Posts Tagged ‘STM Publishers’
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
Interesting findings in this indian study:
- Open access is a BIG THING even for commercial science publishers
- Fees are often around 2,000 up to 3,000 $
DR. RUPAK CHAKRAVARTY & DIMPLE SHARMA. Paid Open Access: A Comparative Study of Selected International Publishers. International Journal of Digital Library Services (IJODLS), Jan-March 2012, Volume-2, Issue-1, Available from: http://www.ijodls.in/uploads/3/6/0/3/3603729/rupak_96-134_.pdf [Accessed 22 June 2012]
Publishing forecast firm Simba Information, US, has released a report titled Global Professional Publishing 2010-2011.
According to the report, the global market for professional publishing products and services, led by the legal, science/technical and medical (STM) segments, will grow 3 percent through 2012, reaching $41.4 billion. The report further says print and electronic books were the leading delivery method, closely followed by online services and abstracting/indexing.
Print books still dominate the landscape for professional publishing, representing the largest chunk of revenue from the top 10 leading publishers. Additionally, the report finds double-digit growth for e-books. Mobile and Internet applications have also experienced significant growth recently, as publishers have stepped up production efforts.
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.
Media and publishing forecast firm Simba Information, US, recently released a report that provides detailed market information for scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing, segmented by delivery medium – journals, books, online services, newsletters/looseleafs, directories, and other (audio, video and CD-ROM).
According to the report, amid budgetary pressures and a slow economic recovery, the combined markets for STM publishing grew 3.4 percent to $21.1 billion in 2011.
The market is split evenly between the medical publishing segment and the scientific and technical publishing segment, with the latter posting a faster growth rate in 2011. Each segment is driven by a need for professionals to stay on top of the latest advances. However, a range of trends, including contracting library budgets against rising journal prices and a decline in pharmaceutical advertising, have deterred growth.
In the scientific and technical segment, journals lead the delivery medium with nearly 42 percent of the market, while online services (electronic products that link content with other types of data, software and solutions) came in second, but posted the fastest growth at 6.4 percent in 2011. The delivery medium ranking for medical publishing mirrors its scientific and technical counterpart, with the exception of online services which is the fourth leading medium.
The report, Global STM Publishing 2010-2011, analyses trends impacting the industry, including library cost pressures, the use of social networking, the outlook for pharmaceutical advertising and more. The report includes 20 detailed profiles of the leading STM publishers, including Reed Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Springer Science+Business
Media, Pearson, Epocrates, Hearst and others.
The world’s largest pub-lishers have begun growing again after weathering the global recession over the past three years, with -Pearson once again emerging as top dog. (…)
Pearson leads the pack as the world’s largest book publisher..
The London-based group is hotly pursued on the list by professional and STM publishers Reed Elsevier, ThomsonReuters, and Wolters Kluwer, each of whom now has sales well above their 2008 levels. (…)
Among the 10 largest groups, professional and STM publishing is the largest sector, with 43% of the total revenues…
A manifesto, by a student of the activist coalition RightToResearch.
“These days there is continuous discussion on ways to improve the efficiency, quality, and cost-effectiveness of healthcare.
I would argue that one of the most neglected and important ways to improve our healthcare delivery and innovation is by opening access to research. “Open Access” is the free, immediate, unrestricted availability of high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship over the Internet … (…)
- Education: The gap in access to up to date information diminishes our ability as students to educate ourselves. Furthermore, this gap in access is likely to grow. In the current era of budget cuts at public universities and hospitals, expensive journal subscriptions make an attractive target of cost savings. So where does this leave student education? With an even larger gap in access, the majority of students will be unable to fully access information crucial to our education
- Patient care: This gap in information access is even larger in private practice where doctors often only subscribe to a handful of journals due to cost restrictions
- Innovation: Research thrives on the sharing of ideas, and research careers are made by publishing widely read articles that inspire other people’s research or change the way we practice healthcare. For the author, the goal of publishing an article is to move patient care or medical innovation forward, not to have a list of unread articles serving as bullet points on a resume. Increasing open access to research allows for a free exchange of ideas serving both the goals of the researcher and the benefit of students and patients
- Patient’s right: None of these (alternative) sources (wikipedia, wesites, etc.) provide reliable information to patients. In fact, I would argue these resources only increase the duress of patients and families by providing views that often contradict the information provided by the doctor without providing an evidence base
- Global Health Equity: Open access to research would be another step towards reducing steep health disparities in developing countries
- Public investment: The vast majority of medical research is funded by the National Institutes of Health, a federal organization funded by you, the taxpayer. Why do we invest our public dollars in research? To improve patient care and medical innovation, of course – an outcome that only happens when students, physicians, researchers, and patients have open access to research
Anderson, Tim. 6 reasons Open Access matters to the Medical community. The Right To Research Coalition blog. Online, posted on: April 2011.
According this white paper, Networked Content is an emerging set of technologies and practices that holds the potential not only to transform the way content is managed, distributed and accessed, for the joint benefit of Publishers and their Audiences, but also to profoundly remodel the Information Industry in its next stage of growth.
From the perspective of Publishers, competition for the user’s attention has intensified during the past 10 years. The Internet has lowered the barriers to entry and also made it easy for custmers to switch their allegiance. Open Access initiatives (most notably in the Scientific, Medical and Legal domains up to now), while perhaps not a direct threat to subscription revenues, nonetheless today represent a significant 20% of peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles in select fields.
These and other reasons have motivated Publishers to differentiate and add value to their information products beyond that offered by the raw content itself by investing in new options for managing, packaging and distributing them.
Mayer, Daniel. The networked Content Manifesto. White paper, Temis, January 2011. 16 p.
Free of charge at: http://www.temis.com/?id=56&selt=13
The global STM publishing market saw total sales fall to $20.3 billion in 2009 due to a broad impact on revenue streams from the worldwide recession.
Academic institutions faced budget pressure, which made subscription renewals difficult. Corporate customers and advertisers also cut back their spending in light of the recession.
”These market pressures are not expected to dissipate immediately,” says Dan Strempel, senior professional publishing analyst at Simba Information. “The question is how long will they last?
If library budget constraints and shrinking advertising expenditures produce a couple of soft years, the market leaders will be able to ride it out with cost containment; however, if the current situation lingers and libraries start cancelling big contracts, publishers will be under the gun to find alternative strategies.”
Publishers may look for ways to go around libraries to reach the scholarly marketplace.
Global STM Publishing 2009-2010, White paper, SIMBA Information, 10 Nov. 2010: