PLOS One at 4800 articles in 2009 will clearly be one of the largest journals, only PHYS REV B (5782) and APPL PHYS LETT (5449) published more articles in 2008.
Other journals in the 'largest' category, with their 2008 article counts, are:
J APPL PHYS (4168)
PHYS REV LETT (3905)
J BIOL CHEM (3761)
ACTA CRYSTALLOGR E (3533)
P NATL ACAD SCI USA (3508)
J AM CHEM SOC (3242)
J PHYS CHEM C (2888)
PHYS REV D (2863)
Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib_at_library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison [heatherm_at_ELN.BC.CA]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:16 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...)
Clarification: PLoS One is among the world's largest journals,
anticipating publication of about 4,800 articles in 2009 - it is not
THE largest journal, at least not yet.
If anyone has data about average annual output of the world's largest
journals, that would be most helpful. If PLoS One does become the
world's largest - perhaps in 2010? - it would be nice to know.
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
Heather Morrison
heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca
Sent from my mobile device
On 2009-07-05, at 12:42 PM, Dana Roth <dzrlib_at_LIBRARY.CALTECH.EDU>
wrote:
> Two thoughts here 1) shouldn't an increase in the size of the
> journal be factored into the discussion before making the 'double-
> dipping' charge and 2) PLOS One has published ~6000 articles while
> the Journal of Biological Chemistry (and probably several others)
> have published almost 10,000 articles in the same time span.
>
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib_at_library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> ________________________________________
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
> [heatherm_at_ELN.BC.CA]
> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:04 AM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: Submission Fees
> (was: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...)
>
> On 5-Jul-09, at 4:37 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> So it seems double-dipping unless it's honest? Perhaps it's honest
> unless it's clearly double-dipping.
>
> A very wide-spread misconception, on this list and elsewhere, is that
> subscriptions somehow are priced linearly.
>
> Comment:
>
> Publisher revenue is indeed linear. If 10% of last year's revenue
> stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
> by 10%. OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
> departments, etc., should not support the publication charges. This
> may help explain why submissions are growing at fully open access
> journals at a greater rate than the hybrid open access choice models
> - for example, PLoS One is already among the world's largest
> journals, and may well become THE largest journal by 2010. If I have
> missed a success story list this from the open choice model, it would
> be appreciate if someone could fill me in.
>
> Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> Another characteristic of subscriptions is that, in science in any
> case (due to the monopoloid nature of journals and the uniqueness of
> articles), they are utterly inelastic in economic terms. Or rather,
> somewhat elastic in one direction, but inelastic in the opposite one.
> When prices go up, there is a chance of cancellation. When prices go
> down, there is essentially no chance of selling more subscriptions.
>
> Comments:
>
> On decreasing prices: in library consortial deals, it is very common
> for pricing for individual libraries to decrease considerably over
> publisher list price, while the publisher / vendor receives maximum
> revenue through a larger customer base and (often) the efficiencies
> of central billing.
>
> On inelasticity: I would argue that the inelastic market has already
> passed its prime. Today, any researcher or group of researchers can
> easily disseminate their own research results through repositories,
> and/or set up their own open access journals, at minimal expense.
> Publishers that have relied on an inelastic market in the past, would
> be well advised to prepare for a future where there is competition.
>
> Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
> does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
> Network or Simon Fraser University Libraries.
>
> Heather Morrison, MLIS
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Received on Mon Jul 06 2009 - 09:57:58 BST