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

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.

[1]  Joseph C. Donohue Understanding scientific literatures : a bibliometric approach , 1973 .

[2]  A. Schubert,et al.  Scientometric Indicators: A 32-Century Comparative Evaluation of Publishing Performance and Citation Impact , 1985 .

[3]  R. Inglehart,et al.  Value Change in Global Perspective. , 1996 .

[4]  Eric Boutin,et al.  Evaluation of Internet Resources : Bibliometric Techniques Applications , 1999 .

[5]  R. Inglehart Islam, Gender, Culture, and Democracy , 2002 .

[6]  D. Dill,et al.  Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems , 2005 .

[7]  Nian Cai Liu,et al.  The world-class university and ranking : aiming beyond status , 2007 .

[8]  R. Braddock,et al.  International University Ranking Systems and the Idea of University Excellence , 2007 .

[9]  E. V. Vliet The Early State, the Polis and State Formation in Early Greece , 2008 .

[10]  Robyn Drummond,et al.  RIMS: The Research Impact Measurement Service at the University of New South Wales , 2009 .

[11]  Fletcher T. H. Cole,et al.  Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Iain D. Craig,et al.  Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study , 2010, Learn. Publ..

[13]  Ulrich Herb,et al.  How to assess the impact of an electronic document? And what does impact mean anyway?: Reliable usage statistics in heterogeneous repository communities , 2010, OCLC Syst. Serv..

[14]  M. Thelwall,et al.  Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields , 2010 .

[15]  Arno Tausch On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries , 2011 .

[16]  Stefan Gradmann,et al.  How to best assess monographs , 2011 .

[17]  J. Sahel Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[18]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Stephen J. Bensman The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Nicolás Robinson-García,et al.  Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index , 2012, Revista española de Documentación Científica.

[21]  Sarah S. Amsler,et al.  University ranking as social exclusion , 2012 .

[22]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings: The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Alesia A. Zuccala,et al.  Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings : scholarly use versus 'perceived cultural benefit' (RIP) , 2013 .

[24]  Daniel Torres-Salinas,et al.  Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[25]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Sven E. Hug,et al.  Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history , 2013 .

[27]  Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras,et al.  Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index , 2013, Scientometrics.

[28]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index , 2013, Online Inf. Rev..

[29]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  A machine‐learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  Rens Bod,et al.  Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Arno Tausch,et al.  Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse , 2015 .