Back to basics

["D Anderson" <dh-anderson@corhealth.com>]

One of the original themes addressed by this list is that the current
subscription-based journal publishing system isn't sustainable because of
the increasing burden it places on subscribers, particularly libraries.
Subscription prices keep going up, resulting in more subscribers dropping
their subscriptions, which further drives price increases and more rounds
of journal cuts.

In the medical field, we've seen small hospital libraries drop
subscriptions and then expect to service requests through inter-library
loans from large teaching institutions that are expected to continue to
shoulder the burden of maintaining extensive collections. This isn't
viable over the long run.

Shifting to a different publishing model won't necessarily save
substantial sums. Open access models look intriguing, but aside from some
wishful thinking, there is little tangible evidence that these models will
somehow provide the value traditional publishers add at a lower cost.
Eliminating costs related to subscription fulfillment could save some
money, but it would amount to only a few dollars per subscription.
Shifting to online-only delivery would save money, under either Open
Access or the traditional system, but after one-time savings are achieved
costs will rise again as the population of users rises. It still doesn't
solve the basic problem: a shrinking number of stakeholders are being
forced to shoulder an increasingly growing share of the burden.

Libraries may try to shift the burden to someone else, authors for
instance. But this isn't necessarily any more viable or equitable, nor
does it solve the real problem.

Libraries, in particular, create a dilemma for publishers. The mission of
libraries is to serve their patrons by providing an information resource
to as many people as possible. That means that libraries will seek to make
one copy of a subscription available to large numbers of patrons. If this
logic is followed to its ultimate conclusion, the number of subscribers
would dwindle down to one, and that one subscriber would make the
publication available to everyone else.

Determining pricing was much easier when libraries had one or two print
copies of a periodical and patrons had to go to the library to access it.
Publishers brought in significant revenues either by selling subscriptions
to individuals who were willing to pay for the convenience of getting the
publication in their home or office or by distributing the publication to
a large base and charging advertisers for access to their readers.
Electronic access has disrupted this model. A regional library serving a
large population still expects to serve the needs of its region through
the purchase of one subscription. The difference now is that the library
can truly serve the needs of the entire population in its service area
through one electronic subscription. By arranging for electronic access
through libraries, individuals no longer need to maintain their own
subscriptions to get convenient access. (That's why some publishers no
longer see selling to the library market as a healthy business to be in
over the long run.)

Publishers have struggled to develop new pricing models that attempt to
align price with the potential number of users. But the dirty little
secret among publishers is that many journals are seldom accessed. The
last thing many publishers want is for subscribers to realize how few
people really access a particular resource. And it doesn't solve the
problem of a shrinking subscriber base.

The only proven way to drive down the price to the individual customer is
to spread the cost over a larger base. Perhaps some future technological
breakthrough will result in lower overall publishing costs. But the bottom
line today is that any realistic alternative must be based on spreading
the costs more broadly by increasing the number of stakeholders who are
willing to pay. Ironically, this may lead not just to a rethinking of the
publishing process but to a rethinking of the role of the library as
information aggregator.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece today on why
Pearson PLC is making 300 of its popular textbooks available online at
half the cost of the print versions. Stung by losing sales to sellers of
used textbooks, Pearson evidently is hoping that the volume of new
business will make up for the lower price. I expect to see more innovative
trials such as these, based on rigorous market research and analysis of
course.

Dean H. Anderson