Re: Elsevier and cancellations

[Kent Mulliner <mulliner@ohiou.edu>]

	While the forwarded message from Robert Michaelson makes many good
points, the straw premises at the beginning demand correction.  Speaking
as an individual who participated in the OhioLINK decisions, I disclaim
speaking for the organization or anyone but myself in offering the
following.  Moreover, the comments are decidedly not a defense of
Elsevier.

First, it is not true that "consortia foolish enough to buy into it
[Elsevier's Science Direct] have forever committed themselves to
supporting whatever Elsevier decides to publish. . . ."  OhioLINK's
contract with Elsevier is for a specified period (like any subscription,
not forever). Moreover, OhioLINK has been a leader in assuring archiving
of what it purchases.  Additionally, in my understanding of the OhioLINK
agreement, OhioLINK is assured caps on price increases for the duration
(initial contract was 3 years). Thus, in contrast to individual
subscriptions, Elsevier or other publishers are not free to double income
by publishing an additional volume(s).

Second, it is misleading to claim that "OhioLINK didn't make a
cost-benefit analysis of Science Direct before going with it. . . ." And
even more so to imply, "and I very much doubt that they have done so
since."  Core to the first assertion is the definition of "cost-benefit
analysis."  If this is interpreted to mean a rigorous examination such as
that of Stephen J. Bensman and Stanley Wilder in LIBRARY RESOURCES AND
TECHNICAL SERVICES, Vol. 42, No.3 (July 1998):147-242, then Mr. Michaelson
is correct.

In fact, the Bensman / Wilder masterpiece is dependent on a volume of data
(especially concerning usage) unavailable at most institutions (their
analysis being possible only through data from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign).

If one uses a less rigorous standard for cost-benefit analysis, then
clearly the participant institutions did analyze what they were losing in
freedom to cancel for three years versus what they were gaining.  Perhaps
the best cost-benefit analysis from the OhioLINK deliberations came from a
librarian at a community college who observed that access to all Elsevier
titles at her campus was the equivalent of sending a side of beef to a
vegetarian picnic.  At my own institution, many faculty were thrilled at
gaining access to journals for which they had long hungered.  They argued
the benefits were enormous (even with the cost of locking in
subscriptions).

In fairness, this has begun to change dramatically.  While the Elsevier
contract was under consideration, no faculty dissent was heard.  One would
have thought that Elsevier was the premier publisher of premier journals.  
Now, as the initial three-year contract is concluding, a substantial
faculty are emphasizing that Elsevier journals are the least useful in
their fields.

This brings us to the final element of Michaelson's premises, that there
has been no cost-benefit analysis since signing the contract.  In fact,
institutions are getting detailed usage information from OhioLINK's
Electronic Journal Center (far better than anything my institution with an
open collection has had previously).  Such data for 1998/99 tell me that
71% of the titles from which we downloaded were not held in print and that
59% of the articles were from titles that we did not own.

But beyond these broad numbers, we have electronic usage on a title by
title basis for titles for which we have print copies and for those that
we do not. Interestingly, the highest usages for titles for which there
are print copies are 4 in the 130-150 uses and 4 in the 100-120 uses while
for those that we do not have in print 7 have more than 100 uses (article
downloads) and three of these fall between 186 and 278.  Of course, these
figures do not track print usage (past and current efforts to do are
considered by staff and faculty to have been unsatisfactory).

Of even greater importance, we can now systematically identify those
journals that received few if any uses.  We are getting the kind of
information needed for a cost benefit analysis.  And, for the first time,
as this data increases, we will have a rational basis for negotiating
something other than all-or-nothing contracts.  And we have a tool for
assessing the areas where document delivery is likely to be preferable to
just-in-case subscriptions.

In contrast to Michaelson's assertion, I would say that cost-benefit
analyses are becoming common-place among OhioLINK institutions.

	Kent Mulliner, Ohio University Libraries





At 08:35 AM 8/18/1999 EDT, you wrote:
>I am forwarding the following with the permission of the author, as I
>think it is of general interest:
>
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:12:35 -0500
>From: Robert Michaelson <rmichael@nwu.edu>
>To: slapam-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Re: Elsevier & Cancellations
>
>A library's motive is to provide access to important scholarship.
>Elsevier's motive is to make large profits. ScienceDirect is a device to
>enable Elsevier to make such profits forever, since the libraries and
>consortia foolish enough to buy into it have forever committed themselves
>to supporting whatever Elsevier decides to publish, however overpriced, or
>mediocre (or worse) in quality.  Certainly OhioLINK didn't make a
>cost-benefit analysis of ScienceDirect before going with it and I very
>much doubt that they have done so since then -- I believe the same thing
>is true of every other ScienceDirect customer.
>
>For a great many years Elsevier (and, to be fair, many other for-profit
>publishers) have extorted ever larger sums from academic libraries by the
>simple device of adding-on extra volumes every year.  These add-ons often
>include conference proceedings (unreferred or refereed to a very low
>standard -- things that they couldn't sell to libraries as separate
>pieces, but stick us with as part of our subscriptions); Festshrifts
>(often composed of mediocre papers that embarass rather than honor the
>subject of the Festschrift); and even basically worthless annual
>bibliographies, which never get used.  It is not unknown for such
>superfluous materials to make up on the order of half of the pages in a
>year for a given journal! And yet by buying into everything, as
>ScienceDirect (or for that matter IDEAL) customers do, those customers
>give up any possiblity of influencing Elsevier (or Academic...) to stop
>churning out this garbage at the libraries' expense.
>
>Naturally the Elseviers and Academics would have you believe that it is
>crucial to provide electronic access to all of their journals -- and
>indeed it is crucial, for them!  It is not, however, crucial for you or
>for your institution.  You have the obligation to make a considered
>judgement on which electronic titles you provide access to, just as you
>have that obligation in considering which print titles to subscribe to or
>cancel. If these publishers don't offer title-by-title choices at
>reasonable surcharges for electronic access, then their titles will be
>used and cited less frequently and will decline, perhaps (with luck) even
>fold.
>
>So in response to Momota Ganguli I would say YES, it is ALWAYS a good idea
>to consider cancelling Elsevier titles! We at Northwestern have cancelled
>many of them, and none of those have been missed.  Naturally you will want
>to plan your cancellations in a responsible manner: try to find out how
>much a given title is used (browsed, checked out of the library, etc.),
>how many of your own faculty publish in it or cite it, and perhaps what
>the cost is per page (or per impact factor per page) compared with other
>titles in the same general field. Talk with your faculty about it before
>making your final selection of titles to be cancelled (and there are
>probably publications from other publishers that you could cancel as well,
>so don't ignore them just because they aren't from Elsevier). Finally, if
>you have time it might not hurt to write to the publishers of the titles
>you decide to cancel, explaining why you have decided that they aren't
>worth your continuing support (remember, _we_ are the customers, _we_ are
>the ones to decide what is a reasonable value for our money).
>
>Bob Michaelson
>Northwestern University Library
>rmichael@nwu.edu
>-- 

K. Mulliner       Collection Development Coordinator & Asst. to Dean
         "Owner"  CORMOSEA & cap-sea Electronic Mailing Lists

Ohio University Libraries    	Phone: 740-593-2707
Athens, OH 45701-2978, USA	FAX:    740-593-2708
mulliner@ohio.edu