CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Publishing and Scholarly CommunicationLibrary Science and InformationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Carol Tenopir and Donald King (1999) Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians and Publishers . Book review by Simon Buckingham Shum

Open access
Buckingham Shum, Simon·2000·Journal of Interactive Media in Education
DOI 10.5334/book-tenopir
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The quotes on this book's cover from eminent figures do indeed reflect its contribution as a compendium (488 pages) of facts, figures and analysis on the production and use of scholarly journals. King and Tenopir have been working in the field of scientific knowledge dissemination for many years (King's earliest listed reference going back to 1971), and bring a carefully weighed perspective on both paper and digital technologies for research dissemination. The subtitle, "Realities for Scientists, Librarians and Publishers" reflects their concern to represent the interests of all the key stakeholders in the situation in which we now find ourselves. Moreover, their understanding of these concerns helps to explain the inertia of an industry which has evolved over 300 years from the first journals in order to satisfy the varied agendas that are in play today. They emphasise throughout that innovations in the process or product of scientific publishing will have to clearly prove their worth to be sustained in the long term. This may seem like stating the obvious, but amidst the charged, frictionless rhetoric of the internet and e-business, this is a welcome reality check. ISBN: 0871115077

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5334/book-tenopir

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • E-journals available on subscription-based publisher platforms with articles linked for subscribers from library-provided finding aids became the fastest growing sources of additional article readings throughout a twenty-year span from the mid-nineties.

    “E-journals that are available on a variety of subscription-based publisher platforms with articles linked for subscribers from library-provided finding aids (e.g., indexing and abstracting services) became the fastest growing sources of additional article readings throughout a twenty-year span from the mid-nineties [3,4].”

    From Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

    The book review’s discussion of Chapter 7 says journals are regularly read, and its discussion of Chapters 15–18 notes data on electronic publishing. Neither passage addresses subscription-platform links, library finding aids, or which sources of additional article readings grew fastest over twenty years. Searches for those terms and the claimed growth trend found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • As journals transitioned from print to e-journals, the role of the library as the main source of discovery and access grew.

    “As journals transitioned from print to e-journals, the role of the library as the main source of discovery and access grew.”

    From Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

    The book review discusses the shift from paper to electronic journals and mentions libraries as stakeholders. Its examples of library use and costs do not say that libraries grew in importance as the main source of journal discovery and access during that shift. Searches for that trend found no supporting passage in our copy; the passages have no section or page labels. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Buckingham Shum, S.
Venue
Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Publisher
Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
Published
2000-09-14
Volume
2000
Issue
4
Pages
4
ISSN
1365-893X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5334/book-tenopir
OpenAlex
W2140189097
Cited by
55
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Interactive Media in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Open University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
electronic journals, scholarly publishing, digital publishing, scientific knowledge dissemination, scientific journals, publishers, librarians, scientists, stakeholders, publishing industry, scholarly communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review