Transcript Document

Innovation in the editorial process
Perspectives from Elsevier journal publishing
Forum on the Dynamics of Science Publishing
Cornell, 9 October 2008
Friso Veenstra
Publisher, Earth & Planetary Sciences
Elsevier S&T
A long history of science publishing
The Publishing House of Elzevir was first
established in 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at
the University of Leiden, Holland
Galileo published his last work, “Discorsi e
dimostrazioni matematiche, intoro a due nuoue
scienze“ with Elzevir – despite being banned by
the Inquisition – which is recognized as the first
important work of modern physics
Keeping to the tradition of publishing established
by Lowys Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers
established the modern Elsevier Company in 1880
2
Current article share
Share of journal articles published
Our scientific disciplines
Environmental
sciences
Earth sciences
Social sciences
26%
26%
Elsevier
Others
Others
Life sciences
Maths &
computer
science
Physics
Wiley-Blackwell
Chemistry & chemical
engineering
APS
IOP
Springer
IEEE
AIP ACS Taylor & Francis
Wolters Kluwer
Over 1 million English language research
articles published globally each year
Health sciences
Materials science
& engineering
~300,000 English language research
articles published with Elsevier today
3
Elsevier’s journal program today

Over 2,000 journals spread over two divisions; “Science &
Technology” and “Health Sciences”

S&T Journals managed by 6 publishing groups, each
specialising in a cluster of subject areas

Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios
specific to a discipline/community, e.g., earth & planetary
sciences. There are 46 journal portfolios in total

And I am responsible for journals in geochemistry, hydrology,
atmospheric science, and planetary science ….
4
Elsevier journal publishing cycle
•1,000 new editors per year
•18 new journals per year
•Organise editorial boards
•Launch new specialist
journals
•9 million
articles
available
•10 million
researchers
•4,500+
institutions
•180+ countries
•> 400 million
downloads per
year in 2008
•2.8 million print
pages per year
•>600,000+ article submissions per year
•500,000 referees
•1 million referee
reports per year
Solicit and
manage
submissions
Manage peer
review
Archive and
promote
Publish and
disseminate
Edit and
prepare
Production
•40%-90% of
articles rejected
•7,000 editors
•70,000 editorial
board members
•6.5 million
author/publisher
communications
per year
•300,000 new articles produced per year
•180 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged
5
Overall ScienceDirect usage
Usage of full text articles
(millions)
450
386
400
350
310
300
252
250
206
200
140
150
100
Key facts:
• >1 million downloads per day
• 2,200 journals
• 9 million articles
• 10 million scientists have access
• >90% of STM scientists have
access to >94% of Elsevier
content
86
50
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
6
= Improved productivity
Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it
Compared to
print-only era
Time Spent
Gathering
42% 52%
45% 55%
44% 58%
46% 42%
44% 49%
44% 53%
• Scientists now
read 25%+
more articles
per year
• Scientists now
read from
almost twice
as many
journals
Time Spent
Analyzing
58% 48%
55% 45%
56% 42%
54% 58%
56% 51%
56% 47%
2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005
Sales/Mktg Sic/Eng
Fin/HR/Legal
IT
2001 2005
Mfg/Purch
2001 2005
Total
Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database, Dr Carol Tenopir
7
From a journal publishing perspective
Focus on the author
Journals, editors, reviewers, etc. are “tools” to
satisfy key author needs:
• priority, certification of research,
• continuation of funding and employment,
• recognition and career
Author
Author
focus
paper
Research
Output
Peer review
support
Reviewer
Editor
Relationship
management
Publisher
Brand
management
journal
data
etc.
8
Supporting the peer review process





Online submission, peer review and editorial support
2,500 new manuscripts per day; all areas of science
24/7 support; 1-2 new releases per year
Accessible to > 99% of scientists worldwide
Faster and more efficient peer review process for editors and also for reviewers
Final decision much faster: from 26 to 17 weeks!
+ 20-30%
- /- 50%
Reviewing times
go down by 50%
Editors handle
20 – 30% more
papers in the
same amount
of time
9
Feedback from authors…
91% feel it is easy to submit a manuscript (online)
90% is “very satisfied” with the journal they published in
90% feel that reasons supporting the final decisions
from the editor are clear
85% feel that peer review improved the article
Source: Elsevier Academic Relations polling 165,000 authors
10
Future EES: further systems
integration and personalization

“My Elsevier” – (working title) , built around the peer
review process with relevant information prior, during,
and after publication
•
A homepage for every individual editor, author,
reviewer
r
•
Relevant information + access to EES + performance
and status reports
•
Authors: article tracking + citation + usage reports of
their articles
•
Reviewers: outstanding tasks + publication record +
citation and usage information of articles reviewed
Support editors
Support authors
Support reviewers
11
In conclusion: trends in tools and
services supporting peer review
•
•
•
•
•
Enhancing authors output (linking, usage, additional article information,
comments/rating) while testing the needs of readers is a basis of further
innovation in scientific communication
Integrating information and tools for editors, reviewers and authors, based
on their feedback
Expanding service development to authors and reviewers : from the point-ofsubmission or point-of-review, to before submission, after peer review and
after publication
Service development to authors and reviewers becoming more personalized
and more interactive
Elsevier continue to look for new ways to support the editorial and peer
review process, involving editors, authors, reviewers and librarians
12
What will happen in academic publishing?
… there is stability in underlying
fundamentals..

While changes are spectacular…..

Scientific communication follows general
changes in (internet) communication –
perhaps just delayed

“Scientists need dissemination, not
validation or derived reputation from
publishing”
Large majority of authors feel that peer
review remains important;

Current open peer review experiments
get hardly any traction;

Authors get tremendous value and
prestige from high quality brands like
Science, Nature or Cell;

Some young / future scientists have no
appreciation for the branding of scientific
journals

Lack of trust of information that is not
validated;

Subscription model is replaced by search
derived business models

Lack of trust in scientific communication
based on opinions, such as blogs

People want answers, collaboration,
discussion, interactivity 2.0
13
Thank you
Any questions?
14