Re: Impact on publication of monographs (Heinrich C. Kuhn)
Marcia Tuttle 11 Jul 1996 15:39 UTC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:44:10 GMT+2
From: Heinrich C. Kuhn <hck@IPP-GARCHING.MPG.DE>
Subject: Re: Impact on publication of monographs (Albert Henderson)
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thanks for your kind reply via SERIALST! Though my answer to it is
(again) more about monographs than about serials I send it to SERIALIST as
well, as some of the points addressed (especially those concerning
different abstracting habits...) are probably relevant to questions about
serials as well.
> In "Growth and change of the world's chemical literature as reflected in
> Chemical Abstracts," (PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 10,4:38-46, 1994/95) Edward
> P. Donnell provides detailed statistics of paper, patents, and books covered.
> The numbers of papers and patents have risen constantly. The numbers of books
> rose until 1978 with 7804 titles abstracted; then it fell with the last year,
> 1993, showing 3261 titles. In a telephone interview, Donnell confirmed to me
> that there was no change in editorial policy that might have caused this
> phenomenon.
I promise that I'll try to have a look at that paper one of the next days
(especially to see whether there's any indication as to whether the
numbers reported might be due to a decrease in inclination to abstract
monographs on the side of the CAS).
I tried a similar search for "books" in INSPEC (Physics and the like). And
I was a bit surprised. So I made a similiar search for part of the years
in INSPHYS, a database, that contains the records that were part of PHYS
(the deceased competitor-database to INSPEC) and that have *no*
corresponding record in INSPEC. In the column "B INSPEC" you find the
books listed in INSPEC, in "B INSPHYS" the ones listed in INSPHYS and in
"B BOTH" the books listed in either of the two databases (no duplicates!).
The "YEAR" is the publication year, *not* the entry year. The picture you
get is the following:
YEAR B INSPEC B INSPHYS B BOTH (1985-94)
1970 954
1971 1153
1972 929
1973 806
1974 907
1975 716
1976 988
1977 1082
1978 1348
1979 1336
1980 1341
1981 1255
1982 1086
1983 1342
1984 1312
1985 925 7369 8294
1986 998 7168 8166
1987 1234 8093 9327
1988 963 11073 12036
1989 973 10712 11685
1990 885 13135 14020
1991 807 12441 13248
1992 550 9078 9628
1993 553 4770 5323
1994 218 1936 2154
1995 143
Short interpretation: If you look at INSPEC only there is no serious
decrease apparent till 1991 (incl.) Then in INSPEC there is a *very*
significant decrease, especially from 1994 onwards. In INSPHYS the
decrease happenes *a whole year later*. This might very well reflect that
the decreasing numbers of monographs abstracted are at least to a
considerable part due to changed abstracting habits and policies instead
of a sharp decrease in publication itself. Besides: if you take the last
INSPEC-Numbers (1991-1995): a decrease by more than 80% in the publication
of monographs in a mere 5-years-period without any major war (which we
haven't heard about...) as a cause is - to say the least - *very* counter
intuitive.
Consequence: interesting as the numbers of documents of a certain type
abstracted in certain databases are indeed: it might be sensible to be
rather cautious when trying to infer from them informations about the
total number of publications in a certain field. A change in numbers of
documents abstracted is just this: a change in documents abstracted and
may very well not *only* (and in some cases not even for the most part!)
be dependent on changes in the amount of relative publications in a
certain field.
Hoping to read again about you and other persons' views on these subjects
Heinrich C. Kuhn
*************************************************************
* Dr. Heinrich C. Kuhn Max-Planck-Gesellschaft /GV IIb3
* Postfach 101062 (P.B.) Koeniginstr. 19 (street)
* D-80084 Muenchen (P.B.) D-80539 Muenchen (street addr.)
*
* eMail:
* hck@ipp-garching.mpg.de or
* kuhn@mpg-gv.mpg.de
*
* voice: +49-89-2108 1563 Fax: +49-89-2108 1565