Transcript Slide 1

Journal Publishing for Editors
Attaining excellence in scholarly publishing
Presented by:
Location:
Date:
Amy Shapiro, Publisher, Elsevier San Diego, USA
Mexico
September 2012
Agenda
Introduction to Scholarly Publishing
 Scholarly Publishing in Mexico
Improving the Quality of Scientific
Journals
Bibliometrics
Introduction to Scholarly
Publishing
 What do publishers do?
 How do publisher contributions help to improve the
science and health communities?
 Universal Access
 Content Innovation
3
Scholarly Publishing Today
Scientific, technical and medical communities around
the world are united through STM publishing
2,000
STM Publishers
20,000
Peer-Reviewed Journals
1.4 million
Peer-Reviewed Articles
4
Who We Serve
Publishers support the greater scientific and health
communities
Researchers
Health
Practitioners
Faculty &
Students
Pharma
Companies
Elsevier’s Global
Publishing Network
7,000 editors
Librarians
70,000 editorial
board members
Societies
300,000+ referees
Engineers
600,000+ authors
Professionals
5
Journal Publishing Cycle
1,000 new editors per year
18 new journals per year
Organise editorial boards
Launch new specialist
journals
9 million articles
now available
10 million
researchers
4,500+ institutions
180+ countries
480 million+
downloads per
year
2.5 million print
pages per year
800,000+ article submissions per year
300,000 referees
1.6 million referee
reports per year
Solicit and manage
submissions
Manage peer
review
Archive and
promote
Publish and
disseminate
Edit and
prepare
Production
220,000+ new articles produced per year
180 years of back issues scanned, processed and datatagged
40%-90% of articles
rejected
7,000 editors
70,000 editorial board
members
6.5 million
author/publisher
communications per
year
6
Methods of Publication
Dissemination
Traditional Print
Journals
AND
Electronic Journal
Platforms like Elsevier’s
ScienceDirect improve
online dissemination
and access
7
•
•
•
•
Promoting Research Information
Use
Abstract & Index Databases
Scientific Search Engines
Patient Use
Point of Care Decision Making
Users can
identify if they
are a patient in
need of medical
information after
searching for an
article
8
Universal Access
1. Universal Access




We exist to disseminate information
We will identify where remaining gaps exist and find viable mechanisms to close them
We will use a combination of different models to enable this access
We believe subscription and open access publishing can co-exist
2. Quality
 Peer review provides essential quality controls and we remain committed to enabling it
 We will invest to innovate in technologies that increase researchers’ productivity
3. Sustainability
 Journal publishers invest heavily to deliver a well-functioning communications system upon
which society depends
 Access and dissemination mechanisms must ensure that these investments can be recovered.
 System must also be sustainable for those who fund it therefore we aim to increase efficiency
and value-for-money
We support all mechanisms to achieve sustainable universal access to quality content
Where Are We Now?
We Are Working on Closing the Gap
Percentage rating access to original research articles in journals ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’
SMEs
n=134
Large corporate
n=74
All non-corporate
n=765
University/College
n=458
Universal Access
Open Access
Free-at-thepoint-of-use
Information
Philanthropy
Transactions
Subscriptions
Lending &
Rental
Options
•Open Access
Journals
•Free Access to
Journal Archive
•Manuscript
Posting
•Sponsored access
(Hybrid model)
•Promotional
Access
•Production &
Hosting journals
•Controlled
Circulation
•Society funded
•Conference
sponsored
material (incl.
Procedia)
•Supplements
•Patient Inform
•Research 4 Life
•Pay Per View
•Corporate Access
•Application
Marketplace
•Freedom
Collections
•Subject Collections
•Walk-in Policy
•Deep Dyve
•ILL
•Document
Delivery
Different scientific communities have different requirements. We’re experimenting in all areas of
Universal Access to see what offers sustainable options while maintaining the quality provided by
peer review.
40%
Malaysia
Compund annual growth rate in articles 2006-10
35%
30%
Iran
Romania
Saudi Arabia
25%
20%
Pakistan
15%
Egypt
Thailand
10%
China
India
Brazil
Turkey
Taiwan
Republic of Korea
5%
Mexico
0%
0
-5%
Global Expansion of
Scientific Research
50
France Germany
United Kingdom
100 Japan
150
200
United States
250
300
Articles 2010 (thousands)
350
400
450
500
Preservation & Archiving
In addition to traditional
print archives,
2 official archive
publishers are partnering to create multiple
distributed electronic archives for posterity
nd
Publishers establish 3rd-party
archives:
Elsevier with the National
Library of the Netherlands
1st official archive
Publishers are developing
similar arrangements with
other organizations
2-year Pilot Study
Digital Content
From “print science” to “electronic science”
 Increase in types of research output: articles, data, code,
video, audio, etc.
 Readers’ habits for digesting information are evolving
 New technologies to exchange information
From Print to Online Publication
 Large scale increase (from a few to 23,000+ journals)
 Electronic delivery is quicker and more efficient
 Better discoverability, easier access (~600M hits on SD in
2010)
 Experiments with increased navigation (hyperlinks in PDF)
and richer content (video)
500M
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Article of the Future: Mission
To enhance the online article so that it allows researchers to
optimally communicate scientific research in all (digital) dimensions:

Support authors by giving them the best possible place to
disseminate their results and express their research

Increase value to readers by providing an environment that
offers an optimal reading experience and makes it possible to
build deep insights fast
Article of the Future:
Approach and Timeline
Approach:
 Involved researchers through interviews, workshops, forums,
surveys, etc. Over 800 people provided feedback
 Focused on domain-specific enhancements - one size does not
fit all!
 The Article of the Future is a framework rather than a solution –
we want continuous enhancement by specific applications,
database links, and other features
Timeline:
2009: started with Cell Press
2010/2011: expanded to other fields, 13 prototypes on
www.articleofthefuture.com
Jan 2012: first phase of ScienceDirect roll-out (left and middle panes)
Affects all online HTML articles (1996+) retroactively
Mid 2012: second phase (right pane)
Ongoing: further domain-specific innovations
Article of the Future:
Presentation, Content, and Context
Three components of the Article of the Future concept:
 Presentation: Offering an optimal online browsing and reading experience
 Content: Support authors to share a wider range of research output – data,
computer code, multimedia files, etc.
 Context: Connecting the online article to trustworthy scientific resources to
present valuable additional information
in the context of the article
Improving the Online Experience
Task based browsing
Easy Navigation
PDF-Like text
Links to external
sources
SciVerse Applications
Improve and customize the functionality of your ScienceDirect and Scopus accounts
Visit www.applications.sciverse.com to browse the list of available applications
Recent Updates
Special issue information displayed in right pane
 Title of the special issue
 Listing of special issue editors, and
 Titles of the first five other articles in the special issue, including their author
name(s), with an option to view more information about each article
Figures can now be downloaded to PowerPoint slides
 Functionality has now been introduced which enables the downloading of figures,
including the reference details of the article, to PowerPoint slides.
CrossMark widget introduced as of September
 Papers will include a CrossMark widget on ScienceDirect to indicate to librarians
and researchers that the content they bought or are reading is maintained by
Elsevier and can therefore be trusted to be up to date. Readers can simply click on
the CrossMark widget on a PDF or in HTML documents, and a status box will tell
them if the document is current or if an update is available.
Questions?
Scholarly Publishing in Mexico
 Article output
Citations
Regional rankings
Articles published in Mexico
Scholarly Publishing in Mexico
year
Source: Scopus
Article Citations in Mexico
Non-self Cites:
77,95%
Source: Scimago SJR, powered by Scopus
Publication Figures in Mexico
Publisher Data within Country
Publisher
Articles Article Share Citations
Influence
Average
Citations
Field Weighted Impact
ELSEVIER
4567
22.36 %
10686
33.47 %
2.34
1.13
Springer
2477
12.12 %
2701
8.46 %
1.09
0.66
Wiley-Blackwell
1727
8.45 %
3787
11.86 %
2.19
1.01
American Institute of
Physics
649
3.18 %
522
1.64 %
0.80
0.80
Taylor & Francis
633
3.10 %
562
1.76 %
0.89
0.50
IEEE
514
2.52 %
454
1.42 %
0.88
1.08
American Physical
Society
463
2.27 %
456
1.43 %
0.98
0.67
American Chemical
Society
394
1.93 %
1207
3.78 %
3.06
1.43
Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico
359
1.76 %
162
0.51 %
0.45
0.25
Institute of Physics
Publishing
356
1.74 %
339
1.06 %
0.95
0.57
Source: Scopus
Publication spread over discipline (Mexico)
Regional Publication Growth
Comparison
Source: Scimago SJR, powered by Scopus
Citations per Article Comparison
Source: Scimago SJR, powered by Scopus
Indications of correlation between
use of e-content and research output
Mexico SD usage
Brazil SD usage
# articles published / Mio Inhabitants
150
60
45
100
30
50
15
0
FTA downloads / Mio Inhabitants
Brazil Articles Published
Thousands
Mexico Articles Published
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
31
Questions?
Improving the Quality of
Scientific Journals
How do Authors Choose a Journal?
Key Factors:
Marginal Factors:
Which Category?
Which Journal?
Journal Hierarchy
Impact Factor
Track Record
Reputation
Editorial Standard
Publication speed
Access to Audience
J
J
A
J
J
?
J
J
J
B
?
Society Link
J
J
Experience as Referee
J
Self Evaluation
J
C
Quality/Colour
Illustrations
Service Elements, e.g.
author instructions,
quality of proofs,
reprints, etc
?
International
Coverage
A&I Coverage
?
What matters most to Authors?
2=
1
QUALITY
&
SPEED
6
5
7
8
4
2=
Data from 36,188 Authors;
0= unimportant
10= very important
Role of the Journal Editor
 Public face of the journal
 Sets editorial policies with consultation from
publisher and editorial board
 Final decision on papers (type and standards)
 Manages the peer review process
The Refereeing Process
 Independent refereeing of submitted manuscripts is critical to the scientific
publishing process in validating the quality of a piece of work.
 Referees provide
• an objective assessment of a submission, and recommend whether a piece
of work advances the field sufficiently to warrant publication
 Referees
• Consider relevance and novelty of the research
• Check whether the relevant work is cited and discussed as appropriate
• Check that the methodology is appropriate and properly described
• Evaluate if the conclusions are supported by the results reported
• Evaluate the statistical analyses
• Ensure that the paper is unambiguous and comprehensible even if the
English is not perfect
The Referee recommends, the Editor decides
Role of the Publisher
 Brand management
 Acquisition of content
 Monitor research trends
 Monitor editorial office efficiency and efficacy
 Business management
 Production and online hosting
 Sales and marketing
Advantages of an A&I database
Coverage in Scopus
Minimum criteria for coverage:
The title should have peer reviewed content
The title should be published on a regular
basis (have a ISSN number that has been
registered with the International ISSN Centre)
 The content should be relevant and readable
for an international audience (for example
have English language abstracts and
references in Roman script)
 The title should have a publication ethics
and publication malpractice statement
Influencing the Impact Metrics
Attract the best authors
Find the best referees
Have an efficient review process with short
turnaround times
Commission invited/review articles
Claim “hot” areas in your discipline that are not
currently “owned” by other journals by publishing a
thematic issue on it
Influencing the impact metrics
DO
 Publish fewer papers
 Publish more (invited) reviews
 Publish more special/topical issues (invited authors)
 Publish Invited works and special/topical issues
earlier in year (longer citation window)
DON’T
 Require citations to your journal
 Write editorials about your journal’s articles
just to cite them
Scopus Journal Analyzer
Top-cited Papers
Are there certain topics
that seem to get cited a lot?
Non-cited papers
Can you distinguish any trends
in the articles that do not get cited?
Bibliometrics Primer
 Impact Factor
 SJR and SNIP
 H-Index
The Impact Factor (IF)
Impact Factor
[Citations in a given year to articles published in the
previous 2 years]
 For example, the 2011 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as
follows:
• A = the number of times articles published in 2009 and 2010 were cited
in indexed journals during 2011
• B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings
or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2009 and
2010
• 2011 impact factor = A/B
• e.g.
600 citations
150 + 150 articles
=2
IF Pros and Cons
Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR)
SJR Pros and Cons
PROS
 Differentiates between prestige of citations
 Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non –
subscribers
 Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or
citing (transparent sources)
CONS
 More difficult to explain/understand than IF
 Does not allow comparisons between disciplines
 Does not differentiate “negative” citations
SNIP
SNIP Pros and Cons
PROS
 Does not disadvantage smaller or slower-moving
fields
 Free (via Scopus) to subscribers and non –
subscribers
 Only peer reviewed articles count as cited or citing
(transparent sources)
CONS
 More difficult to explain/understand than IF
 Does not differentiate between prestige of citations
 Does not differentiate “negative” citations
Comparing the ranking of top journals
What is the h Index?
 Measure proposed in 2005 by the physicist Jorge E. Hirsch.
 Rates a scientist’s performance based on their career publications, as
measured by the lifetime number of citations each article receives.
 Depends on both quantity (number of publications) and quality
(number of citations) of a scientist’s publications.
 If you list all a scientist’s publications in descending order of the
number of citations received to date, their h-index is the highest
number of their papers, h, that have each received at least h citations.
So, their h-index is 10 if 10 papers have each received at least 10
citations; their h-index is 81 if 81 papers have each received at least 81
citations. Their h-index is 1 if all of their papers have each received 1
citation, but also if only 1 of all their papers has received any citations
– and so on..
h Index
h Index Pros and Cons
PROS
 Based on citations to author’s corpus, not journal
 Credits quantity as well as quality of corpus
 Free
 Easy to understand and calculate
CONS
 Can be biased against young researchers
 Can be biased against lower volume authors
 Does not differentiate negative citations
 Does not differentiate or weight citing source
 Does not address differences per field
 Includes self citations
Questions?
Thank you!
For further writing/submission tips and author
services:
www.elsevier.com/authors
Please feel free to contact me with further
questions and comments!
Amy Shapiro
[email protected]
ScieceDirect: más información
Gerardo Guzmán
Gerente de Cuentas-LAN
[email protected]
Tel. +52 (55) 91 71 11 26
Fax. +52 (55) 91 71 10 99
Mobile +1 (347) 88 26 635 (US
Line)
E book: Mariana Meyer
Gerente de Producto-LAN/LAS
[email protected]
Tel. +55 21 39 70 92 09 (Brasil line)
Fax. + 55 21 25 07 19 91
Mobile +55 21 94 82 58 96
Juan José Gamboa
Gerente de Cuentas-LAN
[email protected]
Tel. +52 (55) 91 71 11 25
Fax. +52 (55) 91 71 10 99
Mobile +1 (646) 67 35 082 (US Line)
Scopus: más información
Claudia Tostado
Gerente de Producto-LAN
[email protected]
Tel. +52 (55) 9171 7512
Fax. +52 (55) 9171 1099
Mobile +1(347) 820 2018 (US
Line)
Clientes Elsevier
Capacitaciones
y Eventos
www.elseviermexico.com
Erika Hernández Macías
Customer Development ManagerLAN
[email protected]
Tel. +52 (55) 91 71 11 77
Fax. +52 (55) 9171 1099
Mobile +1(347) 7350418 (US Line)