The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat

Tausch, Arno (2018): The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat.

Abstract

This article evaluates tendencies and trends of the global academic publishing industry, vital for any reasonable long-term publication strategy planning in research. Such analyses are made possible today by the OCLC Worldcat. Our multivariate attempt, combining Worldcat global library circulation figures of publisher companies with results from earlier publisher ranking studies, is based on factor analysis of 32 variables, and our promax factor analytical model establishes that there are eight factors of global publisher impact, explaining almost 86% of total variance:

1. overall global standing of the company 2. company as a factor on the market 3. company impact on the global political and economic debate 4. successfully distributing best-sellers 5. impact on the scholarly community 6. successfully distributing production to more than 50 global Worldcat libraries 7. output during the last 5 years 8. outstanding academic quality

Of the 51 companies with complete data under investigation here, the following companies are classified in the upper half: Oxford University Press; Springer; Cambridge University Press; Routledge; World Bank; Princeton University Press; Elsevier; CRC Press; University of Chicago Press; University of California Press; Palgrave Macmillan; MIT Press; Yale University Press; University of North Carolina Press; De Gruyter; Wiley-Blackwell; Kluwer Academic Publishers; University of Pennsylvania Press; Johns Hopkins University Press; Brill; Nova Science Publishers; University of Illinois Press; Duke University Press; University of Washington Press; and Edward Elgar. Scientists, wanting to get global audiences, are well advised to publish with those companies; and journal editors, wanting to get a global distribution for their journals, are equally well advised to cooperate with them.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Role of Economics; Role of Economists; History of Thought: Individuals; Entertainment; Media (Performing Arts, Visual Arts, Broadcasting, Publishing)
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A11 - Role of Economics ; Role of Economists ; Market for Economists; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals > B31 - Individuals; L - Industrial Organization > L8 - Industry Studies: Services > L82 - Entertainment ; Media

References

Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. F. (2009). Value change in global perspective. University of Michigan Press.

Amsler, S. S., & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British journal of sociology of education, 33(2), 283-301.

Andrés, A. (2009). Measuring academic research: how to undertake a bibliometric study. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2013). Multilevel‐statistical reformulation of citation‐based university rankings: The Leiden ranking 2011/2012. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1649-1658.

Braun, Tibor et al. (1985). Scientometric indicators: a 32 country comparative evaluation of publishing performance and citation impact. Singapore ; Philadelphia: World Scientific.

Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher education, 49(4), 495-533.

Donohue, Joseph C. (1974). Understanding scientific literatures: a bibliometric approach. Cambridge, MIT Press .

Drummond, R., & Wartho, R. (2009). RIMS: the research impact measurement service at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 40(2), 76-87.

Herb, U., Kranz, E., Leidinger, T., & Mittelsdorf, B. (2010). How to assess the impact of an electronic document? And what does impact mean anyway? Reliable usage statistics in heterogeneous repository communities. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 26(2), 133-145.

Hug, Sven E.; Ochsner, Michael; Daniel, Hans-Dieter. (2013). Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history. Research Evaluation. Dec2013, Vol. 22 Issue 5, p369-383. 15p.

Inglehart, R. (2002). Islam, gender, culture, and democracy. Willowdale, ON, Canada: de Sitter.

Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164.

Oltersdorf, J. (2013). Publikationen: Funktion und Repräsentation (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät I).

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.

Rostaing, H., Boutin, E., & Mannina, B. (1999). Evaluation of internet resources: bibliometric techniques applications. cybermetrics, 99.

Sadlak, J., & Liu, N. C. (2007). The world-class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status. Bucharest, Romania/Shanghai, China/Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Unesco-Cepes.

Sahel, J. A. (2011). Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance. Science translational medicine, 3(84)

Sieber, J., & Gradmann, S. (2011). How to best assess monographs?. Humboldt University Berlin.

Tausch, A. (2011). On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries 1. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(4), 476-513.

Tausch, A. (2015). The political algebra of global value change. General models and implications for the Muslim world. With Almas Heshmati and Hichem Karoui. New York: Nova Science Publishers

Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245-260.

Thelwall, M., Klitkou, A., Verbeek, A., Stuart, D., & Vincent, C. (2010). Policy‐relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1464-1475.

Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2012). Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.7067.

Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113-2127.

Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., Miguel Campanario, J., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index. Online Information Review, 38(1), 24-42.

Torres-Salinas, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, R., Robinson-García, N., Fdez-Valdivia, J., & García, J. A. (2013). Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index. Journal of Infometrics, 7(2), 412-424.

Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university ranking and league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5-15.

van der Vliet, E. C. L. (2008). The Early State, the Polis and State Formation in Early Greece. In H. J. M. Claessen, R. Hagesteijn, & P. van de Velde (Eds.), Thirty Years of Early State Research. Special Issue (1 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 197 - 221). (Social Evolution & History). Moscow: 'Uchitel' Publishing House.

Vinkler, Peter (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford [England]: Chandos Publishing.

Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile‐based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372-379.

White, H. D.; Boell, Sebastian K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C. S.; Cole, Fletcher T.H. J. (2009) Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. Jun2009, Vol. 60 Issue 6, p1083-1096.

Zuccala, A. A., & White, H. D. (2015). Correlating Libcitations and Citations in the Humanities with Worldcat and Scopus Data. In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. Akdag Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 29th June to 4th July, 2015. (pp. 305-316). Bogazici University.

Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus perceived cultural benefit. In 14th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 353-360).

Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2015). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333-1347.

Zuccala, A., Someren, M., & Bellen, M. (2014). A machine‐learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(11), 2248-2260.