↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Evaluating big deal journal bundles

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
60 news outlets
blogs
28 blogs
twitter
266 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
18 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
12 CiteULike
Title
Evaluating big deal journal bundles
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1403006111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodore C. Bergstrom, Paul N. Courant, R. Preston McAfee, Michael A. Williams

Abstract

Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing, librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that they publish.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 266 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 25 11%
Germany 7 3%
Netherlands 5 2%
Canada 5 2%
Spain 5 2%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Brazil 3 1%
Finland 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 157 69%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 73 32%
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Other 25 11%
Student > Master 16 7%
Other 52 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 62 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 16%
Computer Science 29 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 7%
Other 70 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 850. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,895
of 11,498,490 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#157
of 75,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53
of 177,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#9
of 919 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,498,490 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 919 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.