2006 UKSG Conference and Exhibition: Conference Report
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Pages | 4-6 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050610689004 |
| Author | Rebecca Marsh |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
2006 UKSG Conference and Exhibition:
Conference Report
Rebecca Marsh
4LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 5 2006, pp. 4-6, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050610689004
The thing that particularly impresses
about the United Kingdom Serials
Group (UKSG) annual conference is
the open atmosphere and the
willingness of delegates to engage in
useful debate about issues affecting all
parties in the serials information chain.
There are points that some groups feel
particularly strongly about but there is a
general sense of cooperation. The 2006
conference was held on 3-5 April at the
University of Warwick, a pleasant and
well-planned campus that enabled
delegates to have a sense of ``getting
away'' from their day-to-day jobs.
There were over 50 exhibitors at the
conference, ranging from publishers to
content management system providers.
The report represents a review of a
sample of the conference sessions.
The opening plenary session
introduced a number of key topics that
were to resonate throughout the three
days. A presentation of interest to the
general audience was ``Journal futures:
researcher behaviour at early internet
maturity'' from Adrian Mulligan at
Elsevier Ltd. Adrian reported on
research that was conducted in
collaboration with CIBER and was
based on a survey of 6,344 researchers
about their current and likely future
behaviours. The motivations for
publication by researchers were perhaps
unsurprising and remain largely
unchanged from previous surveys.
These are (in order of importance):
dissemination of research (57 per cent);
furthering career; future funding;
recognition; and establishing
procedure.
A total of 63 per cent believe that
funding bodies have far too much
power but many insist that this does not
dominate choice of journals for
research submission. However, 43 per
cent consider it important to publish
their research in a prestigious journal.
Future trends that were identified
included the desire amongst users for
24/7 access and a faster availability of
research (including improved
efficiencies in peer review). There is a
drive towards more global collaboration
in research and also a general move
towards technology to deliver
information. Most also felt that it was
important to include supplementary
data in the research. Some other
findings that suggest changes to
behaviour in the future are that 26 per
cent say that they do search author's
own web sites for papers and this rose to
33 per cent among junior researchers;
this group is also much more likely to
rely on electronic journals. However,
80 per cent still prefer to use the final
version of a paper because they wish to
cite it correctly and believe it is less
likely to change. By comparison, 58 per
cent were happy to use a corrected
proof and 24 per cent an uncorrected
proof. In general, knowledge of
institutional repositories was low, with
only 5 per cent understanding them
well, but awareness of the repositories
is growing and the reaction to them was
positive. Enthusiasm was slightly
tempered by concerns about getting
recognition and credit through this
model, quality control and how it will
be funded in the future.
Alexis Walckiers, from ECARES ±
Universite Libre de Bruxelles (ULB),
followed with a prediction of a more
changed future serials world. In his
presentation ``Economic evolution of
the scientific publication market'', he
reported on research conducted by ULB
and the University of Toulouse. The
goal of the research was to evaluate
scientific publishing in terms of its
contribution to knowledge transfer. He
outlined a number of, what he perceived
to be, ``market imperfections'': public
funding of authors, reviewers and
journal purchases; an intermediate
market (the role of librarians and
aggregators) with low reader-price
sensitivity; a two-sided market where
established networks generally favour
researchers who are already recognised;
and the need to access a stock of
knowledge, thus benefiting publishers
with a large number of journals.
Walckiers' first finding was that
``for profit'' publishers tend to set
higher prices than ``not for profit''
publishers. He went on to say that the
next stage in his research was to
investigate whether or not the price
differences are cost based or value
based. A survey of 2,813 journals
revealed that not for profit journals are
less expensive by 200 per cent, they
tend to be more cited and they tend to
be older. However, ``for profit''
publishers tend to be less conservative
and are more likely to invest in new
launch titles and technology. Walckiers
reported on a discernable link between
journal prices and citations, which he
considered to be evidence of
value-based pricing rather than
cost-based pricing. The assertions that
Walckiers made at the end of the
presentation were that recent technical
advances should benefit consumers,
and that public funds should be invested
in the production process and the buyer.
He also expressed worries about the
dissemination of research results that
are required for societal well being.
Although this was an interesting
presentation, there was a sense that the
conclusions had been established long
before the research had been
undertaken.
In the second plenary session, Linda
Stoddart shared her experiences of
managing a library at a time when user
behaviour and expectations are
changing. Her paper was entitled
``From support to mission critical:
To continue reading
Request your trial