The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era - PubMed (original) (raw)
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era
Vincent Larivière et al. PLoS One. 2015.
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 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.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Fig 1. Percentage of Natural and Medical Sciences (left panel) and Social Sciences and Humanities (right panel) papers published by the top 5 publishers, 1973–2013.
Fig 2. Number of journals changing from small to big publishers, and big to small publishers per year of change in the Natural and Medical Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities.
Fig 3. Percentage of papers published by the five major publishers, by discipline in the Natural and Medical Sciences, 1973–2013.
Fig 4. Percentage of papers published by the five major publishers, by discipline of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1973–2013.
Fig 5. Percentage of papers published by the five major publishers in Physics, 1973–2013.
Fig 6. Evolution of the mean relative citation impact of papers, by distance to publisher change, 1995–1998 and 2001–2004.
Fig 7. Operating profits (million USD) and profit margin of Reed-Elsevier as a whole (A) and of its Scientific, Technical & Medical division (B), 1991–2013.
Compilation by the authors based on the annual reports of Reed-Elsevier. (
http://www.reedelsevier.com/investorcentre/pages/home.aspx
) Numbers for the Scientific, Technical & Medical division were only available in GBP; conversion to USD was performed using historical conversion rates from
.
Similar articles
- Publishers' and journals' instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis.
Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, Biedermann B, Abreu A, Collins GS, Gill IS, Cacciamani GE. Ganjavi C, et al. BMJ. 2024 Jan 31;384:e077192. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077192. BMJ. 2024. PMID: 38296328 Free PMC article. - Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure.
Laakso M, Björk BC. Laakso M, et al. BMC Med. 2012 Oct 22;10:124. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124. BMC Med. 2012. PMID: 23088823 Free PMC article. - [The different models of scientific journals].
Chippaux JP. Chippaux JP. Med Trop Sante Int. 2023 Dec 8;3(4):mtsi.v3i4.2023.454. doi: 10.48327/mtsi.v3i4.2023.454. eCollection 2023 Dec 31. Med Trop Sante Int. 2023. PMID: 38390021 Free PMC article. French. - The Economics of Scientific Publishing.
Zarif A. Zarif A. Yale J Biol Med. 2023 Jun 30;96(2):267-273. doi: 10.59249/OMSP9618. eCollection 2023 Jun. Yale J Biol Med. 2023. PMID: 37396985 Free PMC article. Review. - The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: a review of medical journals.
AlRyalat SA, Saleh M, Alaqraa M, Alfukaha A, Alkayed Y, Abaza M, Abu Saa H, Alshamiry M. AlRyalat SA, et al. F1000Res. 2019 Mar 7;8:266. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17979.1. eCollection 2019. F1000Res. 2019. PMID: 31001420 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Factors associated with scientific production citations in dentistry: Zero-inflated negative binomial regression and hurdle modelling.
Millones-Gómez PA, Minchón-Medina CA, Rodríguez-Salazar DY, Delgado-Caramutti JGA, Valencia-Arias A. Millones-Gómez PA, et al. F1000Res. 2023 Oct 12;12:1321. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.141422.1. eCollection 2023. F1000Res. 2023. PMID: 38973941 Free PMC article. - Monitoring Open Science as transformative change: Towards a systemic framework.
Rafols I, Meijer I, Molas-Gallart J. Rafols I, et al. F1000Res. 2024 Apr 23;13:320. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.148290.1. eCollection 2024. F1000Res. 2024. PMID: 38854438 Free PMC article. - PLOS-LLM: Can and should AI enable a new paradigm of scientific knowledge sharing?
Hughes RC, van Heerden A. Hughes RC, et al. PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Apr 25;3(4):e0000501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000501. eCollection 2024 Apr. PLOS Digit Health. 2024. PMID: 38662633 Free PMC article. No abstract available. - Advancing equity in cross-cultural psychology: embracing diverse epistemologies and fostering collaborative practices.
Anjum G, Aziz M. Anjum G, et al. Front Psychol. 2024 Apr 4;15:1368663. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1368663. eCollection 2024. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38638521 Free PMC article. Review. - Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges.
Zagrodzka ZB, Johnson TF, Beckerman AP. Zagrodzka ZB, et al. Ecol Evol. 2024 Jan 31;14(2):e10887. doi: 10.1002/ece3.10887. eCollection 2024 Feb. Ecol Evol. 2024. PMID: 38304275 Free PMC article.
References
- de Solla Price DJ. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.
- Haustein S. Multidimensional journal evaluation Analyzing scientific periodicals beyond the impact factor. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Saur; 2012.
- Tenopir C, King DW. (2009). The growth of journals publishing In Cope B, Phillips A, editors. The Future of the Academic Journal. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2009. pp. 105–123.
- Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science—institutionalisation, structure and functions of referee systems. Minerva. 1971;9(1): 66–100.
- Harmon JE, Gross AG. The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2007.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors also acknowledge financial support from the Canada Research Chairs program.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous