The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era | PLOS ONE
The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era | PLOS One Browse Subject Areas ? Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field. For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here . Article Authors Metrics Comments Media Coverage Reader Comments Figures Figures Abstract The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as w
Explore this link on the map →related reading
- The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to doexperimental-history.com
- Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | Science | The Guardiantheguardian.com
- Elsevier — my part in its downfall | Gowers's Webloggowers.wordpress.com
- A History of Scientific Journals | UCL Pressuclpress.co.uk
- Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress Magazineworksinprogress.co
- Market Failures in Sciencemilan.cvitkovic.net
- At Random, by Christian Lorentzenharpers.org
- How to start a journal and beat the academic publishing racket -judithjohnsonphd.com
- Elsevier - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- No one buys books - by Elle Griffin - The Elysianelysian.press
- Decentralizing Journals and Peer Review DAOs | Out-Of-Pocketoutofpocket.health
- Sci-Hub is fundraising | Hacker Newsnews.ycombinator.com