Can differences in publisher size account for the relatively low prices of the journals available to master’s universities through commercial publishers’ databases? The importance of price discrimination and substitution effects

Using price quotes and invoices for thousands of full-text databases and single-journal subscriptions, this study confirms that for a typical master’s university, the journals acquired through commercial publishers’ databases cost substantially less than those acquired through the databases of scholarly societies, universities, and other nonprofits. Moreover, the lower prices of commercial publishers’ journals cannot be readily attributed to publisher size (number of journals published) or to any of several other explanatory variables. There is a weak, direct association between publisher size and price among the for-profit journals but a stronger, inverse relationship between publisher size and price among the nonprofit journals. These findings, along with the results of previous research, suggest that resource providers may have incentives to keep prices low due to the collection development strategies adopted by many teaching-oriented colleges and universities. If the library’s goal is to hold a sufficient number of high-quality journals rather than to provide immediate access to every wanted journal, particular journals and databases may be regarded as substitutes even when each product provides unique content. Many U.S. bachelor’s and master’s institutions have goals different from those of the major research universities, and commercial publishers (along with some of the larger nonprofits) seem to recognize this when setting and negotiating prices.

Publishing Productivity of Sociologists at American Colleges and Universities: Institution Type, Gender, and Other Correlates of Book and Article Counts

This study examines the 2013–2017 publishing productivity of sociology faculty at six types of colleges and universities (e.g., research universities, master’s institutions, and top liberal arts colleges) based on publication counts for articles, articles in high-impact journals, books, and books from high-impact publishers. We compare the productivity of groups based on institution type, gender, academic rank, years of experience, and reputation of PhD-granting institution. Our age-cohort data suggest that differentials in productivity among institution types have diminished in recent decades. The top universities are losing ground, in relative terms, while faculty at other types of institutions are more productive now than in the past. Our results for gender are unlike those reported in previous research, revealing (1) higher productivity for women than for men across most institution types and (2) the absence of any gender differential for all institution types combined. Our data also show that book and article counts are virtually unrelated, that faculty at the top liberal arts colleges have the highest average book counts, and that there is great variation in productivity within every institution type. In general, associate professors, faculty with fewer than 17 years of experience, and faculty with doctorates from top universities are especially productive.

Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations

We analyzed how often and in what ways the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is currently used in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents of a representative sample of universities from the United States and Canada. 40% of research-intensive institutions and 18% of master’s institutions mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 87% supported its use in at least one of their RPT documents, 13% expressed caution about its use, and none heavily criticized it or prohibited its use. Furthermore, 63% of institutions that mentioned the JIF associated the metric with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. We conclude that use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and that there is work to be done to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.

Editorial

It is the time of year when the winners of the ALCTS annual awards are announced, and I am delighted to announce that the 2018 winners of the Edward Swanson Best of LRTS Award are Deborah M. Henry and Tina M. Neville for their paper, “Repositories at Master’s Institutions: A Census and Analysis” (LRTS volume 61, no. 3, July 2017). The authors studied a population of Carnegie-designated master’s institutions to quantify the existence of digital repositories at those institutions. They also conducted a content analysis of repositories containing some type of faculty content. The authors considered various ways that these collections might be discovered, including open web searching, inclusion in repository directories, and access through an institution’s website. The press release for this award notes “No other study has examined the IR’s of this group of academic institutions, nor so carefully analyzed their faculty, student, and other types of content while also gathering data on their platforms, or comparing discoverability using Google, OpenDOAR, ROAR and institutional websites.” I congratulate Tina and Deborah and am honored to be able to present the award at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

Repositories at Master’s Institutions: A Census and Analysis

Using a population of Carnegie-designated master’s institutions, this study attempted to quantify the existence of digital repositories at those institutions. A content analysis of repositories containing some type of faculty content was conducted. Pathways of discovery of these collections—including open web searching, inclusion in repository directories, and access through an institution’s website—were also noted. Approximately 20 percent of the master’s colleges and universities maintain repositories containing faculty scholarship plus many other types of student productivity and university documents.