RE: Decision making by Libraries on serials and monographs and useage (re puzzled by self-archiving thread)

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

I appreciate that your 5% figure for increased 'access and 
efficiency' is entirely hypothetical.

However, could you explain to us all:

1)  How you arrive at the assumption that x% more access leads to 
x% more benefit (I would have thought it logical to assume that 
the benefit tapered off, given that core users will already have 
access to the material which is most important to them)?

2)  How you propose to achieve x% increase in efficiency (which I 
think means relevance)?

Thanks

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

   _____

[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of John Houghton
Sent: 18 January 2007 11:33
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Decision making by Libraries on serials and monographs and
useage (re puzzled by self-archiving thread)


Dear Sally, et al. In our recent report to the Australian Department of
Education, Science and Training we attempted to explore the costs of
scholarly communication in Higher Education in Australia at the system level
(in the manner of the pioneering work of Don King and Carol Tenopir), and
then explore the possible impacts of enhanced access to research findings -
of any sort (e.g. publications, data, etc.) and by any mechanism (e.g. lower
prices, open access, etc.). For the former we developed a cost model from an
extensive review of the literature and some local consultation, and for the
latter we tried to develop the standard neoclassical growth model, by
introducing 'access' and 'efficiency' as negative variables, as a way to
explore the impacts of increasing access and efficiency on returns to
expenditure on R&D. It's preliminary work, but one has to start somewhere.
The assumptions are discussed at length in the report:

[SNIP]