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