The number and the growth characteristics of scholarly journals have been matters of some debate for a considerable time. Many assumptions about the future of the scholarly communication system have been predicated on very high estimates of the number of journal titles and their seemingly inexorable growth. This article argues in favour of a novel approach to estimating journal numbers and provides results that are consistent with other lines of enquiry. An analysis of the results also allows a model of journal growth to be developed that matches other statistical observations.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractThe fundamental asymmetries of the journal system are reviewed and an examination is made of the differences between author and reader behaviour at both a quantitative and a qualitative level. Author productivity and so-called``salami-style'' publishing practices are examined. An estimate of global author numbers is made. Reader and readership studies combined with bibliometric analysis allow the proposal of a means of estimating reading rates of journals. Electronic accessThe research register for this journal is available at

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to understand how the migration from the print world to the electronic environment has affected the motivations, attitudes and behaviours of researchers in scholarly communication. Design/methodology/approach -The paper takes the form of an investigation that is both quantitative and qualitative. The study was split into three phases: understand the issues affecting researchers (focus groups and interviews); an online survey of 6,344 researchers measuring attitudes and digging deeper into issues: telephone interviews to understand differences between different groups change. Differences in opinions were examined across discipline. Findings -While there has been some change in the behaviour of researchers, there has been little change in their motivations for publication. Researchers want other researchers' data but are less inclined to share their own. Researcher attitudes towards repositories are very mixed. Researchers highly value peer review. The pressure to over-publish at the expense of quality is exaggerated. Research limitations/implications -Further research is required to measure the impact on researcher motivations and attitudes of external pressures that were emerging at the time of this study. This includes the growing influence of funding bodies, the economic downturn and its impact on institutional budgets, as well as subsequent advances in the digital revolution. Practical implications -This research suggests that, while technology may have positively impacted the efficiency of scholarly communication, the drivers behind scholarly information exchange remain relatively unchanged. Moreover, changes to the scholarly information business model will only be successful if they continue to satisfy the underlying motivations and needs of researchers. Originality/value -This paper fulfils an identified need to measure the motivations of researchers towards the core functions of scholarly communication on a global level.