour access; however, it is not available for download or print, and each use equals another payment… (…)
The End of Big Deal:
In fact, business models have changed tremendously since the arrival of consortial purchasing and the Big Deal. Now, however, libraries are looking for different ways to meet user demands for information in the digital realm. As current methods of selling content become outdated, it may be necessary for publishers to reevaluate their business models(…) …, analysts are suggesting that the end of the Big Deal is approaching.
Librarians and researchers are pushing for a move toward Open Access (OA) because of ever-increasing prices, and it is has become a practical channel for distributing scholarly information. But publishers believe their current business models are a must to maintain the quality of their products, and they have concerns about how to develop a sustainable business model to support OA. (…)
Solution: improve the content
With Big Deals and smaller publishers struggling to compete, the focus should be on content. (…) Researchers read articles, not journals. Every article needs to be significant and contribute to driving usage of your journal.
Read the full report at:
Tillery, Kodi. 2012 study of subscription prices for scholarly society journals: society journals pricing trends and industry overview. White paper, Allen Press, 2012. 19 p. Available for free from: http://allenpress.com/system/files/pdfs/library/2012_AP_JPS.pdf
Scientific misconduct, plagiarism, etc.
Probably to address numerous concerns listed by the academic community over the past months, Elsevier has launched an ethics for publishing website: very well designed, very cool with a lot of useful materials to help the research community for a science communication..
We would just regret that only 4 experts have been involved in this advisory panel…
By the Guardian: simplistic but radical
“For Elsevier, the biggest of the barrier-based publishers, we can calculate the total cost per article as £1,605m subscription revenue divided by 240,000 articles per year = £6,689 per article.
By contrast, the cost of publishing an article with a flagship open access journal such as PLoS ONE is $1,350 (£850), about one eighth as much.
No one expects open access to eliminate costs. But we can expect it to dramatically reduce them, as well as making research universally and freely available”
Taylor, Mike. Persistent myths about open access scientific publishing. The Guardian, 17th of April 2012. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/apr/17/persistent-myths-open-access-scientific-publishing [Accessed 24th April 2012]
Taylor, Michael P. Opinion: Academic Publishing Is Broken. The Scientist, 19th of March 2012. Available from:
http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/19/opinion-academic-publishing-is-broken/ [Accessed 24th April 2012]
In a very optimistic article, the New York Times reports some great milestones. Initiatives to make the scientific and medical research process more collaborative are gaining traction, as advocates of “open science” are launching open-access publications and social networking websites for researchers.
“advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction”
Some good stories are:
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity. Its membership has mushroomed to more than 1.3 million. The Web site is a sort of mash-up of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, with profile pages, comments, groups, job listings, and “like” and “follow” buttons. Only scientists are invited to pose and answer questions.Scientists populate their ResearchGate profiles with their real names, professional details and publications — data that the site uses to suggest connections with other members. Users can create public or private discussion groups, and share papers and lecture materials. ResearchGate is also developing a “reputation score” to reward members for online contributions. ResearchGate offers a simple yet effective end run around restrictive journal access with its “self-archiving repository.” Since most journals allow scientists to link to their submitted papers on their own Web sites, Dr. Madisch encourages his users to do so on their ResearchGate profiles. In addition to housing 350,000 papers (and counting), the platform provides a way to search 40 million abstracts and papers from other science databases. In 2011, ResearchGate reports, 1,620,849 connections were made, 12,342 questions answered and 842,179 publications shared
- ScienceOnline conference will have its sixth edition this year
A provocative but interesting manifesto in The Guardian:
Publishers’ “rhetoric has traditionally been of partnering with scientists, but the truth is that for some time now scientific publishers have been anti-science and anti-publication. The Research Works Act, introduced in the US Congress on 16 December, amounts to a declaration of war by the publishers. (…)
All of this is great for the progress of science, which has always been based on the free flow of ideas, the sharing of data, and standing on the shoulders of giants
But what’s good for science isn’t necessarily good for science publishers, whose interests have drifted far out of alignment with ours. Under the old model, publishers become the owners of the papers they publish, holding the copyright and selling copies around the world – a useful service in pre-internet days. But now that it’s a trivial undertaking to make a paper globally available, there is no reason why scientists need yield copyright to publishers. (…)
Open-access publishers such as the Public Library of Science are able to make a modest profit on a publication fee of $1,350 (£880). But traditional publishers have become used to making much more than this, and so resist the inevitable conversion to open access.
t’s hardly surprising that publishers would fight dirty to hang on to a business model where scientists do research that is largely publicly funded, and write manuscripts and prepare figures at no cost to the journal; other scientists perform peer-review for free; and other scientists handle the editorial tasks for free or for token stipends. The result of all this free and far-below-minimum-wage professional work is journal articles in which the publisher, which has done almost nothing, owns the copyright and is able to sell copies back to libraries at monopolistic costs, and to individuals at $30 or more per view.
What is surprising is how complicit scientists are in perpetuating this feudal system (…)
The bottom line for scientists is that many publishers have now made themselves our enemies instead of the allies they once were. Elsevier’s business does not make money by publishing our work, but by doing the exact opposite: restricting access to it. We must not be complicit in their newest attempt to cripple the progress of science”.
Dr Mike Taylor. Academic publishers have become the enemies of science. The Guardian, Online, the 16th of January 2012.
QUOSA was already known by ScienceDirect and Scopus’ users for the PDF download facilities embedded into the Elsevier’s products.
Elsevier’s acquisition of QUOSA marks a continuation of this collaboration which has boosted research productivity for the users of both solutions.
“QUOSA empowers enterprises to share full-text scientific information faster and more efficiently, helping users to get more out of their information while controlling costs, all with one easy-to-use copyright observant solution,” said Malcolm MacKenzie, President and CEO, QUOSA. “Both our customers and the wider research community stand to benefit from the pooling of resources and expertise with Elsevier.”
Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Boston, QUOSA began by targeting the academic and government segments and now also serves a range of corporate customers, including more than half of the Top 25 pharma-biotech companies. Financial details of the acquisition are not being disclosed.
In this video presentation, Rosemary Lau, from AstraZeneca, gives her view on the challenges of demonstrating ROI of paid R&D information tools, against the backdrop of free information sources, budget cuts and changing business strategy. In her presentation she analyzes cost savings realized from Elsevier’s paid information tools, and the tangible and intangible savings in terms of a scientist’s time.
BiomedExperts, now part of Elsevier, has today 374,000 users.
BiomedExperts is a free online service for the life sciences community to connect, network, communicate and collaborate. It is the world’s first pre-populated scientific professional network for life science researchers.
BiomedExperts contains the research profiles of more than 1.8 million life science researchers, representing over 26 million connections from over 2,700 institutions in more than 160 countries. These profiles were generated from author and co-author information from 18 million publications published in over 20,000 journals!
For me, BME remains one of the best sources to locate medical experts…