STM publishing takes place within the broader system of scholarly communication, which includes both formal and informal elements. Scholarly communication plays different roles at different stages of the research cycle, and (like publishing) is undergoing technology-driven change. Categorising the modes of communication into one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many, and then into oral and written, provides a helpful framework for analysing the potential impacts of technology on scholarly communication ( The annual revenues generated from English-language science, technical and medical (STM) journal publishing are estimated at about $10 billion in 2013, (up from $8 billion in 2008), within a broader STM information publishing market worth some $25.2 billion. About 55% of global STM revenues (including non-journal STM products) come from the USA, 28% from Europe/Middle East, 14% from Asia/Pacific and 4% from the rest of the world. The USA continues to dominates the global output of research papers with a share of about 23% but the most dramatic growth has been in China and East Asia. China’s double-digit compound growth for more than 15 years led to its moving into second position, with 17% of global output. It is followed by the United Kingdom (7%), Germany (6%), Japan (6%), and France (4%). The rank order changes for citations, however, with the US strongly in the lead with 36% and China at 11th place with 6%.

/pdf/the-stm-report-an-overview-of-scientific-and-scholarly-1ktbnycaik.pdf

The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing

Productivity is the quintessential indicator of efficiency in any production system It seems it has become a norm in bibliometrics to define research productivity as the number of publications per researcher, distinguishing it from impact In this work we operationalize the economic concept of productivity for the specific context of research activity and show the limits of the commonly accepted definition We propose then a measurable form of research productivity through the indicator "Fractional Scientific Strength (FSS)", in keeping with the microeconomic theory of production We present the methodology for measure of FSS at various levels of analysis: individual, field, discipline, department, institution, region and nation Finally, we compare the ranking lists of Italian universities by the two definitions of research productivity

How do you define and measure research productivity

An analysis of the changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the period 2000–2009 is presented on the basis of the VABB-SHW, a full coverage database of peer reviewed publication output in SSH developed for the region of Flanders, Belgium. Data collection took place as part of the Flemish performance-based funding system for university research. The development of the database is described and an overview of its contents presented. In terms of coverage of publications by the Web of Science we observe considerable differences across disciplines in the SSH. The overall growth rate in number of publications is over 62.1%, but varies across disciplines between 7.5 and 172.9%. Publication output grew faster in the Social Sciences than in the Humanities. A steady increase in the number and the proportion of publications in English is observed, going hand in hand with a decline in publishing in Dutch and other languages. However, no overall shift away from book publishing is observed. In the Humanities, the share of book publications even seems to be increasing. The study shows that additional full coverage regional databases are needed to be able to characterise publication output in the SSH.

/pdf/changing-publication-patterns-in-the-social-sciences-and-47q2ox2gsc.pdf

Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009

Over the past 15 years, the web has transformed the way we seek and use
information. In the last 5 years in particular a set of innovative techniques –
collectively termed ‘web 2.0’ – have enabled people to become producers as
well as consumers of information.
It has been suggested that these relatively easy-to-use tools, and the behaviours which
underpin their use, have enormous potential for scholarly researchers, enabling them to
communicate their research and its findings more rapidly, broadly and effectively than
ever before.
This report is based on a study commissioned by the Research Information Network to
investigate whether such aspirations are being realised. It seeks to improve our currently
limited understanding of whether, and if so how, researchers are making use of various
web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption,
and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication.

Context:

How researchers communicate their work and their findings varies in different subjects
or disciplines, and in different institutional settings. Such differences have a strong
influence on how researchers approach the adoption – or not – of new information and
communications technologies. It is also important to stress that ‘web 2.0’ encompasses
a wide range of interactions between technologies and social practices which allow web
users to generate, repurpose and share content with each other. We focus in this study on
a range of generic tools – wikis, blogs and some social networking systems – as well as
those designed specifically by and for people within the scholarly community.

Method:

Our study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but
also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems that they encounter.
We began with an online survey, which collected information about researchers’ information
gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0. This was followed
by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of survey respondents to
explore in more depth their experience of web 2.0, including perceived barriers as well as
drivers to adoption. Finally, we undertook five case studies of web 2.0 services to investigate
their development and adoption across different communities and business models. 

Key findings:

Our study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one
or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research: for communicating
their work; for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; or for finding out
about what others are doing. But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers
regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even
dangerous.
In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the
key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits
with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not
see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication,
but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of
research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well.

/pdf/if-you-build-it-will-they-come-how-researchers-perceive-and-1sy6tbq2ea.pdf

If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/161764/4/whygapfill.pdf

Why researchers publish in non-mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling

This report looks at how researchers publish and why, including the motivations that lead them to publish in different formats and the increase in collaboration and co-authorship. It also explores how researchers decide what to cite and the inﬂuence of research assessment on their behaviours and attitudes.

Communicating knowledge: how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

William Johnson

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Communicating knowledge: how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings