↓ Skip to main content

Journal subscription costs - FOIs to UK universities

Overview of attention for research output published on figshare, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 20,018)
  • 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
1 news outlet
blogs
8 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
677 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
Journal subscription costs - FOIs to UK universities
Published on
figshare, September 2014
DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.1186832
Authors

Stuart Lawson, Ben Meghreblian, Stuart, Lawson, Ben, Meghreblian, Michelle, Brook, Michelle Brook, Lawson, Stuart, Meghreblian, Ben, Brook, Michelle

Abstract

This dataset contains the amount of money paid by UK higher education institutions to ten major publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Sage, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Nature Publishing Group, Royal Society of Chemistry, and Institute of Physics Publishing) for academic journals from 2010-14. The data was obtained by sending FOI requests to each institution through the website whatdotheyknow.com. It now represents over £430m of expenditure. These are ten of the largest academic publishers but do not represent the total spend of these institutions on academic journals. Please see the F1000 data note (http://f1000research.com/articles/3-274/v3) for a full description of the data collection process. For a visualisation of the data go to http://shiny.retr0.me/journal_costs/, and for updated 2015/16 figures go to https://figshare.com/articles/Journal_subscription_expenditure_in_the_UK_2015-16/4542433/3 UPDATE 08/10/2014: Added figures for 13 more institutions. UPDATE 22/10/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to Elsevier journals. Also includes additional figures for other publishers for 16 institutions. UPDATE 24/10/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to Elsevier journals for 13 more institutions. UPDATE 27/10/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to Elsevier journals for 5 more institutions. UPDATE 29/10/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to Elsevier journals for 25 more institutions. UPDATE 5/11/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to Elsevier journals for 14 more institutions. UPDATE 25/11/2014: Added figures for Wiley, Springer, and OUP for 20 Russell Group institutions from Michelle Brook's FOI data (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1250073) as well as further figures for around 20 other institutions. UPDATE 03/12/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to various publishers for 13 institutions. UPDATE 09/12/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to various publishers for 15 institutions. UPDATE 23/12/2014: Added figures for subscriptions to various publishers for 12 institutions. Note on the data 16/01/2015: It has been brought to my attention that the way I have added VAT to some figures may not be 100% accurate. I have added VAT to those figures for which it was not provided (a minority), but since VAT is only applied to electronic and not print publications in the UK, the figures I have added may not be completely accurate. Electronic subscriptions make up the majority of journal expenditure now but not all of it. Please bear this is mind when directly comparing different institutions' figures. I will see revisit the data at some point to see if I can rectify the problem. UPDATE 22/01/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to various publishers for 16 institutions. UPDATE 20/03/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to various publishers for 16 institutions. I have also removed the VAT (17.5% in 2010, 20% in 2011-14) which I had previously added to those figures which excluded VAT. This is to address the issue raised above - in the UK, VAT is only charged on electronic publications and not print. Since I don't know which proportion of the expenditure is on print and which is on electronic, I have decided not to add VAT. This may not make the figures more accurate but at least I can be sure that I am not inflating them. The total is now around £5m lower than before. UPDATE 05/06/2015: Data for three more publishers added (NPG, RSC, and IOP) for 70 institutions. Added figures for various other publishers for three institutions. UPDATES 10/06/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to NPG, RSC, and IOP for 17 institutions. Fixed two formatting errors as noted by D. Himmelstein in the comments. UPDATE 12/06/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to NPG, RSC, and IOP for 20 institutions. UPDATE 17/06/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to NPG, RSC, and IOP for 27 institutions. UPDATE 29/06/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to NPG, RSC, and IOP for 7 institutions. UPDATE 29/07/2015: Added figures for subscriptions to NPG, RSC, and IOP for 5 institutions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 677 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 520. 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 23 October 2020.
All research outputs
#24,505
of 17,155,918 outputs
Outputs from figshare
#3
of 20,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249
of 216,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from figshare
#1
of 469 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,155,918 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 20,018 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 216,045 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 469 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.