Electronic journals and their unbundled functions in scholarly communication: Views and utilization by scientific, technological and medical researchers in Japan

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.01.006Get rights and content

Abstract

In recent years, electronic journals are in common use in scholarly communication and we can interpret this situation in various ways. On the one hand, we can say that scholarly communication is now much dependent on electronic resources. On the other hand, it would be too simplistic to say that scholarly communication is now greatly dependent on electronic resources because researchers seldom use other electronic resources. The purpose of this article is to show the position of electronic journals in scholarly communication based on Japanese researchers’ information behavior and estimation. The main focus is on distinguishing the function of scholarly journal and the electronic form. A questionnaire was sent to 1427 physicists, 1026 chemists and 1276 pathologists in universities and other research institutes all over Japan, of whom 775 (54.3%), 494 (48.1%) and 541 (42.4%), respectively, supplied answers. The main results are as follows. Japanese researchers in STM fields use electronic journals as a matter of course, and other electronic resources to some extent, for accessing information; but this shift to electronic resources seemed to be not a transformation but a modification of traditional patterns of use. Researchers still rely on traditional scholarly journals for accessing information and publication, although their recognition has begun to change.

Introduction

Scholarly communication through electronic resources has attracted considerable attention. Electronic journals, among others, are particularly important. Several statistical reports have indicated an increase in the number of electronic journals. For example, the Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory database shows that 16,364 scientific refereed journals are active online in February 2005. This figure indicates about 1.5 times increase compared with the data for November 2003 (Tenopir, 2004).

Seventy five percent of the major journals are available online according to the ALPSP survey (Cox & Cox, 2003). Similar facts have been reported by several other researches. An investigation by Morioka concerned the change from print to electronic in the journals on physics, psychology and the journals whose title begins with ‘journal of’ between 1998 and 2002. It shows that the proportion of journals in electronic version on physics increased from about 50% in 1998 to more than 80% in 2002 (Morioka, 2005).

Usage of electronic journals by researchers has been reported through over 200 papers by 2003, according to Tenopir (2003). Particularly important studies in this category, in terms of the diversity of approaches, have been performed by big projects such as SuperJournal and eJUSt. While the results of so many researches cannot be easily summarized, it is shown that the utilization of electronic journals, which had been negligible up to the early 1990s, then gradually increased, and the increase was accelerated after 2000. Data for 2002 and 2003 indicate that more than half of researchers (as many as 80% in some cases) use electronic journals at least once a week (Mine, 2004).

However, it would be too simplistic to say, based on these data only, that scholarly communication is now fundamentally changed. In fact, the definition of ‘electronic journals’ varies in those reports: while the term meant relatively new, exclusively electronic journals up to the first half of the 1990s, it is now generally understood as online versions of traditional print journals. For example, Collins and Berge (1994, p. 774), stated “the biggest obstacle to e-journal is whether tenure committees will accept publication of an article in an e-journal as equivalent to publication in a print journal”. This ‘electronic journal’ means a new one. The rapid increase in utilization from the late 1990s is assumed to be most likely associated with the electronic versions of traditional journals. These two categories have different functions and roles in scholarly communication. Kling and Callahan (2002) have identified four different types of electronic journals with different natures and functions, and criticized their confusion.

The form of existence (electronic files on web) and function (scholarly communication) of electronic journals should be distinguished as contributing factors in their utilization, although hard to separate: is an electronic journal read because it is in an electronic form or because it is a scholarly journal? It is important to identify what part of scholarly communication is made electronically, in what direction, and what, if anything, remains unchanged by the advent of the technology.

This article investigates the usage and views of scientific, technological and medical (STM) researchers on the traditional scholarly journals (both of print and electronic versions) as the core medium of scholarly communication, and attempts to identify the present situation and future direction.

Before summarizing the function of traditional scholarly journals, we confirm the significance of scholarly communication and researchers’ motivation for that. Science is a body of public knowledge, “to which each research worker makes his personal contribution, and which is corrected and clarified by mutual criticism” (Ziman, 1976, p. 90). As it is a corporate activity, communication is the essence of science (Garvey, 1979). The scholarly journals have been considered to be the primary means for maintaining the communication between researchers for a long time.

Lambert (1985, p. 17) summarized the function of scholarly journals as follows: (1) to make public the original results, (2) archive of research, (3) assignment of priority for scientists, (4) to ensure a guaranteed quality in the papers. Based on the concept on scientists’ norm, Meadows (1974, p. 36) indicated “the primary importance for priority claims in science of papers published in journals”. Although Garvey (1979, p. 69) claimed the significance of journal as recognition system, he also emphasized that scholarly journals are formal, and “public both in the sense that anyone can submit a manuscript for publication and that they are available to anyone”.

Thus the fundamental characteristic of scholarly journals may be on the formal communication. This ‘formal’ communication includes dual aspects: guaranteed quality (for evaluation) and widespread distribution (for communication). On the one hand, journal articles are ‘formal’ because they have the function of evaluation through peer review for publication. On the other hand, scholarly journals are ‘formal’ because they ensure the accessibility for most researchers through worldwide circulation by learned societies and commercial publishers, and permanent academic library collection. Collins and Berge (1994) also indicated “reason for communication” and “criteria in the evaluation” as the function of journal publication. Researchers as authors write articles for making their research results public, which establishes their priority and leads to their recognition or promotion. Researchers as readers utilize the published articles as reliable information sources for their work. Traditional scholarly journals have maintained the central position in scholarly communication among many other forms including informal communication. The dual function is indispensable for research activity and will never vanish. The problem is how the form or the system of scholarly communication has been and is being changed by the electronic resources.

The authors examine in this article possibilities of partial replacement of the dual function of scholarly journals by other electronic resources, or, in other words, whether scholarly journals have changed their position in the behavior and consciousness of researchers. If the position has not changed, another question is to what extent electronic journals have advanced and what effects they have brought about; more specifically, how they affect the traditional scholarly communication system involving large publishers and academic libraries.

In print era, scholarly journals have been almost the only platform through which peer-reviewed articles have been disseminated. As a result of Internet penetration, researchers can use e-print archives or author’s websites besides the electronic versions of scholarly journals to access articles. But the studies surveying actual circumstance are not so many. To clarify the place of scholarly journals in electronic era, two aspects should been examined: (1) a comparison between usage of electronic journals and other electronic resources such as e-print archive or institutional repositories, (2) a shift from print to electronic versions of traditional scholarly journals in researchers’ usage.

Dillon and Hahn (2002) investigated the frequency of usage of scholarly journals (both of print and electronic versions), and other electronic format use to read. They reported that the 51% of faculty used electronic versions of print journals at least once a month, and also regularly used a wide range of other sources (professional organizations’ websites were used by 36% of respondents, conference proceedings were used by 28%, and author’s websites were used by 21%). According to a recent survey, astronomers have been relying heavily on electronic resources (about 80% of their readings are from electronic resources). They use not only electronic journals but also ADS archive (26% of readings) and electronic preprints (19% of readings) (Tenopir, King, Boyce, Grayson, & Paulson, 2005).

While the evolution of utilization of electronic resources was reported, researchers in other disciplines than physics have not used e-print archives (ALPSP, 2002, Brown, 2003). These differences in utilization of electronic resources may be determined by many complex factors. Thus we should confirm the concrete and detailed utilization of electronic resources (both electronic versions of scholarly journals and other electronic resources such as e-print archive, authors’ websites, and so on).

Many studies have been made on the utilization of electronic versions of scholarly journals, but only a few have addressed to what extent and how print versions have been used. Siebenberg, Galbraith, and Brady (2004) compared utilization in 1998 and 2001 of print-only journals and journals that also have electronic versions. While a general increase in use in that period was identified, it was not fully accounted for by the electronic versions; not all the print-only publications were declining, and not all journals with electronic versions made progress. Another article reports that 70% of the faculty members were using both printed and electronic forms of core scholarly journals (Dillon & Hahn, 2002). These research findings indicated that researchers still use both print and electronic versions of scholarly journals.

The present work is intended to identify changes (or absence of changes) in the place of scholarly journals, using factual data on the researchers’ usage and views of them. A focus of interest is whether the needs for access to information and recognition (and evaluation) of research results are still met largely by scholarly journals or increasingly by other electronic resources. In addition, comparisons are made of the modes of utilization of print and electronic versions of scholarly journals on the one hand, and of the electronic versions of scholarly journals and other electronic resources on the other, to clarify the relative importance of each. Researchers’ evaluations and views on electronic resources and scholarly communication conclude the article.

Section snippets

Scholarly communication systems in Japan

Prior to reporting the results of the survey, this section summarizes the situation experienced by Japanese researchers with respect to publication of research results and access to information.

Method

A questionnaire was sent to researchers in physics, chemistry and pathology in universities and other research institutes all over Japan. At first, 70 universities that have relevant departments were identified for physicists and chemists, and 78 with departments of medicine for pathologists. Secondly, the NACSIS-IR Directory of Researchers provided by the National Institute of Informatics was used for identifying all the researchers whose specialty is any of those three disciplines. The

Electronic resources other than scholarly journals

Development of electronic resources has offered a wider selection of information sources for researchers. In addition to the print journals, traditionally the unique medium for peer-reviewed articles, one has now access to the websites of individual researchers or research organizations and open access archives.

It is clear that most researchers regard scholarly journal articles, either in the printed or electronic form, as the primary information source. Table 1 shows the formats of articles

Scholarly journals as the vehicle of publication

Following the discussion above of the changes related to information access, this section deals with the effects of electronic resources on the other aspect of scholarly communication: publication of research results.

Researchers’ views on scholarly communication in future

Researchers’ views are important in forecasting the future of scholarly communication. The survey explored their thoughts on the importance of various aspects of scholarly journals (Fig. 4), as well as on the future of scholarly communication (Table 4).

The greatest importance was attached to “semi-permanent accessibility to back numbers” (by 80.5% of the physicists, 78.7% of the chemists and 71.5% of the pathologists). The “peer review system” followed with 72.9% of the physicists and 61.1% of

The position of electronic version of scholarly journals from the viewpoint of researcher’s usage pattern

In summary, the present survey demonstrates that electronic resources have not affected the general predominance of scholarly journals as the publication platform and information source. Very few respondents have given up submitting articles to scholarly journals, and other electronic resources remain minor as publication routes. The position of scholarly journals as the publication platform does not change at all. Self-archiving, as recommended in the open access movement, was practiced in

Conclusion

In this paper, the position of electronic journals in scholarly communication has been discussed based on the survey for the views and utilization by Japanese researchers in scientific, technological, and medical disciplines. The sample of the survey is selected researchers in physics, chemistry and pathology in universities and other research institutes all over Japan and of which 50% or thereabout supplied answers. So that it is presumed that the results of the survey reflect the common view

Acknowledgment

The present study was funded in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research. Grant No. 14580455).

Keiko Kurata received her Master of Letters in 1984 and did her Doctor course during 1984–1987 from the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University. She worked as a Lecturer in 1988; as an Associate Professor in 1993; and as a Professor in 2001 at the School of Library and Information Science, Keio University.

References (20)

  • J. Adachi et al.

    Publishing role in the scholarly communication: dispatch of Japanese scientific research seen in SPARC/JAPAN and university library

    The Journal of Information Science and Technology Association

    (2003)
  • Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) (2002). Authors and electronic publishing: the ALPSP...
  • C. Brown

    The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2003)
  • M.P. Collins et al.

    IPCT journal: a case study of an electronic journal on the internet

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (1994)
  • Cox, J., & Cox, L. (2003). Scholarly publishing practice: the ALPSP report on academic journal publishers’ policies and...
  • I.F. Dillon et al.

    Are researchers ready for the electronic-only journal collection: results of a survey at the University of Maryland

    Portal, Libraries and the Academy

    (2002)
  • W.D. Garvey

    Communication: The essence of science

    (1979)
  • R. Kling et al.

    Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication

  • J. Lambert

    Scientific and technical journals

    (1985)
  • A.J. Meadows

    Communication in science

    (1974)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (18)

  • Expanding the value of scholarly, open access e-journals

    2008, Library and Information Science Research
  • Exploring usefulness and usability in the evaluation of open access digital libraries

    2008, Information Processing and Management
    Citation Excerpt :

    They showed that scholars from disciplines that have dominant subject repositories, like physicists, computer scientists and economists, relate OA with the notion of “good access” to electronic resources. Kurata, Matsubayashi, Mine, Muranushi, and Ueda (2006) showed that the usage of e-prints servers in Japan is limited to specific disciplines, such as physicists, and that electronic journals remain the principle vehicle of scientific communication. Their results also show that the highest levels of preference for alternative publishing means, such as e-prints, are traced in disciplines that have strong backgrounds in subject-based repositories, such as physics (which is supported by the Arxiv repository, http://www.arxiv.org).

  • Information practices meet lifelogging technologies: Towards a successful multimethod research framework

    2016, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology
View all citing articles on Scopus

Keiko Kurata received her Master of Letters in 1984 and did her Doctor course during 1984–1987 from the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University. She worked as a Lecturer in 1988; as an Associate Professor in 1993; and as a Professor in 2001 at the School of Library and Information Science, Keio University.

Mamiko Matsubayashi received her Master of Letters in 1998. She did her Doctor course during 1998–2001 at the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University. She worked as a Lecturer in 2002 at the Graduate school of Library, Information and Media studies, University of Tukuba.

Shinji Mine received his Master of Library and Information Science in 2004 and his Doctor course in 2004 from the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University.

Tomohide Muranushi received his Master of Letters in 1988. He did his Doctor course during 1988–1991 at the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University. He worked as a Lecturer in 1990 and as an Associate Professor in 1994 at the Department of Library and Information Science, Aichi Shukutoku University.

Shuichi Ueda received his Master of Letters in 1972. He did his Doctor course during 1976–1978 from the Graduate school of Library and Information Science, Keio University. He worked as a Lecturer in 1979 at the Department of Computer Technology, University of Tsukuba. He worked for the School of Library and Information Science, Keio University as a Lecturer in 1981; and worked as a Professor in 1989 at the School of Library and Information Science, Keio University.

View full text