Re: Does More Mean More?

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I think scholars do tell us what they need. I've done a fair 
amount of reader research over the years, and it is never the 
case that scholars tell us "the more original research, the 
better."

For example, I once surveyed the readers of Diabetes Care with 
this question: "What percentage of pages do you feel should be 
devoted to each of the following five categories?" (answers are 
based on 474 responses to a survey that had a return rate of 
51.3%)

* Original peer-reviewed research 34.7%

* Articles analyzing and interpreting original research
   (editorials, commentary, etc.) 18.7%

* Artcles that illustrate problems in clinical care (case
   reports, clinical practice observations, etc.)  23.9%

* Position and consensus statements  12.7%

* News from scientific meetings 10.0%

The conclusion I draw from this and other research I've done is 
that scholars are drowning in information, and seeking tools to 
interpret and make use of it.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> sally.morris@alpsp.org 02/10/06 8:03 PM >>>

I do not believe that it is necessarily in the interests of 
scholars, who have a limited amount of time available for 
reading, that journals should inexorably increase in size. 
Reading a journal (as opposed to searching the literature) is, 
surely, helped by knowing that the editor has selected the 
'cream' (in terms of both quality and relevance) so that you can 
spend your limited reading time to best advantage

Of course, there's little point publishers and librarians
debating this - we need scholars to tell us!

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org