1. WHAT DO AUTHORS CARE ABOUT?
What over 50,000 STM Authors Tell Us Each Year

2. Understanding What Authors Say They Want
Anthropology of scholarly behaviour
Recording what they say
Measuring what they do
Principle of triangulation

3. What Do We Know Already? User behaviour research
Information model for the journal

4. History of User Studies
1950s and 1960s
Merton, Price and Garfield
1970s
Garvey and Griffith, NSF Office of Science Communication, Don King, Woolgar and Latour
1990s
Coles, TULIP, SuperJournal, Tenopir and King

5. Robert Merton Inventor of the focus group
Merton’s social norms of scientific conduct
Universalism: new work is assessed by universal impersonal criteria
Communality: scientific knowledge should be common property
Disinterestedness: prime concern is the advancement of knowledge
Organized scepticism: knowledge should be continually subjected to critical scrutiny
Reflects stated values rather than actual behaviour: what they do is not what they say.
R Merton Sociology of Science, U Chicago P, 1973

6. William Garvey and Belver Griffith
American Psychological Association research surveys into author and reader behaviour
Early finding about reading
Survey data suggested journals readings low
Actually a mistake, failure to scale results from the sample to the whole scholarly universe
Unfortunately contributed to wide-spread library myth about “low use” of journals
Garvey & Griffith Science Communication Amer. Psychologist 26(4).14, 1963

7. Time Scales: After Garvey
Part of literature
Original material incorporated into texts and references
12+ years
Paper reviewed by annual review volume or journal
5+ years
Oral Report at National
Annual Meeting
18-24
months
Paper cited in other articles
6+ years
Journal Publication
2-3 years
Report to medium-sized restricted audience
Work completed
15 months
Preliminary
Oral Report
6 months
Work starts

8. Rhetorical Processes Publication is not just communication
Articles are written to persuade audiences that
a singular observation made by one observer is generally true for all observers at all times
The research reported is an enactment of the idealised scientific method
Networks of articles collectively construct the paradigm pro tempore for the collective scientific world view in a discipline
A G Gross Rhetoric of Science Harvard UP, 1996

9. Rhetorical Status of Research Information
Private Co-workers Invisible college Speciality Discipline Public
Create
Discuss
& revisit
Criticism
Formal
public
evaluation
confirmation
Acceptance
& integration
OBSERVATION
Informal
research
1st draft
Draft
for
comment
COMMUNICATION
Seminar/workshop/conference
Draft
mss
Pre-print
Science
journalism
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Peer reviewed paper
in a journal
Research begins as an essentially private process, during which observations are made and initial theories created. As these theories are developed in discussions with colleagues, an initial draft talk or manuscript is prepared. As the draft moves outward for comment, a wider audience is involved, leading to informal discussions at conferences, and (in some fields) the posting of the article on a pre-print server.
The next major point is the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal. This lies at the core of the science process since it is only after peer-review and the formal, public announcement of the results in a journal that further formal criticism and research by others occurs. From research to initial publication by a first observer may take about 18 months to two years.
If the results are very contentious the formal article will spur other researchers to make contributions in response, both supportive and critical. Eventually a consensus will build, usually after many papers and over ten to fifteen years.
From there, the key articles in the scientific debate may be discussed in review articles. Later, as the scientific consensus further solidifies, the information may be published in books, monographs or textbooks, and may also receive recognition through prizes, such as the Nobel Prize.
ACCEPTANCE AS FACT
Review
paper
reference
work
prizes
Formal
monograph
textbook
history

10. Woolgar and Latour
Anthropological approach to the study of the science system
Steve Woolgar (now at the Oxford Internet Institute) and Bruno Latour spent time as observers in science laboratories studying the behaviour and culture of practising scientists
First example of an ethnographic approach
Woolgar & Latour Laboratory Life, Princeton UP, 1979

11. NSF Funded Studies Office of Science Communication
Studies on the alternatives to paper and the way the paper system behaves
Main studies conducted by King Research
King, McDonald, Roderer Scientific Journals in the US, Hutchinson, 1981
Precursor to Tenopir & King’s recent book

12. Methodologies for Studying Behaviour
Study the Users
Authors, Editors, Referees, Readers, Librarians
Opinions and behaviour
Numbers and groupings
Study the Outcomes
Papers, journals, publishers, libraries
Number, growth and organizational structure
Ulrich’s, ISI, websites etc.

13. Opinions and Behaviour
Opinions: traditional market research
Questionnaires and Focus Groups
Research to establish “language”
Open not closed questions
Sample selection
Channel biases
Moderators ideally independent
Behaviour
Move (inferred use of journal issue)
Cite (inferred value)
Download (inferring reading)
Link (inferred importance)

14. Key Research Studies Opinion-based Behaviour Outcomes Coles 1993
Elsevier Editorial Strategy Survey
Tenopir & King
Behaviour
Use: various library shelving studies
Citation analyses: Garfield 1960s…
Download behaviour: TULIP, SuperJournal, 2001/2 Nicholas and City University Studies
Outcomes
De Solla Price, Garfield, and many others

15. Coles 1993: Motivation to Publish
Real drivers

16. Coles 1993: Choice of Journal
quality
habit
speed
collection

17. Elsevier Research 1999 –2003
How do authors choose a journal to publish in?
They already know the subject coverage of their research paper and its quality and approach
They select the set of most appropriate journals in terms of subject coverage
They match the general quality of their paper (best, good, ok) to a class of journals (top, middling, run-of-the-mill) with the same subject and approach
From that class they select a specific journal based upon experience

18. Most Important Factors: Reputation Refereeing quality Refereeing speed
Elsevier Research 1999 – 2003
Most Important Factors:
Reputation
Refereeing quality
Refereeing speed
Impact factor
Production speed
Editor/Editorial Board
Physical quality
Publisher services
Key Factors:
Which Category?
Marginal Factors:
Which Journal?
Journal Hierarchy
within a Discipline
Impact Factor
Reputation
Editorial Standard
Publication speed
Access to Audience
International Coverage
Self Evaluation
A&I Coverage
Society Link
Track Record
Quality/Colour Illustrations
Service Elements, e.g. author instructions, quality of proofs, reprints, etc
Experience as Referee J J ? A J ? J ? J J
We can see this happening more clearly in this diagram which draws upon focus group research on researcher behaviour. The key factors that allow an author to classify journals into a hierarchy are shown on the left and include reputation, publication speed, international coverage, editorial standard, impact factor, etc.
Each of these factors can be affected by a publisher’s policy and actions. All publishers are competing for authors and at this stage, to have the right class of journal means satisfying the very demanding criteria of potential authors in these key factors.
Once the specific class of journal has been selected the marginal factors come into play. These marginal factors relate to previous experience with a particular journal, how it dealt with illustrations, how good the author instructions were, the quality of the proofs, the number and quality of reprints provided and frequently previous experience as a peer reviewer or referee for the journal in question.
If as a referee the researcher felt the journal editorial office was poorly run by the editor in chief or the standards of refereeing insufficiently strict this can adversely effect the potential for a referee to go on to become an author of that journal B J J ? J J C J

19. Constructing a Journal Information Model
What researchers want as an author
What researchers want as a reader
How does a journal deliver this?
How does the entity responsible for the journal do this?
What are the consequences? Can the model account for or predict publishing behaviour?

20. Information Functions of the Journal
Classical journal functions
Registration
Certification
Dissemination
Archiving

21. What do researchers want as authors?
REGISTRATION: to register a discovery as theirs and made by them on a certain date
to assert ownership and achieve priority: being first
CERTIFICATION: To get their research (and by implication, themselves) quality stamped by publication in a journal of known quality
to establish a reputation, and get reward: being in the best journal
DISSEMINATION: To let their peers know what they have done
to attract recognition and collaboration: being read by all your peers
ARCHIVE: To leave a permanent record of their research
renown, immortality: a secure place in the literature

22. What do researchers want as readers?
Reassurance as to its status and quality
prestige and authority ⇒ CERTIFICATION
Material that is appropriate to their research interest
specialisation and relevance ⇒ DISSEMINATION
Tools that allow the material to be located and browsed
browsing and indexing ⇒ NAVIGATION
Availability of sources over time
persistence and continuity ⇒ ARCHIVE

23. Behavioural/Functional Model
Needs
READERS
constant citation
authority
specialisation
continuity
navigation
Functions
JOURNAL
registration
certification
dissemination
archive
navigation
Needs
AUTHORS
ownership
reputation
recognition/audience
renown
Provided by the publishing entity through
third party authority (rhetorical independence)
brand identity management
long-term management of continuity
technology

24. Effect of Nature of Content on the Model
Objective knowledge
about external facts in the world
Subjective knowledge
about internal critical processes
All authors equally
able to make “discoveries”
Credit goes to who is “first”
Registration function
Very
strong
weak
Priority and speed of
publication paramount
Each author has his
own critical faculties
Each author’s “discoveries”
can only be his
Priority and speed unimportant
sciences
humanities

25. The Effect of Subject Area on the Model
Subject variation
Small to Medium Scale
Experimental
Theoretical
& Large Scale Experimental
Peer review as methodological
and quality filter
Theoretical paper,
review re- “does” theorem or proof
Small fields where quality of researchers’ work is known to peers
HEP
Theoretical Physics
Maths
Very
strong
Most quantitative
disciplines
Very
weak
Certification function

26. Effect of Coauthorship Levels on the Model
Pre-print or
self-archiving
culture?
High Energy Physics
Unimportant 4
Ave
co-authorship
level 2002
Registration
Certification
Traditional journal culture
Crucial
1 Level of Co-authorship 100s

27. Author Studies: 2003 Results
Major ongoing study at Elsevier through the Author Feedback Programme
Continuous monitoring of author perceptions via questionnaire survey covering all 1200 primary Elsevier titles (225,000 sent per year, 79,000 returned, 35% response rate) in science, medicine, technology, social science
Authors are asked to rate performance of the Elsevier title they have just published with against their previous journal publishing experience
This allows us to gather comparative data on authors irrespective of where they publish

28. Questionnaires: An Example
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning the above journal.
Questionnaires: An Example

29. Respondents: Status and Roles
Almost all authors are tenured/professional researchers
Hardly any are (graduate) students
Almost all authors are engaged in R&D as their main role

30. Respondents: Organization
Majority of authors work in the university sector

31. Respondents: Age Profile
Most authors are between 26 and 65 years old, with 60% between 36 – 55
Age 26+ represents first post-doctoral job
Outside of US most authors retire from 60 – 65

32. Respondents: Productivity
74% of authors have published 1.2 – 10 papers/yr
The mode have published about 5/yr

33. Respondents: Refereeing Activity
83% of authors acted as a referee in the last year
Nearly a third refereed more than 4 papers in this period

34. Respondents: Editorial Board Activity
Majority of authors do not serve as editorial board members

35. Respondents: Priority Ranking2 1 6 5 7= 4 3
Quality
Speed
Editor
Services

36. Network Maturity
The network maturity scores cover authors' use of , WWW, Telnet and FTP.  To simplify the analysis, the usage of these four networks is expressed as a mean percentage. Although FTP and Telnet are included in the maturity scores, the greater weighting is given to WWW and usage.  It is reasonable to assume that a frequent user of and the WWW, who also uses FTP and Telnet, is likely to be more "comfortable" with IT, than a frequent user of and the WWW, who does not use FTP and Telnet.
Network Maturity Score
usage
WWW
Telnet/FTP
High
>80%
daily
weekly
Middle
70-80%
occasional
Low
<70%
never

37. Network Maturity: Rank Order

38. Conclusions
Most authors are professional researchers in a university environment, publishing about 5 papers per year. As authors they are very journal-focused.
Most authors act as referees at least once (a minority several times) a year and are not editorial board members
They choose to publish from a set of journals selected first on specialisation and coverage and then subdivided by quality and utility. The actual journal chosen depends upon personal experience. These choices are intimately connected with brand identity issues of journals NOT publishers
They care passionately about the quality and speed of the journals they use but not to the exclusion of all other factors
Results are broadly similar across all subjects – but adoption and comfort of use of IT still varies widely