Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results

Background

De Winter and Happee [1] examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that “selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective” (p.4).

Methods and Findings

Using their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.

Conclusion

Publishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.     

Meta‐analytic review of the effects of enrichment on stereotypic behavior in zoo mammals

This meta‐analysis reports the effect enrichment has on the occurrence of stereotypic behavior exhibited by captive zoo mammals. The analysis also identifies which types of enrichment are most effective, which groups of animals benefit the most, and which types of stereotypes are most affected by environmental enrichment. The analysis included 54 studies that yielded 63 effect size statistics. Fifty‐seven of sixty‐three effect sizes went in the predicted direction (90%), with the animals participating in less stereotypic behavior during the enrichment condition than in the baseline condition. The mean effect size (correlation coefficient r) was 0.46. The combined P‐value using both fixed and random effects methods was reveled to be <0.0000001. A file drawer N‐value was calculated to identify the number of unretrieved studies (with a combined effect size of zero) that would be needed to nullify the results of this analysis. The file drawer N‐value was 1,726, suggesting that it is highly unlikely that the significant results reported in this analysis are nullified by studies that remain in file drawers. Based on these results it was concluded that enrichment substantially reduces the frequency of stereotypic behavior exhibited by mammals living in zoo environments. Zoo Biol 0:1–21, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Deflection in center of gravity at the simulated operations of cabinet in the aged

The study projected a scenario where the aged handled home furniture in their daily lives. With the furniture designated at 5 different heights for task performance, different aspects of the center of gravity(CG) deflection in the young and the aged were investigated. The following points which should be considered were suggested; (1) The findings indicated that remarkable increases in CG deflection were detected in performing tasks on cabinet as age advanced. The age factor appeared to yield the major effect in all indices measured, whether the drawer was being drawn open or closed. (2) The major effects with age accompanied by significant mutual interactions between age and operation height were established when the drawer was drawn open. (3) In cases where the aged drew open the drawer, the LR deflections with reference to the CG were pronounced. When performing the task especially at greater heights, the deflections in the aged were enlarged, a tendency that was in contrast to the extended LR deflections (cf. at lower heights) in the young, contributing therefore to the increases in CG-DD and CG-DA, accordingly.     

The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power

The authors evaluate the quality of research reported in major journals in social-personality psychology by ranking those journals with respect to their N-pact Factors (NF)—the statistical power of the empirical studies they publish to detect typical effect sizes. Power is a particularly important attribute for evaluating research quality because, relative to studies that have low power, studies that have high power are more likely to (a) to provide accurate estimates of effects, (b) to produce literatures with low false positive rates, and (c) to lead to replicable findings. The authors show that the average sample size in social-personality research is 104 and that the power to detect the typical effect size in the field is approximately 50%. Moreover, they show that there is considerable variation among journals in sample sizes and power of the studies they publish, with some journals consistently publishing higher power studies than others. The authors hope that these rankings will be of use to authors who are choosing where to submit their best work, provide hiring and promotion committees with a superior way of quantifying journal quality, and encourage competition among journals to improve their NF rankings.     

“Reproducible” Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach

The nature of scientific research in mathematical and computational biology allows editors and reviewers to evaluate the findings of a scientific paper. Replication of a research study should be the minimum standard for judging its scientific claims and considering it for publication. This requires changes in the current peer review practice and a strict adoption of a replication policy similar to those adopted in experimental fields such as organic synthesis. In the future, the culture of replication can be easily adopted by publishing papers through dynamic computational notebooks combining formatted text, equations, computer algebra and computer code.     

On toxic effects of scientific journals

The advent of online publishing greatly facilitates the dissemination of scientific results. This revolution might have led to the untimely death of many traditional publishing companies, since today’s scientists are perfectly capable of writing, formatting and uploading files to appropriate websites that can be consulted by colleagues and the general public alike. They also have the intellectual resources to criticize each other and organize an anonymous peer review system. The Open Access approach appears promising in this respect, but we cannot ignore that it is fraught with editorial and economic problems. A few powerful publishing companies not only managed to survive, but also rake up considerable profits. Moreover, they succeeded in becoming influential ‘trendsetters’ since they decide which papers deserve to be published. To make money, one must set novel trends, like Christian Dior or Levi’s in fashion, and open new markets, for example in Asia. In doing so, the publishers tend to supplant both national and transnational funding agencies in defining science policy. In many cases, these agencies tend simply to adopt the commercial criteria defined by the journals, forever eager to improve their impact factors. It is not obvious that the publishers of scientific journals, the editorial boards that they appoint, or the people who sift through the vast numbers of papers submitted to a handful of ‘top’ journals are endowed with sufficient insight to set the trends of future science. It seems even less obvious that funding agencies should blindly follow the fashion trends set by the publishers. The perverse relationships between private publishers and public funding agencies may have a toxic effect on science policy.     

PUBLISHING IN THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES

A principal method of mastering the 'publication explosion' should be a more consistent structural differentiation of publishing, thus enabling a better channelling of information. Besides subject specialization, this can be achieved by clearer distinction between local, national, and international spheres of interest and between idiographic and nomothetic aspects of papers. The 'publication explosion' is a consequence of a corresponding increase in research, and quantitative curbing of publication should not be applied to such an extent that it affects the universal availability of scientific results. More stringent selection, however, would reduce the volume of primary publishing considerably. Training of authors in publishing techniques would greatly ease the burden of routine labour for editors. This, and the organization of scientific serials and articles to meet modern bibliographic-documentalistic needs, present problems calling for urgent solution at an international level.     

Conservative Tests under Satisficing Models of Publication Bias

Publication bias leads consumers of research to observe a selected sample of statistical estimates calculated by producers of research. We calculate critical values for statistical significance that could help to adjust after the fact for the distortions created by this selection effect, assuming that the only source of publication bias is file drawer bias. These adjusted critical values are easy to calculate and differ from unadjusted critical values by approximately 50%—rather than rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 2, the analysis suggests rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 3. Samples of published social science research indicate that on average, across research fields, approximately 30% of published t-statistics fall between the standard and adjusted cutoffs.     

Does the graft-tunnel friction influence knee joint kinematics and biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A finite element study

Graft tissues within bone tunnels remain mobile for a long time after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, whether the graft-tunnel friction affects the finite element (FE) simulation of the ACL reconstruction is still unclear. Four friction coefficients (from 0 to 0.3) were simulated in the ACL-reconstructed joint model as well as two loading levels of anterior tibial drawer. The graft-tunnel friction did not affect joint kinematics and the maximal principal strain of the graft. By contrast, both the relative graft-tunnel motion and equivalent strain for the bone tunnels were altered, which corresponded to different processes of graft-tunnel integration and bone remodeling, respectively. It implies that the graft-tunnel friction should be defined properly for studying the graft-tunnel integration or bone remodeling after ACL reconstruction using numerical simulation.     

Replicating empirical research in behavioral ecology: how and why it should be done but rarely ever is

That empirical evidence is replicable is the foundation of science. Ronald Fisher a founding father of biostatistics, recommended that a null hypothesis be rejected more than once because "no isolated experiment, however significant in itself can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon" (Fisher 1974:14). Despite this demand, animal behaviorists and behavioral ecologists seldom replicate studies. This practice is not part of our scientific culture, as it is in chemistry or physics, due to a number of factors, including a general disdain by journal editors and thesis committees for unoriginal work. I outline why and how we should replicate empirical studies, which studies should be given priority, and then elaborate on why we do not engage in this necessary endeavor. I also explain how to employ various statistics to test the replicability of a series of studies and illustrate these using published studies from the literature.     

Editor's column: Synoptic publishing

The future of the paper-based scientific journal seems to lie in synoptic publishing. Synoptic publishing is a system the chief components of which are the synoptic article and the back-up structure. The synoptic article is not new in essence - for many decades there has been development towards greater selectivity of material within articles and towards synoptic expression. The back-up structure, however, has not been developed to any appreciable extent. There are examples of back-up structures in the form of special microfiche serials distributed among libraries and of full texts in miniprint appended to the synoptic article. Adequate full-text depositories ('open files'), however, are poorly developed and can be instituted only upon agreement far above the level of ordinary research institutions. The back-up material, largely camera-ready copy, needs strict editing as early as the author's level. Acceptance for deposition should follow the norms of acceptance for publication, with the assistance of referees.     

More topics from the tropics: additional thoughts to Mammides et al.

Most studies on tropical conservation questions are conducted by researchers of developed countries from the north. This geographic disconnection was recently criticised by Mammides et al. Here, we reflect on their findings and add further views from scientist’s and journal editor’s perspectives. We argue that journals are, a priori, most strongly interested in research questions and approaches that will likely increase their scientific impact and prestige. This is rarely compatible with publishing articles on questions with restricted global impact or based on single taxa. We question whether small changes in the editorial policy of international conservation journals will considerably improve the geographic diversity in key conservation publications. Rather, thematic scopes of the leading conservation journals should be modified, preferably in close collaboration with leading conservationists from the south. We are convinced that long-term investments in the tropics will create a stronger local scientific community, thus bolstering academic morale, and finally may lead to an increase in the submission and acceptance rate of articles written from scientists from these regions.     

On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes

We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the meta-analytic approach to estimating the effect of a new treatment on a true clinical outcome measure, T, from the effect of treatment on a surrogate response, S. The meta-analytic approach (see Daniels and Hughes (1997) 16, 1965-1982) uses data from a series of previous studies of interventions similar to the new treatment. The data are used to estimate relationships between summary measures of treatment effects on T and S that can be used to infer the magnitude of the effect of the new treatment on T from its effects on S. We extend the class of models to cover a broad range of applications in which the parameters define features of the marginal distribution of (T, S). We present a new bootstrap procedure to allow for the variability in estimating the distribution that governs the between-study variation. Ignoring this variability can lead to confidence intervals that are much too narrow. The meta-analytic approach relies on quite different data and assumptions than procedures that depend, for example, on the conditional independence, at the individual level, of treatment and T, given S (see Prentice (1989) 8, 431-440). Meta-analytic calculations in this paper can be used to determine whether a new study, based only on S, will yield estimates of the treatment effect on T that are precise enough to be useful. Compared to direct measurement on T, the meta-analytic approach has a number of limitations, including likely serious loss of precision and difficulties in defining the class of previous studies to be used to predict the effects on T for a new intervention.     

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival

Background

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.

Discussion

Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time when biodiversity studies are of critical importance. Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISI^SM.

Summary

The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.     

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

ABSTRACT: Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users -- people and machines -- of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.     

It Is Time to Re‐Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research

Problems in peer review, the backbone of maintaining high standards in scientific publishing, have led to wide spread discontent within the scientific community. Training in the peer review process and a simpler format to assist in decision making are possible courses to improve and expedite the process of peer review and scientific publishing.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

Estimating number of events from the Kaplan-Meier curve for incorporation in a literature-based meta-analysis: what you don't see you can't get!

In literature-based meta-analyses of time-to-event data, the number of events in the treated and control groups together with the total number of patients randomized to the two treatment arms are often used as summary statistics. If interest is in mortality at a specified moment in time, the number of events can, in most cases, only be obtained from the Kaplan-Meier curve. The estimated number of events, however, is typically larger than the true number of events. The effect of this overestimation on the Mantel-Haenszel test and the odds ratio is studied in this paper. From these results, it can be concluded that the number of events should not be estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves for meta-analytic purposes unless virtually no patients are lost to follow-up or censored and there are still many patients at risk in the two groups at the time at which the number of events is to be determined.     

The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.