RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

["Margaret Landesman" <margaret.landesman@utah.edu>]

I have been trying to think of an analogy.

Suppose I have a friend who has a chronic disease - one not 
necessarily, but sometimes, fatal in the long run.  And my 
friends' company has downsized. His job is now half-time, which 
he can ill afford.

I'm downtown shopping - crossing the street across the TRAX lines 
- and run into said friend and start to chat.

TRAX trains come every few minutes - there've been fatalities - 
pedestrians trying to outrun the train.  To discourage this, 
jaywalking is a $200 ticket and a policeman is eying us from the 
sidewalk.

The number of seconds on the 'Walk' sign is clicking down....and 
the large flashing 'Train Coming' comes on.  The policeman, who 
had started in our direction, is covering his eyes...

All my friend will talk about is his disease.

Margaret Landesman
Possibly more frustrated than puzzled
Head, Collection Development  (for many, many years)
Marriott Library
University of Utah

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Goodman
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:59 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

Perhaps an example will clarify: Consider the American Journal of 
Physiology. generally considered the highest perceived journal in 
its subject, published by the American Physiological Society, 
with over 10,500 members.

Before discussing the numbers for those who might want to 
subscribe though only a portion of the articles are available 
online, let us look at the desired goal of all Open Access plans: 
where 100% of its content will be open access online. Then:

For all subscribers, the number who might want subscriptions will 
then be limited to those who want them in print. For individual 
subscribers, this might include:

1/academic specialists, who want paper for intensive use for 
themselves or their research group. Since almost all such people 
are members, who currently receive the entire journal free 
online, this should equal the number who now subscribe to a 
section in print-- at the 2007 discounted domestic rate of 
between $105 and $350 per section according to size. The 
publishers will know the number.

2/clinician subscribers who are not members, who may want to 
display the print journal to the public (as an implied 
certificate that they keep up with the literature) -- this not 
being a clinical journal, there are probably few who will want to 
do this, but if they want print now, they will want print later.

3/possibly a few others who are not members and yet want a 
personal copy of a section; these might include those with no 
current library access. Those who only want online will no longer 
need to subscribe, so the number that would will be those who 
currently buy both print and online plus some portion of those 
who currently buy print only.  The publisher will know the 
numbers--they might be very small.

while for library subscribers:

4/ The few libraries that are a national resource in biomedicine 
and thus responsible for guaranteeing access, might justifiable 
subscribe, but I can not think of any good reason for any other 
library to subscribe. However, many libraries think they have 
archival responsibility, and will irrationally subscribe for just 
that reason.

The number who think they are will be some fraction of those who 
now pay the 22% surcharge for print as well as electronic.  The 
publisher knows the maximum, but there is no saying how many are 
irrational. (It depends on both the library and the faculty--and 
the willingness of the university to support it.) It is difficult 
to predict the degree of irrationality.  Irrational answer to 
questionnaires will not necessarily mean similarly irrational 
action. Only one of the library, or faculty, or university 
funders need be rational enough to prevent subscribing where 
subscriptions are not needed. However, to the extent that it is a 
matter of self- preceived prestige, they may all share that 
perception.

Add it up.  Considering the production charge for print, and even 
including advertising and only minor sources of income, I doubt 
it would yield enough revenue.

For a clinical research journal in a specialty, such as Diabetes 
Care (and probably Diabetes) the efffect of continuing individual 
print subscriptions, and advertising, might be much higher.

To be continued tomorrow, respecting partial Open Access coverage.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Frank <MFrank@The-APS.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:24 pm
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> Margaret,
>
> I am curious what you mean about partnering with publishers.  I have
> always viewed society journals as part of the academy because of our
> relationship with the faculty as authors, editors and reviewers.  It
> is for that reason that most society journals are bargains when
> assessed on cost per page, cost per citation, etc.  It has been the
> commercial journals that have apparently not been good partners with
> institutions.
>
> Creating bundles has increased content for the libraries, but not
> necessarily content that is of the most favorable cost per use,
> citation, or page.  The bundles suck money out of the library coffers,

> diminishing their ability to be good partners with society publishers
> who have sought to hold costs down to institutions.  Instead we hear
> that we are short of money and can no longer subscribe to your
> journal.
>
> As journal content is increasingly available in repositories, either
> university or government repositories, it will become easier to cancel

> subscriptions.  Will it happen?  That is the great unknown.  I wish I
> knew what the answer was.  If I did, I would have a better idea how to

> guide our publication program.
>
> Martin Frank, Ph.D.
> Executive Director, American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville
> Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991
> Tel: 301-634-7118     fax: 301-634-7241
> email: mfrank@the-aps.org
> APS Website:  http://www.the-aps.org
> ...integrating the life sciences from molecule to organism
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Joseph J.
> EspositoSent: Mon 12/18/2006 7:00 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: puzzled by self-archiving thread
>
>
> Margaret, I believe, as David Prosser has asserted, that the hard
> evidence that OA results in cancellations does not exist.
> Publishers worry about this as something that could have an impact on
> them in the future, a point that Stevan Harnad apparently
> acknowledges.  There is, however, the question of what it means to
> cancel subscriptions based on "use."  Does the use of articles in
> repositories, on authors' Web sites, and elsewhere undermine the
> "count" for the official usage statistics? Perhaps.
> Or, perhaps not yet.
>
> In any event, I believe your closing comment ("I would wish this list
> might talk about ways libraries can partner with such publishers to
> find ways to change this situation") is right on target.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Margaret Landesman" <margaret.landesman@utah.edu>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:03 PM
> Subject: puzzled by self-archiving thread
>
>> Re: posts about self-archiving causing cancellations
>>
>> Busy as I am each year cancelling serials and cutting the book
>> budget, I have not read these complete postings, nor have I done
>> studies or read most of these studies.
>>
>> But I am puzzled.
>>
>> As we cancel journals, we rely on reports which show the number of
>> uses, the costs, and the costs per use.  We have no reports which
>> show the journal's stance on IRs or whether it is OA after an
>> embargo.  Do other libraries have such a thing?  We do not have this
>> information in our ILS and it would be a very big job to put it
>> there.
>>
>> If we know that the journal has a liberal stance, we exempt it from
>> cancellation if possible - and we have done that with MUSE, BioOne,
>> university press, etc journals in order to support those publishers.
>>
>> We are cancelling journals - both print and electronic - as fast as
>> we can, generally on the grounds that they are:
>>
>> 1) high cost-peruse, or
>> 2) not used
>>
>> We expect to go on doing this, probably forever.
>>
>> What has made me especially sad this year is that, very reluctantly,
>> we have cancelled packages from university presses and smaller
>> publishers because, after we have had them up for a number of years,
>> they are showing no use.
>>
>> I would wish this list might talk about ways libraries can partner
>> with such publishers to find ways to change this situation...
>>
>> Margaret Landesman
>> University of Utah