1. Forum on the Dynamics of Science Publishing
Innovation in the editorial process Perspectives from Elsevier journal publishing
Forum on the Dynamics of Science Publishing
Cornell, 9 October 2008
Friso Veenstra
Publisher, Earth & Planetary Sciences
Elsevier S&T

2. A long history of science publishing
The Publishing House of Elzevir was first established in 1580 by Lowys (Louis) Elzevir at the University of Leiden, Holland
Galileo published his last work, “Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intoro a due nuoue scienze“ with Elzevir – despite being banned by the Inquisition – which is recognized as the first important work of modern physics
Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by Lowys Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modern Elsevier Company in 1880

3. Current article share Share of journal articles published
Our scientific disciplines
Environmental sciences
Earth sciences
26%
Others
Social sciences
Elsevier
Life sciences
26%
Maths & computer science
Others
Physics
Wiley-Blackwell
Health sciences
Chemistry & chemical engineering
APS
IOP
Springer
IEEE
AIP
ACS
Taylor & Francis
Materials science & engineering
Wolters Kluwer
Over 1 million English language research
articles published globally each year
~300,000 English language research
articles published with Elsevier today

4. Elsevier’s journal program today
Over 2,000 journals spread over two divisions; “Science & Technology” and “Health Sciences”
S&T Journals managed by 6 publishing groups, each specialising in a cluster of subject areas
Each publishing group contains a number of journal portfolios specific to a discipline/community, e.g., earth & planetary sciences. There are 46 journal portfolios in total
And I am responsible for journals in geochemistry, hydrology, atmospheric science, and planetary science ….

5. Elsevier journal publishing cycle
1,000 new editors per year
18 new journals per year
>600,000+ article submissions per year
Solicit and manage submissions
Manage peer review
Production
Publish and disseminate
Edit and prepare
Archive and promote
Organise editorial boards
Launch new specialist journals
500,000 referees
1 million referee reports per year
9 million articles available
40%-90% of articles rejected
7,000 editors
70,000 editorial board members
6.5 million author/publisher communications per year
10 million researchers
4,500+ institutions
180+ countries
> 400 million downloads per year in 2008
2.8 million print pages per year
300,000 new articles produced per year
180 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged

6. Overall ScienceDirect usage
Key facts:
>1 million downloads per day
2,200 journals
9 million articles
10 million scientists have access
>90% of STM scientists have access to >94% of Elsevier content

7. = Improved productivity
Scientists can now spend more time analyzing information than gathering it
58%
42%
48%
52%
55%
45%
56%
44%
54%
46%
51%
49%
47%
53%
Fin/HR/Legal
Sic/Eng
Mfg/Purch
Total IT
Sales/Mktg
Compared to print-only era
Scientists now read 25%+ more articles per year
Scientists now read from almost twice as many journals
Time Spent Gathering
Time Spent
Analyzing
Source: Outsell’s Buyer Market Database, Dr Carol Tenopir

8. From a journal publishing perspective
Peer review
support
Focus on the author
Journals, editors, reviewers, etc. are “tools” to
satisfy key author needs:
priority, certification of research,
continuation of funding and employment,
recognition and career
Reviewer
Editor
Relationship
management
Author
Publisher
Author
focus
validation
paper
distribution
Brand
management
journal
The author remains constant
Research
Output
branding/ certification
data
etc.

9. Supporting the peer review process
Online submission, peer review and editorial support
2,500 new manuscripts per day; all areas of science
24/7 support; 1-2 new releases per year
Accessible to > 99% of scientists worldwide
Faster and more efficient peer review process for editors and also for reviewers
Final decision much faster: from 26 to 17 weeks!
Reviewing times
go down by 50%
- /- 50%
Editors handle
20 – 30% more
papers in the
same amount
of time %

10. Feedback from authors…
91% feel it is easy to submit a manuscript (online)
90% is “very satisfied” with the journal they published in
90% feel that reasons supporting the final decisions from the editor are clear
85% feel that peer review improved the article
Source: Elsevier Academic Relations polling 165,000 authors

11. Future EES: further systems integration and personalization
“My Elsevier” – (working title) , built around the peer review process with relevant information prior, during, and after publication
A homepage for every individual editor, author, reviewer
Relevant information + access to EES + performance and status reports
Authors: article tracking + citation + usage reports of their articles
Reviewers: outstanding tasks + publication record + citation and usage information of articles reviewed
Support editors r
Support authors
Support reviewers

12. In conclusion: trends in tools and services supporting peer review
Enhancing authors output (linking, usage, additional article information, comments/rating) while testing the needs of readers is a basis of further innovation in scientific communication
Integrating information and tools for editors, reviewers and authors, based on their feedback
Expanding service development to authors and reviewers : from the point-of-submission or point-of-review, to before submission, after peer review and after publication
Service development to authors and reviewers becoming more personalized and more interactive
Elsevier continue to look for new ways to support the editorial and peer review process, involving editors, authors, reviewers and librarians

13. What will happen in academic publishing?
… there is stability in underlying fundamentals..
Large majority of authors feel that peer review remains important;
Current open peer review experiments get hardly any traction;
Authors get tremendous value and prestige from high quality brands like Science, Nature or Cell;
Lack of trust of information that is not validated;
Lack of trust in scientific communication based on opinions, such as blogs
While changes are spectacular…..
Scientific communication follows general changes in (internet) communication – perhaps just delayed
“Scientists need dissemination, not validation or derived reputation from publishing”
Some young / future scientists have no appreciation for the branding of scientific journals
Subscription model is replaced by search derived business models
People want answers, collaboration, discussion, interactivity 2.0

14. Thank you
Any questions?