Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Little things about Scientitic Watch and Information Professionnals

STM Publishing in 2009

with one comment

Everything you must know about Science publishing is in the STM report 2009: the STM market figures, readers’ behaviors, new trends, web 2.0 impact, etc.
It is a follow up to the 2006 report, ‘Scientific publishing in transition: an overview of current developments,’ ‘The STM Report’ collected the available evidence and provides a comprehensive picture of the trends and currents in scholarly communication.

Ware, Mark and Mabe, Michael. The stm report : An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. September 2009. Online: http://www.stm-assoc.org/news.php?id=255&PHPSESSID=3c5575d0663c0e04a4600d7f04afe91f

Some facts and findings:

  • The annual revenues generated from English-language STM journal publishing are estimated at about $8 billion in 2008, up by 6-7% compared to 2007.
  • There were about 25,400 active scholarly peer-reviewed journals in early 2009, collectively publishing about 1.5 million articles a year.
  • Although this report focuses primarily on journals, the ebook market is evolving and growing rapidly.
  • Despite a transformation in the way journals are published, researchers’ core motivations for publishing appear largely unchanged, focused on funding and furthering the author’s career.
  • Reading patterns are changing, however, with researchers reading more, averaging 270 articles per year, but spending less time per article, with reading times down from 45-50 minutes in the mid-1990s to just over 30 minutes. Access and navigation to articles is increasingly driven by search rather than browsing.
  • The research community continues to see peer review as fundamental to scholarly communication and appears committed to it despite some perceived shortcomings. The typical reviewer spends 5 hours per review and reviews some 8 articles a year.
  • The vast majority of STM journals are now available online, with 96% of STM.
  • Social media and other “Web 2.0” tools have yet to make the impact on scholarly communication that they have done on the wider consumer web. Most researchers do not for instance read blogs regularly or make use of emerging social tools. This may be for a variety of reasons: a reluctance to introduce informal processes into the formal publication process; because the first wave of tools did not take sufficient account of the particular needs of researchers; a lack of incentives for researchers, including the lack of attribution for informal contributions; a lack of critical mass; and simply a lack to time to experiment with new media.
  • There are between 3400 (according to the Open J-Gate directory) and 4300 (DOAJ) open access peer reviewed journals. It is estimated that about 2% of articles are published in full open access journals, another 5% in journals offering delayed open access within 12 months, and under 1% under the optional (hybrid) model.

Written by hbasset

October 19, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Posted in Journals

Tagged with ,

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] already mentioned main findings of this STM report, while supported by STM publishers, seems […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: