An evaluation of physicists' information seeking ...

CIBER Working Paper 2/2015. Physics research

An evaluation of physicists’ information seeking behaviour, publishing practices, and views on the scholarly publishing system AN INTERNATIONAL REPORT

David Nicholas Paul Huntington, Ian Rowlands, Hamid R. Jamali and John Haynes CIBER RESEARCH LIMITED HTTP://CIBER-RESEARCH.EU/ 2004

Summary Detailed report and evaluation of physicists’ information seeking behaviour, publishing practices, and views and attitudes in regard to what they get and want from the journals system. Focuses on the role and impact of the Institute of Physics Publishing (IoPP) in all this. Two international online questionnaire surveys, hosted and distributed by NOP, supplied the data, one (the main one) funded by the IoPP attracting nearly 500 physics authors and the other, funded by the PA, attracting well over 300 authors. The findings of the research clearly need careful interpretation because of the geographical and subject bias in the author population. Weightings were experimented with to correct this but did not produce a significant difference in the result and on the grounds of transparency were not used throughout the report. The most frequent method used to locate journal articles proved to be visiting a journals web site. Respondents said they were most dependent on visiting a journal’s web site for finding articles followed by the library. Younger respondents were more likely to rely on the Web of Science, while older respondents were likely to depend on their personal collection. In general, younger users were more likely to depend on and use online methods. The most important web site proved to be the ArXiv eprint server and this was followed by Elsevier Science Direct. The most well-known journal was Physical Review Letters. In terms of importance as a research tool, the Journal of Physics series did not perform very well and were outperformed by both Physical Review and Physica series. In terms of where respondents published, the three journals recording the highest percentages were the Physical Review B, Physical Review E and the Physical Review of Letters. The main reason for selecting the last journal in which respondents published was that that journal covered their area of interest. Other important factors were prompt publication, worldwide readership and a high Impact Factor. In terms of awareness of the Institute of Physics only 15% said that they had never heard of the Institute. Forty percent said that they knew the Institute either very or quite well. In terms of quality the Institute achieved an average score marginally above an indifferent or negative rating. Most of author’s open-ended comments referred to the referee and review process, the majority unhappy with the process. Electronic publishing issues also merited much unsolicited comment, with some people advocating free electronic access - for developing countries etc. Finally a number of authors complained about high prices of journals or suggested a reduced subscription rate for the electronic format:

1

Contents

Aims and objectives Background Methods Results

7 7 7 9

Characteristics of sample Finding research articles Use of web sites providing access to scholarly journals Knowledge of and attitudes towards physics journals Publishing practices Where respondents published Reasons for publishing in last journal Physicists v other subject communities Attraction of publishing in key IoPP journals Demographics of authors publishing in key IoPP titles Targeted readership (PA study) Refereeing Methods by which IoPP journals are accessed Journal of Physics Age differences Weighted data Open access publishing –PA study Awareness of IoPP IoPP journals – perceptions, authority and practices Physicists’ views regarding IoPP journals and how a better publication service can be provided

Conclusion

9 13 18 21 26 26 27 32 33 34 36 37 38 38 41 42 46 47 53 60

66

2

List of tables and figures Table 1

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33

Correlation values between frequency and dependency on eleven methods for finding research articles

15

Geographical location of respondents 9 Subject specialism of respondents 10 Respondents from the UK, US and other countries by subject 11 Professional body to which respondent belonged 12 Role of respondent in the scholarly publication process 12 Methods used for finding research articles 13 Dependency on methods used for finding research articles 14 Dependency on method used for finding research articles by age of respondent 16 Dependency on method used for finding research articles by geographical location of respondent 17 Dependency on method used for finding research articles by if respondent has used a Journal of Physics title 17 Dependency on method used for finding research articles by role of respondent 18 Importance of various websites in providing research information 19 Importance of various websites by age of respondent 19 Importance of various websites by geographical location of respondent 20 Importance of various websites by role of respondent in publishing 21 Ranking of various physics journals by respondent familiarity 22 Ranking of various physics journals according to respondent perception of their research value 23 Ranking of various physics journals by respondent’s perception of their contribution to the advancement of their subject 23 Ranking of various physics journals by whether they are read by respondent’s peers 24 Ranking of various physics journals by whether they will be cited by respondent’s peers 24 Ranking of various physics journals by respondent’s perception of their impact factor 26 Ranking of various physics journals by whether respondent thought it published exciting research 26 Whether respondent had published in various physics journals 26 Journal in which respondents published their last paper 27 Main reason given for selecting journal in which to publish respondents’ last paper 28 Various physics journals by whether respondent cited high impact factor as main reason for choosing to publish in them 29 Various physics journals by whether respondent cited good reputation as main reason for choosing to publish in them 29 Various physics journals by whether respondent cited world wide readership as main reason for choosing to publish in them 30 Various physics journals by whether respondent cited covers their area of research as main reason for choosing to publish in them Various physics journals by whether respondent cited prompt publication as main reason for choosing to publish in them 32 Speed of referencing as a positive factor in choosing a journal in which to publish: physicists vs. other subject groups (PA Study) 32 Readership size as a positive factor in choosing a journal in which to publish: physicists vs. other subject groups (PA Study) 32

3

Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39a Figure 39b Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 38 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65 Figure 66 Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 70 Figure 71 Figure 72 Figure 73 Figure 74

Electronic version as a positive factor in choosing a journal in which to publish: Physicists vs. other subject groups – PA Study Impact factor as an attractive factor in choosing to publish in the Journal of Physics, Physical Review or Physica Readership size as an attractive factor in choosing to publish in the Journal of Physics, Physical Review or Physica Age of authors last publishing an article in Journal of Physics, Physical Review and Physica Geographical location of authors last publishing an article in Journal of Physics, Physical Review and Physica Teachers as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subject groups – PA Study Funding body as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subject groups – PA Study Policy makers as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subject groups– PA Study General public as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subject groups – PA Study Percentage of respondents saying that they had refereed for a journal, by journal How respondents accessed various IoPP journals Accessing Journal of Physics by age Accessing Journal of Physics by role Accessing Journal of Physics by geographical location Respondents who said that they had/had not accessed Journal of Physics by subject specialism Method of accessing Journal of Physics by age Method of accessing Physical Review by age Method of accessing Physica by age Method of accessing Journal of Physics by location Method of accessing Physical Review by location Method for accessing Physica by geographical location How accessed or not for three IoP journal titles How accessed or not for three IoP journal titles – with weighting How accessed or not for three IoP journal titles – excludes respondents in Astronomy and Astrophysics How accessed or not for three journal titles – excludes Astronomy and Astrophysics respondents Knowledge of open access: physicists vs. other subjects – PA Study How well the IoP is known by physicists Knowledge of the IoP by use of Journal of Physics Knowledge of the IoP by age Knowledge of IoP by gender Knowledge of the IoP by role Knowledge of the IoP by location Knowledge of the IoP by institution Knowledge of the IoP by subject specialism Knowledge of the IoP by research area Knowledge of the IoP by membership of a professional body IPO’s published authors have good reputations? IoP publish papers that are highly relevant? Colleagues and competitors wish to publish in IoP? IoP journals are for ground-breaking papers? IoP journals are first choice for publishing best papers? IoP journals have a wide international readership?

4

33 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 37

38 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 54 54 55 55 56

Figure 75 Figure 76 Figure 77 Figure 78 Figure 79 Figure 80

IoP journals have a large US readership? Overall quality rating for IoP journals Average estimates of quality rating for those that knew IoP very well, quite well and a little Average estimates of quality rating for those that have used the Journal of Physics and those that have not The average estimates of quality rating by geographical location Average estimates of quality rating by subject interest of respondent

5

56 57 58 58 59 59

Aims and objectives 



To report on physicists’ publishing practices, information seeking behaviour and attitudes in regard to what they get and want from the journals system at a time of change and uncertainty (i.e. at a time when new publishing models, like open access journals, are being proposed). To establish what physics authors think of the Institute of Physics Publishing (IOPP) Journals (particularly the Journal of Physics) and how their journals compare with those of their major competitors.

This was essentially a taking stock and benchmarking exercise. It was felt that things were changing in regarding to scholarly communication in physics and that a robust analysis of what was going on would be very timely. The study covered the following topics: methods physicists used to locate research articles; physicists use of web sites providing access to scholarly journals; knowledge and attitudes physicists held regarding various physics journals; where physicists published; reasons why authors choose the journal in which they last published; refereeing articles; methods by which physics journals were accessed; awareness of IoP amongst physicists; physicists’ perceptions and practices regarding IoPP journals.

Background The Institute of Physics (IOP) is a leading scientific publisher and learned society specializing in physics. It currently publishes 43 journals including the prestigious Journal of Physics (J.Phys) series that can trace its roots back to 1874 and the Proceedings of the Physical Society. Impact Factors for the 5 J Phys titles are currently in the range 1.2 to 1.8. In comparison, the market leading titles in physics are the Physical Review series (5 titles with Impact Factors in range: 2.2 to 4.6). The Physical Review series is also considerably bigger than J Phys and in 2003 it published over 11,000 articles in comparison to J Phys which published 3,400. In total IOP Journals published nearly 10,000 articles in 2003. To put this in context, ISI’s JCR lists approximately 470 titles in its various physics and related categories, accounting for a total of 120,000 articles.

Methods The data for the report was principally obtained from an IoP funded questionnaire study. The initial survey design took place in June/July 2004 and was a joint effort between the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber) and IoPP and was largely based on closed questions, since its administration as a web-based questionnaire precluded a more qualitative approach. After one round of piloting and testing on an international sample of 24 IoP members, the survey was administered on Ciber’s behalf by NOP, a commercial opinion poll organization. Fieldwork was conducted during a ten-day period (8-18 July 2004), with a reminder going out on the 7th day. The survey sample was derived from mailing lists supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI®). NOP distributed the survey to a randomised sample of 17,000 6

authors who had published in a physics journal in the past 18 months and were drawn from ISI's Physics and Astronomy subject category. Authors were sent an email message which contained a hypertext link, enabling them to link to the survey database hosted by NOP. The total number of useable, fully completed questionnaires was 480 and the response rate (2.5%) was fairly typical of online surveys. Timing may not have been ideal for the academic community, hitting exam boards, early vacations, etc. and there was no time to send out a reminder because of the pressing need for the data on the part of IoPP. There were problems with representativeness of the sample. Of particular concern was the small number of UK respondents (6 out of 480), a strong gender bias towards men and the higher than expected number of respondents coming from astronomy and astrophysics. The location distribution is probably more of a problem, and might even be a primary source of the subject distribution skew. A higher than expected number of respondents came from the US. For example 35% of the respondents came from the US, while only 15% came from Western Europe (excl. UK). Globally, however, US authors account for 18% of all physics articles published according to ISI (2003-2004), while Western European authors account for about 29% of articles. The findings presented in this paper are interpreted in the light of this bias, and in the case of one analysis – how authors accessed IoP titles, we have statistically made allowances for this. Furthermore, to provide an additional robustness, these findings were complemented and enhanced by two other sources: 1. Free-text comments from physics authors. While the aforementioned study was largely quantitative, there was however an opportunity for authors to air their own personal views. Two open ended questions were asked: “In relation to your most recent article what were your main reasons for publishing in that journal?” “Finally do you have any specific views or concerns that you would like to bring to our attention regarding Institute of Physics Publishing our journals or how we can provide a better publication service?” These two questions together attracted 571 comments from physicists. 2. Data obtained from a Publishers Associations questionnaire. The IoP data was enhanced by a survey conducted for the Publishers Association (PA) during December 2003. While this was a separate questionnaire study largely focusing on Open Access issues, it did cover general issues on scholarly journal publishing, respondents were identified in a similar manner and more than 300 physicists responded and could be identified for separate analysis. More details of this survey can be found in Rowlands et al (2004a; 2004b) and Nicholas et al (2004).

7

Results Characteristics of the sample In terms of gender 92% of the sample were men and 8% women1. With regard to age most respondents were relatively young – 38% were aged between 26 and 35. Over a quarter (27%) of the respondents were aged between 36 and 45, 19% were aged between 46 and 55, 9% were aged between 56 and 65 and 5% were aged over 65. Figure 1 gives the distribution of respondents over geographical location. Just over a third (35%) of respondents came from US, 15% from Western Europe (excluding UK), 13% from Eastern Europe, 11% from Asia (excluding China) and 6% from South America. UK respondents, surprisingly, made up about 1% of this sample2. Figure 1: Geographical location of respondents (%) 40

35 30

20

15 10

13 11

3

C

4

a ri c Af

n hi

C

SA U a ad an ia C la s ra st Au

3

ang adpi n lJu xc (e na hi C 2

l xc (e e op ur E rn te es e W K p U uro E n er st a ri c Ea e Am a h ic ut er So Am l tra en

6

ia As

5 0

The numbers recorded for some individual countries were small, for example there were only six respondents who came from Africa and UK, and 10 from Japan. Of course small numbers make geographical cross classification less robust. Nearly half (48%) of those aged over 65 came from the US, as did 30% of those aged 46 to 65 and about 39% of those aged under 45. Figure 2 gives the distribution of respondents by broad subject category. Just under a quarter (22%) of respondents worked in astrophysics, 9% in Astronomy and Condensed matters, 8% in Statistical Physics, 7% in Mathematical Methods and 6% in the Physics of Elements. The response from Astronomy/Astrophysics, which was 31% - in fact, in the case of the US about a third of respondents were astrophysicist and 15% were astronomers. Setting this data in context, the number of physics articles, narrowly defined, in ISI (2003-2004), was 13,966 the 1

Almost identical to the PA study, where 91% of physicists were male and 9% female. Comparative figures for the PA study were: Western Europe (32%), US and Canada (25%) Asia 18% from and 16% from Eastern Europe. 2

8

number of Astronomy/Astrophysics articles was slightly more, 17,190. US authors produced 28% of all Astronomy/Astrophysics papers but about 17% of all Physics papers. Hence we might expect a greater share of Astronomy/Astrophysics authors to be domiciled in the US. Figure 2: Subject specialism of respondents (%) 7

Mathematical methods General relativity a

4

Quantum mechanics

4 8

Statistical physics, Metrology Physics of elementar

6

Nuclear physics

4 4

Optic s Atomic and molecular Measurement science

3

Physics of gases, pl

3

Condensed matters ph

9 3

Materials science Biophysics Medical physics Geophysic s

3 9

Astronomy

22

Astrophysics Other

8 0

10

20

30

Some of the numbers associated with individual subjects were small, for example there was only one respondent who worked in Metrology, three in Measurement Science, 3 in Medical Physics and13 for Geophysics. Small numbers make subject cross classification less robust. The following Figure (3) provides a cross-analysis of the percentage of respondents coming from UK, US and other countries by subject affiliation. UK respondents were particularly underrepresented across subject categories; in fact, UK respondents were drawn from five subject areas only, Biophysics, Optics, Mathematical Methods, Statistical Physics, and Astrophysics. US respondents made up a significant proportion of the other, Astronomy, Astrophysics and Geophysics categories.

9

Figure 3: Respondents from the UK, US and other countries by subject (%) Mathematical methods General relativity a Quantum mechanics Statistical physics, Metrology Physics of elementar Nuclear physics Optic s Atomic and molecular Measurement science Physics of gases, pl Condensed matters ph Materials science

Location

Biophysics Medical physics Geophysic s

UK

Astronomy USA

Astrophysics Other

Other 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

There were other anomalies, all the UK respondents were drawn from a single age group (26 to 35) and all were male. By contrast US respondents made up 48% of those aged over 65. In terms of type of the research in which people were engaged, more than half (52%) of respondents were engaged in theoretical research, 22% in experimental and just over a quarter (26%) were engaged in both. In terms of the type of organisation respondents worked for, nearly all (94%) worked in a University or a research establishment. Most respondents, two-thirds (64%), belonged to a professional body. What was most notable here was the sheer spread of membership, although, not unexpectedly given the geographical bias of the sample, the American Physical Association proved to be the most popular, with thirty members (Figure 4). Fourteen respondents, or 4.5% of those who answered, were members of the Institute of Physics and, significantly perhaps, about a third (36%) of respondents did not answer this question.

10

Figure 4: Professional body to which respondent belonged (%)

UK Institute of Phys Americ an Physical

30

European Physical

7

Deutsche Physikal Societa Italiana SociTtT Frantais e Physical Society Japanese Society Chinese Physical Other professiona

72

0

20

40

60

80

Respondents were asked what part they took in the scholarly communication process: whether they were an author of a journal article, if they had acted as a referee, or were an editor (Figure 5). Almost all respondents (99%) were authors (the sampling frame explains this), over a two-thirds (69%) had refereed for a journal, while 10% were editors. Figure 5: Role of respondent in the scholarly publication process (%) 120

100 99

80

69 60

40

20 10 0 Author of journal

Editorial board mem Referee of journal

Honorary edit or

Looking at it another way, by role, just under one third (30%) of responses were authors only, under two-thirds (59%) were authors and referees, 8% were referees editors and 4% had some other role combination.

11

Finding research articles Physicists were asked how they located research articles. To each possible method they could respond by selecting how frequently they used that method. There were six options (relative score in brackets): Never (1), Less than once a month (2), About once or twice a month (3), About once a week (4), 2-3 times a week (5), and Daily (6). Figure 6 lists each method and the average score out of 6. A higher score reflects a greater frequency of use while a lower score an infrequent use of this method. Figure 6: Methods used for finding research articles Recommendation

3.1

Visit jrnl web site

3.4

Visit the library

2.7

Using ISI's Contents

2.0

Email alerts to ToC

2.7

Personal jrnl collec

2.8

Searching Google

3.1

Searching Yahoo

1.7

Other web search

2.6 2.7

Web of Science or SC 1.6

Using Inspec 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

What is most evident from the Figure is the wide range of methods adopted – 8 scored more highly than 2.5. The popularity of the Web and the fact that physicists is emphasised by the fact that the most frequent method of location was “visiting a journals web site” – a score of 3.4 (suggesting a twice monthly pattern) and the fact that Google was the joint second most frequent activity, scoring 3.1. Also scoring 3.1 was personal recommendations, showing the bibliographic importance of informal personal networks. By comparison Elsevier’s huge digital library, Web of Science only scored 2.7, less frequently used than personal journal collections (2.8). The score for visiting the library was 2.7, is further evidence of the popularity of digital access. In fact visiting the library was the fourth, out of ten, least frequently used methods. Secondary services did not fare so well: using Inspec was the least used method (1.7) and using ISI’s Contents service proved not a lot more popular (2.0). There were some age differences with younger (under 36) respondents using personal recommendations and the Web of Science more frequently than older respondents respectively (3.3 compared to 2.9 and 3.0 compared to 2.6). While older users were marginally more frequent users of the library. There were further differences according to the geographical location of the respondent. In the main 12

respondents from UK, US, Canada, Australia Japan and Western Europe scored less highly on most methods than other geographical locations, except in the case of recommendations and other forms of web searching. Physicists were also asked how dependent they were on each method to find articles – this was a question about reliance rather than frequency. Respondents could state for each method one of four options: Not at all dependent (1), Not very dependent (2), Quite dependent (3) and very dependent (4). Scores are in brackets. Figure 7 lists each method and the average score out of 4. A high score reflects a greater dependency on the method while a lower score a less dependent method. Figure 7: Dependency on methods for finding research articles Recommendation

2.4

Visit jrnl's web sit

3.2

Visit the library

2.8


2.6

Email alerts to ToC

2.6


2.6

Searching Google

2.7

Searching Yahoo

2.3

Other web search

2.4 2.7

Web of Science or SC 2.4

Using Inspec 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Respondents were most dependent on visiting a journal’s web site (3.2) for finding articles followed by the library (2.8), then Web of Science (2.7) and searching Google (2.7). The data confirms the key role played by a journal’s website, otherwise the main difference between Figures 6 and 7 is the rise in the rating of the library and the fall in recommendations and Google - people use but cannot rely on these latter two sources. Inspec fails again to sparkle, scoring a low 2.4, though this dependency score value does exceed its frequency score (1.6). In statistically comparing frequency of use and dependency a weak correlation between frequency of recommendation and dependency on recommendation was discovered (r=0.35): recommendation recorded a high frequency of use (3.1) rating but a relatively low dependency rating (2.4). That is although users frequently employ the method they do not rely on it. A low correlation was also recorded with using ISI’s content (r=0.50) and using Inspec (r=0.52). But here dependency values exceeded the frequency values, suggesting that though these methods are not used so frequently they are relied upon, although the dependency value of

13

Inspec was one of the lowest. But this finding does suggest a niche group of researchers who do rely up it. A high correlation was recorded for the Other Web Search engine option (r=0.71), a method that probably reflects a respondents own particular ways for searching the web, suggesting that for many respondents this was both frequently used and a dependent method. Table 1 lists the correlation values between scores over the frequency of use and dependency. Correlations on the diagonal of the matrix record the methods’ frequency against its dependency. In terms of the other correlations the negative values between Other web search engine option and frequency use of other methods is particularly significant and argues that those rating highly a dependency on Other web search engine options were infrequent users of the other search methods. Those depending on ISI’s contents were also likely to use Web of Science (0.34) and Inspec (0.27) more frequently, suggesting a more traditional type of user. Table 1: Correlation values between frequency and dependency on eleven methods for finding research articles

Frequency

Recommend

Visit jrnl's web site

Visit the library


Email alerts to ToC

Dependency Personal jrnl Searching collection Google

Searching Yahoo

Other we search

Recommendation

0.35

0.01

-0.02

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.06

-0

Visit jrnl's web site

-0.12

0.59

0.08

0.19

0.07

0.15

0.20

0.24

-0

Visit the library

-0.03

0.19

0.57

0.17

0.01

0.05

0.17

0.33

-0


-0.06

0.18

0.01

0.50

0.01

0.03

0.09

0.19

-0

Email alerts to ToC Personal jrnl collection

-0.04

0.16

-0.04

0.06

0.62

-0.01

0.08

-0.01

-0

0.02

0.14

0.15

0.13

0.01

0.60

0.08

0.08

-0

Searching Google

0.07

0.16

0.11

0.01

-0.04

0.08

0.62

0.20

-0

Searching Yahoo Other web search engine Web of Science or SCI

-0.02

0.20

0.19

0.19

0.04

0.02

0.15

0.62

-0

0.01

-0.09

-0.08

-0.02

-0.04

-0.03

-0.04

0.11

0

0.06

0.09

-0.01

0.34

-0.03

0.06

0.12

0.18

-0

Using Inspec

-0.06

0.05

0.03

0.27

-0.04

-0.04

0.08

0.09

-0

Figure 8 examines dependency rating differences by age of respondent. The top three dependent methods for older respondents were the journal web site (3.3), library (2.8) and personal collection (2.8), while for younger respondents it was the journal web site (3.1), Web of Science (2.8) and the library (2.8). In terms of differences older users were more dependent on Other Web Search engines (2.5 compared to 2.0) and personal journal collection (2.8 compared to 2.3) and email alerts (2.7 compared to 2.3). Younger (i.e. under 36) respondents only exceeded the score of older respondents on two methods: Web of Science (2.8 compared to 2.7) and recommendation (2.5 compared to 2.4). The latter must be seen as somewhat surprising as you would expect older people to better connected,

14

however perhaps older respondents are just less likely to rely on recommendation compared to younger people. Figure 8: Dependency on method used for finding research articles by age of respondent 2.5 2.4

Recommendation

3.1 3.3

Visit jrnl web site 2.8 2.8

Mean Visit the libra

2.6 2.6

Using ISI's Content 2.3

Email alerts to ToC

2.7 2.3


2.8 2.6 2.7

Searching Google 2.2 2.3

Searching Yahoo

2.0

Other web search

2.5

Age categories

2.8 2.7

Web of Science

Younger (under-36)

2.2 2.4

Using Inspec

Older (over-36) 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

There were in addition some small differences according to geographical location of the author (Figure 9). The top four dependent methods for those based in UK, US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Western Europe were the Journal web site (3.3), Library visit (2.7), personal collection (2.7) and Web of Science (2.7). For other countries the top methods were Journal web site (3.2), the Library visit (2.9), Google (2.8) and Web of Science (2.4). There was a greater dependency on the library (2.9 compared to 2.7) and Google (2.8 compared to 2.5) sources for respondents coming from other countries.

15

Figure 9: Dependency on method used for finding research articles by geographical location of respondent 2.5 2.3

Recommendation

3.3 3.2

Visit jrnl web site 2.7 2.9

Visit the library

2.5 2.6

Using ISI's Content

2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.8

Email alerts to ToC Personal jrnl collec Searching Google 2.1

Searching Yahoo

2.4 2.3 2.4

Other web search

Location

2.7 2.8

Web of Science

UK,USA,Can,Aus,Jap,W

2.3 2.4

Using Inspec

Rest 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

For those respondents who had read a Journal of Physic journal the 4 highest rated dependency methods were the journal site (3.3), Web of Science (2.8), Google and the library (both 2.7). Those who had not read a Journal of Physics journal were more likely to rely on their personal journal collection (3.3 compared to 2.6), Email alerts (3.0 compared to 2.5), using ISI’s content service (3.0 compared to 2.5) and were less dependent on recommendation (2.0 compared to 2.4). Some significant differences here. Figure 10: Dependency on method used for finding research articles by if respondent has used a Journal of Physics title 2.0

Recommendation

2.4 3.3 3.3

Visit jrnl's site

3.3

Visit the library

2.7 3.0

Using ISI's content

2.5

Email alerts to toc

2.5

3.0 3.3


2.6 3.0

Searching Google

2.7 2.7

Searching Yahoo

2.3 2.7

Other web search

2.3

Journal of Physics

2.7 2.8

Web of Science

Doesn't access

2.7

Using Inspec

2.3 Accessed 0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

16

Figure 11 looks at the dependency rating for the method for finding research articles by role of respondent. Significantly, referees/editors were most dependent on the Web of Science (3.0) and ISI content (3.0) and least dependent on Google (1.7), author/referees were most dependent on journal web sites (3.3) and Web of Science (2.8) and least dependent on Inspec (2.2), while authors only were dependent on library visits (3.3), journal web sites (3.2) and least dependent on Other web search (2.2). In general referee/editors relied on the least number of methods (using a cut off of 2 and above) 7 methods as opposed to 11 for authors and authors/referees. Figure 11 : Dependency on method for finding research articles by role of respondent

2.3 2.5 2.7

Recommendation

3.2 3.3 3.0 3.3

Visit jrnl's web sit 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5

Visit the library Using ISI's Content Email alerts to ToC

3.0

2.6 2.6

2.0

2.4

Personal jrnl collec Searching Google

2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7

1.7

Searching Yahoo

1.7

2.3 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.5

Other web search Web of Science

2.3 2.2

Using Inspec

Role Author only

2.8 3.0

Author/referee 2.7 Referee/editor

0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Use of web sites providing access to scholarly journals Physicists were asked how important 9 publisher’s web sites were to them, including the Institute of Physics’ electronic journals website. Respondents rated importance over a five point scale: Never heard of (1); Not at all important (2); Not very important (3); quite important (4) and very important (5). Figure 12 reports the average score for the websites, where a higher score is indicative of greater importance. The most highly rated site was the ArXiv eprint server (3.7), followed by Elsevier’s Science Direct (3.5), the American Physical Society Journal web site (3.4), and the American Institute of Physics Journal web site (3.3). The least important sites were SLAC (2.3) and Wiley Interscience (2.3). The Institute of Physics electronic journals scored (2.9), perhaps a little disappointing but probably a result of the low UK representation in the sample.

17

Figure 12: importance of various websites in providing research information

3.3

Americ an I of P

3.4

Americ an P Society

3.7

ArXiv eprint server 2.9

I of P Electronic Jr

3.5

Elsevier ScienceDire 2.7

SpringerLink 2.3

Wiley Interscience

3.0

NASA Astro Data 2.3

SLAC SPIRES HEP

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Figure 13 reports the rating of each site by age of respondent. The top three rated sites for younger authors were the ArXiv eprint (4.0), Elsevier Science Direct (3.5) and American Physics Society (3.3); the lowest rated was Wiley’s (2.3). For older users the top three rated sites were the same though the associated scores were different: the ArXiv eprint scored 3.5, Elsevier Direct 3.5, and American Physics Society 3.4. Younger (under 36) respondents rated more highly the ArXiv eprint server (4 compared to 3.5) than older respondents. Older respondents had a marginally higher rating of the Institute of Physics online; 3.0 compared to 2.8. Figure 13: Importance of various websites by age of respondent

Americ an I of P

3.1 3.4

Americ an P S

3.3 3.4 4.0

ArXiv eprint service

3.5 2.8 3.0

I of P Electronic

3.5 3.5

Elsevier ScienceDire 2.8 2.7

SpringerLink 2.3 2.4

Wiley Interscience

3.1 2.9

NASA Astro Data

Age categories

2.5

SLAC SPIRES HEP

Younger (under-36)

2.2

Older (over-36) 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

18

In terms of geographical location the rest of the world rated Elsevier Science Direct (3.9) as the most important site (Figure 14). And this site elicited the greatest difference between the two groups, with respondents coming from the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Western Europe rating this site at 3.2. Comparing the two groups, the UK, US etc. rated the Nasa astro site highly (3.2) compared to the rest of the world (2.6) and the rest of the world rated America IoP highly (3.7) compared to the UK, US etc. (3.0). Figure 14: Importance of various websites by geographical location of respondent 3.0

Americ an I of P

3.7 3.2

Americ an P S

3.7 3.7 3.7

ArXiv eprint service 2.6

I of P Electronic

3.3 3.2

Elsevier ScienceDire

3.9 2.6

SpringerLink

2.9 2.2

Wiley Interscience

2.5 3.2

NASA Astro Data

Location

2.6 2.1

SLAC SPIRES HEP

UK,USA,Can,Aus,Jap,W

2.5

Rest 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

In terms of respondent’s role in the scholarly communication process authors rated Elsevier Science Direct (3.6), ArXiv (3.5) and Nasa (3.2) more highly (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Importance of various websites by role of respondent in journal publishing

19

3.3 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.5

Americ an I of P Americ an P Society ArXiv eprint service

3.5

3.9

3.0 2.9 2.8

I of P Electronic

3.6 3.4 3.5

Elsevier Science 2.7 2.7 2.7

SpringerLink Wiley Interscience

2.1

NASA Astro Data

2.4 2.3

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2

SLAC SPIRES HEP

Role 2.9

3.2

Author only Author/referee Referee/editor

0.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

Knowledge of and attitudes towards physics journals Physicists were asked how well they knew 21 named journals. Respondents rated their awareness on a five point scale: Never heard of (1), Heard of but know nothing about (2), know a little (3), know quite well (4) and know very well(5). Figure 16 reports the average score for a number physics journals. Almost all journals scored a figure greater than half suggesting a pretty good knowledge of most of the journals, which is probably what we would expect. The most well-known, by some margin, was Physical Review Letters which scored 4.1. In general the Physical Review series (A to E) scored well (2.7 to 3.1), followed by the Journal of Physics (2.5 to 3.0) while knowledge of the Physica journals, for this sample, performed relatively poorly (2.0 to 2.4, which effectively means they did not really know about these journals).

Figure 16: ranking of various physics journals by respondent familiarity

20

3.0

Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A: Physical Review B: Physical Review C: Physical Review D: Physical Review E: Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Journal of Chemical Journal of Mathemati Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A: Physica B: Physica C: Physica D: Physica E: 0.0

2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.9 4.1 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 .5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of each of the journals across seven variables, these were:  The importance of each journal to them as a researcher;  If they thought the journal made a major contribution to the advancement of the subject.  If they thought that the journal would be read by their peers  If they thought that the journal would be cited by their peers  If they thought that the journal had a high impact factor  If they thought that publishing in the journal would enhance their profile  If they thought the journal publishes research that they find exciting Authors recorded their answers over a five point scale where 1 indicated does not apply at all and 5 indicated applies very much. Figures 17 to 23 report on the average score for each of the five variables by journal. There was a high degree of consensus as to the most important journals for research (Figure 17) - the Physical Review of Letters (5.0) and Physica A (5.0). The least important journals were Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0). The average score over the Journal of Physics titles was lower compared to the Journal of Physics and Physica journals.

Figure 17: ranking of various physics journals according to respondent perception of their research value

21

Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

In terms of its contribution to the subject (Figure 18) the Physical Review of Letters (5.0) scored very highly while Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) scored lowly. Figure 18: ranking of various physics journals by respondent’s perception of their contribution to the advancement of their subject Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E 0.0

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

In terms of journals which will be read by the respondent’s peers (Figure 19) the Physical Review of letters (5.0) scored highly, while Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) scored lowly.

Figure 19: Ranking of various physics journals by whether they are read by respondent’s peers

22


3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

The journal thought to be cited most was (Figure 20) the Physical Review of Letters (5.0), while the Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) were not thought to attract citations. Figure 20: Ranking of various physics journals by whether they will be cited by respondent’s peers Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E 0.0

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

In terms of journal Impact Factor (Figure 21) the Physical Review of Letters (5.0) was rated most highly, while Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) scored poorly.

Figure 21: Ranking of various physics journals by respondent’s perception of their impact factor

23

3.0


2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

As regards enhancing an author’s profile (Figure 22) the Physical Review of Letters (5.0) was thought to do the best job while Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) the worst job. Figure 22: Ranking of various physics journals by whether respondent’s profile would be enhanced if they published in it Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E 0.0

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

In terms of publishing research that was thought exciting (Figure 23) the Physical Review of Letters (5.0) scored most highly while Journal of Physics G (1.0), Physical Review C (1.0) and Physica C (1.0) scored worst. The Physical Review of Letters scored very highly on all metrics; it is clearly the top journal.

24

Figure 23: Ranking of various physics journals by whether respondent thought it published exciting research Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Publishing practices Where authors published Physicists were asked if they had published in the above named journals and Figure 24 gives the percentage saying yes. The three journals most popular journals were Physical Review B (13.6), Physical Review E (13.6) and Physical Review of Letters (13.6). Journals in which respondents published least were the Journal of Physics G (0), Journal of Physics D (1.5) and Physical Review A (1.5). Figure 24: whether respondent had published in various physics journals (%) Journal of Physic s A Journal of Physic s B Journal of Physic s C Journal of Physic s D Journal of Physic s G Physical Review A Physical Review B Physical Review C Physical Review D Physical Review E Physical Review Lett Journal of Applied P Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Math Physics Applied Physics Lett Europhysics Letters Physica A Physica B Physica C Physica D Physica E 0.0

9.1 3.0 10.6 1.5 1.5 13.6 4.5 13.6 7.6 13.6 6.1 7.6 3.0 7.6 6.1 10.6 6.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Incl. missing values

Respondents were also asked where they had published their last paper and were given a list 34 journals to choose from (Figure 25). Just under a third (31%) had 25

not published in any of the 34 titles, suggesting perhaps publication distribution is not what is envisaged and wider than originally thought. Of the 34 journals 8% of respondents had published their last paper in Astrophysical Journal, 7% in Physical Review Letters and 6% in Physical Review D. Not a lot of bunching here. Figure 25: journal in which respondents published their last paper (%) 4

Jrnl of Physics A Ma Jrnl of Physics B At Jrnl of Physics Cond Jrnl of Physics D Ap Physical Review A At Physical Review B Co Physical Review C Nu Physical Review D Pa Physical Review E St Physical Review Lett Jrnl of Applied Phys Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Mathematical Applied Physics Lett Europhysics L etters Physica A Statistica Physica B Condensed Physica D Nonlinear Physica E Low-dimens Astronomical Jrnl Astronomy & Astrophy Astrophysical Jrnl Incarus Jrnl of Geophysical Advances in Space Re Classical & Quantum Atmospheric Envionme Geophysical Research IEEE Transaction International Jrnl o Monthly Notices of t MNRAS Physics Letters A Physics Letters B Others

4 6 7

4

8

31 0

10

20

30

40

Reasons for publishing in last journal Authors were asked to say what their main reason(s) was for publishing in the journal in which they last published. Respondents were offered 22 possible reasons with the option of saying if this was a reason (Yes) or not a reason (No). Figure 26 lists the 22 reasons and the percentage of respondents saying yes for each reason. For many authors choice was a complicated and personal matter as evidenced by these quotes: 1) “Previous articles on similar research were published in that journal. The choice for that journal was because of the relatively fast refereeing process, the established reputation of the journal, and the desire on the part of the second author to try something different”; 2) “We obtain professional peering and fast response from referees and editor, making the submission a good experience. In other journals we have tried, we felt a kind of reluctance to publish our work.” The main reason for selecting the last journal in which authors published was that that journal covered their area of interest: just under two-thirds (29.2%) of respondents said this. The following comment was indicative: “I felt that the particular subject of that work could be of interest to colleagues working in statistical physics as well as in mathematical physics, which conforms to the audience of this particular journal”. Other important factors, albeit some way behind, were prompt publication (13.8%), worldwide readership (13.8%) and high 26

impact factor (13.4%). It’s interesting to note that impact factor is only the fourth priority. Refereeing (6.1%), while not highly significant in numerical terms, certainly generated a good deal of personal ire: “I would like to seize the opportunity here to add that indeed, my most recent manuscript was submitted to PRL but it took three months for the referee report to come back and even after all that time it was not a really deep and useful report”. The least important factors were an American audience and IOP publishing, the latter suggesting perhaps something about the IOP brand or maybe its coverage. Figure 26: Main reason given for selecting journal in which to publish respondent’s last paper (%) Quality/Interesting High Impact factor Good reputation Worldwide readership Covers my area of re Read by my peers Suitable place to pu Prompt public ation Good refereeing publ Free/Cheap Online journal/websi Electronic submissio Has/would publish ar Recommendation Appropriate for leng Special issue Conference proceedin Devoted to space/sol Best Astronomy/Astro IOP Publishing European coverage Americ an audience Other answers Don't know Not stated 0.0

8.6 13.4 10.4 13.8 29.2 4.8 7.9 13.8 6.1 4.6

8.8

4.4

4.8

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Incl. missing values

The following charts (Figures 27 to 31) show journal performance against each of the top five reasons for publishing in it. Figure 27 gives the results for high impact factor and this appears particularly important in the selection of Europhysics Letters, Physical Review Letters and Journal of Physics C in which to publish an article.

Figure 27: various physics journals by whether respondent cited high impact factor as main reason for choosing to publish in them (%)

27


High Impact factor Yes No 0

20

40

60

80

100

Good reputation (Figure 28) appears to be important in choosing Physica D, Classical and Quantum and Journal of Physics B and D in which to publish. Figure 28: various physics journals by whether respondent cited good reputation as main reason for choosing to publish in them (%) Jrnl of Physics A Ma Jrnl of Physics B At Jrnl of Physics Cond Jrnl of Physics D Ap Physical Review A At Physical Review B Co Physical Review C Nu Physical Review D Pa Physical Review E St Physical Review Lett Jrnl of Applied Phys Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Mathematical Applied Physics Lett Europhysics L etters Physica A Statistica Physica B Condensed Physica D Nonlinear Physica E Low-dimens Astronomical Jrnl Astronomy & Astrophy Astrophysical Jrnl Incarus Jrnl of Geophysical Advances in Space Re Classical & Quantum Atmospheric Envionme Geophysical Research IEEE Transaction International Jrnl o Monthly Notices of t MNRAS Physics Letters A Physics Letters B Others

Good reputation Yes No 0

20

40

60

80

100

With regard to worldwide readership (Figure 29) as an attractive attribute of a journal in which to publish, this seems important in the case of the Journal of Chemical Physics, Applied Physics Letters and Physical review A.

28

Figure 29: various physics journals by whether respondent cited worldwide readership as main reason for choosing to publish in them (%) Jrnl of Physics A Ma Jrnl of Physics B At Jrnl of Physics Cond Jrnl of Physics D Ap Physical Review A At Physical Review B Co Physical Review C Nu Physical Review D Pa Physical Review E St Physical Review Lett Jrnl of Applied Phys Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Mathematical Applied Physics Lett Europhysics L etters Physica A Statistica Physica B Condensed Physica D Nonlinear Physica E Low-dimens Astronomical Jrnl Astronomy & Astrophy Astrophysical Jrnl Incarus Jrnl of Geophysical Advances in Space Re Classical & Quantum Atmospheric Envionme Geophysical Research IEEE Transaction International Jrnl o Monthly Notices of t MNRAS Physics Letters A Physics Letters B Others

Worldwide readers Yes No 0

20

40

60

80

100

The fact that a journal covered their area of research was the most important reason for given by respondents for publishing in the Astronomical Journal, Journal of Physics D and Monthly Notices (Figure 30). Prompt publication was important for authors in selecting Physica B, Physics Letters B and A to publish in (Figure 31).

Figure 30: various physics journals by whether respondent cited covers their area of research as main reason for choosing to publish in them (%)

29


Covers my area Yes No 100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 31: various physics journals by whether respondent cited prompt publication as main reason for choosing to publish in them(%) Jrnl of Physics A Ma Jrnl of Physics B At Jrnl of Physics Cond Jrnl of Physics D Ap Physical Review A At Physical Review B Co Physical Review C Nu Physical Review D Pa Physical Review E St Physical Review Lett Jrnl of Applied Phys Jrnl of Chemical Phy Jrnl of Mathematical Applied Physics Lett Europhysics L etters Physica A Statistica Physica B Condensed Physica D Nonlinear Physica E Low-dimens Astronomical Jrnl Astronomy & Astrophy Astrophysical Jrnl Incarus Jrnl of Geophysical Advances in Space Re Classical & Quantum Atmospheric Envionme Geophysical Research IEEE Transaction International Jrnl o Monthly Notices of t MNRAS Physics Letters A Physics Letters B Others

Prompt publication Yes No 0

20

40

60

80

100

Physicists v other subject communities (PA study comparison)

30

In the PA study authors were asked a similar question (“How attractive or unattractive to you were the following factors when deciding to publish in the last journal published”) and a comparison was made between physicists and other subject communities. The factors included: speed of refereeing; standing of the editorial board; Impact Factor; price of the journal; size of readership; right kind of readership; available in an electronic version; available in hard copy; easy to get accepted and coverage by abstracting services. In a comparison physicists’ responses differed over speed of refereeing, the right kind of readership and available electronically. With regard to speed of refereeing (Figure 32) physicists were more likely to say that this was a quite attractive factor; 55% said this compared to 46% of other subject groupings. Figure 32: Speed of referencing as a positive factor in choosing a journal in which to publish: physicists vs. other subject groups (PA Study)

55

Physics & astronomy

32

Figure 33: Readership size as a positive factor in choosing a journal in which to publish: physicists vs. other subject groups (PA Study)

36

Physics & astronomy

55

Readership size

Speed of refereeing Other subject groups

46

38

Other subject groups

Very Attractive

46

44

Very Attractive

Quite Attractive

Quite Attractive

Quite Unattractiv e

Quite Unattractiv e Very Unattractive

Very Unattractive 0

20

40

60

80

0

100

Chi=9.1 3df p=.028

20

40

60

80

100

Chi=14.5 3df p=.002

Physicists were more likely to say that readership size was a very attractive factor for publishing in a journal, 55% said this compared to 46% of other subjects (Figure 33). Physicists were further more likely to say that the availability of the journal in an electronic format was a very attractive factor for publishing in a journal, 62% said this compared to 50% of other subject groupings (Figure 34).

31

Figure 34: Electronic version as a positive factor to publish: physicists vs. other subjects– PA study

30

Physics & astronomy

62

Electronic version Other subject groups

36

50

Very Attractive Quite Attractive Quite Unattractiv e Very Unattractive

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chi=18.6 3df p=.000

Attraction of publishing in key IoPP journals – PA study Respondents in the PA study were asked which journal they last published in. The following analysis picks out the responses of those publishing in the Journal of Physics, Physical review and Physica. Respondents were asked what factors they found attractive/unattractive in publishing in that journal. The options were speed of referencing, standing of the editorial board, impact factor, the price of journal, size of readership, the right kind of readership, availability in an electronic version or hard copy version, ease of acceptance and coverage by abstracting services. Responses for the three journals (Journal of Physics, Physical Review and Physica) were compared over each of the attractive/unattractive reasons for deciding to publish in them. The two factors found to be really significant were impact factor and size of readership. In terms of Impact factor the Journal of Physics recorded the lowest “very attractive” score, 14% said that the Journal of Physics was attractive by this factor compared to 67% scored by the Physical Review and 32% scored by Physica (Figure 35). Though once responses of “quite attractive” are included the score for the Journal of Physics increased to 93% higher, than the score attributed to Physica (77%) but lower than the Physical Review (96%). In terms of readership size the Journal of Physics recorded the second highest “very attractive” score, 43% said that the Journal of Physics was attractive by this factor compared to 69% for the Physical Review and 38% for Physica. However, 14% thought that the Journal of Physics’ readership size was quite unattractive.

32

Figure 35: Impact factor as an attractive factor in choosing to publish in either the Journal of Physics, Physical Review or Physica

Jrnl of Physic s

79

Physical Review

14

29

67

Impact factor Very Attractive 23

Physica

45

32 Quite Attractive Quite Unattractiv e Very Unattractive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

F= 7.5 df=2,106 p=.001

Figure 36: Readership size as an attractive factor in choosing to publish in either the Journal of Physics, Physical Review or Physica. E

Jrnl of Physic s

79

Physical Review

29

14

67

Impact factor Very Attractive 23

Physica

45

32 Quite Attractive Quite Unattractiv e Very Unattractive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

F= 7.5 df=2,106 p=.001

Demographics of authors publishing in key IoPP titles – PA study There is a marked difference between the age profiles of authorship as evidenced by the journal in which they published (Figure 37). Physica attracts a youngish author – nearly a third were under 35, whereas the figure for Journal of Physics was just half that, 16%. Interestingly, the age profile of Physic is very balanced, as they also boast the highest proportion of authors aged over 55.

33

Figure 37: Age of authors last publishing an article in Journal of Physics, Physical Review and Physica 100

21

13

24

90 23 80 21

24

70 38

60 42 50

20

40

Age

30

32

Over 55

26

20

46-55 16

10

36-45

0

Under 35 Jrnl of Physic s

Physical Review

Physica

There were also clear differences between the geographical spread of authors amongst the three journals (Figure 38). Physica attracted larger proportions of Western European and Asian authors and Physical Review was patently the favourite of Americans. Journal of Physics was particularly attractive to Eastern European authors. Figure 38: Geographical location of authors last publishing an article in Journal of Physics, Physical Review and Physica 6 Africa 22 Asia

16 31

Australasia 22 Eastern Europe

13 15 11

North America

25 8 6

South Americ a Jrnl of Physic s 33 Western Europe

36

Physical Review 42 Physica

0

10

20

30

40

50

34

Target readership - PA study comparison In the PA study authors were asked to what extent they hoped that there last article would be read by the following groups of readers: researchers in your own specialty; researchers in other areas; those involved in teaching and learning; your funding body; policy makers/opinion formers and the general public. Physicists were different to other communities in that they were less interested in being read by those people involved in teaching and learning, funding bodies, policy makers/opinion formers and the general public. It is not clear whether this is a case of insularity or just the highly specialised nature of their material. Only 36% of physicists agreed either strongly or a little that they would like to be read by teachers compared to 61% of other subject groupings (Figure 39a). Figure 39a: Teachers as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subjects – PA Study

14

Physics & astronomy

35

27

Figure 39b: Funding body as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subjects – PA Study

17

Physics & astronomy

28

27

20

Teachers

Your funding body

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree A Little Other subject groups

27

32

Agree A Little

29


Neither Agree Nor Di

31

26

24 Neither Agree Nor Di

sagree

sagree Disagree A Little

Disagree A Little Strongly Dis agree 0

20

40

60

80

Strongly Dis agree

100

0

Chi= 78.0 4df p=.000

Chi=12.4

20

40

60

80

100

4df p=0.14

Seventeen percent of physicists strongly disagreed that they would like to be read by their funding body while only about 10% of other subject groupings strongly disagreed (Figure 39b). Twenty-seven percent of physicists strongly disagreed that they would like to be read by policy makers compared to about 13% for the other subject groupings (Figure 40). Figure 40: Policy makers as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subjects – PA Study

35

Figure 41: General public as a targeted readership group: Physicists Vs other subjects – PA Study

27

Physics & astronomy

16

32

15

46

Physics & astronomy

31

Policy makers/opinio

The general public

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree A Little Other subject groups

13

30

25

Agree A Little

21


Neither Agree Nor Di

33

15

31

16 Neither Agree Nor Di

sagree

sagree

Disagree A Little

Disagree A Little

Strongly Dis agree 0

20

40

60

80

Strongly Dis agree

100

0

Chi= 72.3 4df p=.000

Chi=25.6

20

40

60

80

100

4df p=.000

Forty-six percent of physicists strongly disagreed that they would like to be read by the general public compared to about 33% for other subject groupings (Figure 41). Refereeing Authors were asked if they had refereed for any of the aforementioned journals and the following figure (42) gives the percentage saying yes for each of the named journals. The Physical Review of Letters (19.7%) recorded the highest percentage by some margin, followed by the Journal of Physics A. Journals recording few respondents who were referees were Journal of Physics B (