Re: Revision to Physical Review B data

[heatherm@eln.bc.ca]

Many thanks for Mark Doyle and David Stern for providing correction to the
numbers for Physical Review B as reported in David Stern's article in
Online.

It would indeed be challenging to figure out the economics of switching to
a cooperative production-based economics model for a well-established and
very prolific journal such as Physical Review B, at least in the short
term.

Let's return to the question of a smaller, more cost-efficient journal
like Journal of Insect Science, though.  As I mentioned in an earlier
e-mail, a group of 120 libraries could cooperate to provide economic
support for this journal - $42,000 needed, (based on numbers reported in
the Online article) at $350 each.  Or, a group of 500 libraries could
cooperate to support this journal at $84 each.

Compare this with the average subscription price for a journal in biology
of $1,377 as reported by Lee Van Orsdel & Kathleen Born in Library
Journal's Periodicals Price Survey 2004: Closing in on Open Access.

These kinds of numbers $350 or less, rather than $1,377, look good, don't
they?  There are tremendous advantages here for all kinds of libraries,
not just the research producers.  It makes sense for libraries of all
types and sizes to participate in such cooperatives.

Is there anyone from the non-research-producing libraries who would like
to comment?

cheers,

Heather G. Morrison