Re: Article downloads lower?

["\"FrederickFriend\"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk>]

Anthony's point illustrates how the location of many publishers in the
information environment has changed in recent years. My definition of the
academic community is "those who are substantially engaged in research
and/or teaching, together with leaders of academic institutions". Some
publishers still fall within that definition - as do some librarians - but
most do not. Some learned society publishers still have very close links
with the societies they serve, but they are now a minority within their
profession. Publishing has developed professionally and corporately as a
service industry, and publishers are due every respect for the service
they provide. Publishers share some core values - such as a wish to
maintain quality - with everybody else in the information environment. In
other respects, however, the interests of the academic community and the
publishing community appear to have diverged, and it is this apparent
divergence of interests that appears to be at the heart of the debate on
open access. I take no pleasure from this situation and believe that the
apparent divergence of interests can be reconciled. This was the spirit in
which I sent my message about downloads.

Fred Friend

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Article downloads lower?

> I know this has been said before (including by me to Fred) but in his
> posting he speaks of publishers working with the academic community. Is
> he really suggesting that he represents the academic community and that
> publishers (often learned societies or partnering with learned
> societies) are somehow on the other side of some fence? I can see no
> justification for this claim.
>
> Anthony Watkinson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ""FrederickFriend"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:13 AM
> Subject: Article downloads lower?
>
> > It would assist us all in understanding the effect of free repository
> > content if publishers could make available their download statistics for
> > articles for which a free repository copy exists. It may then be
> > possible to compare the publisher statistics with the download
> > statistics for the equivalent repository copy. I have no reason to doubt
> > IOPP's statement (from Ken Lillywhite to Lis-e-journals on 5 September)
> > that "article downloads from our site are significantly lower for those
> > journals whose content is substantially replicated in the arXiv
> > repository than for those which are not", but with all due respect to
> > IOPP the lower downloads could be due to factors other than the
> > existence of an arXiv copy.
> >
> > Clearly download statistics do vary between journals even when no
> > repository copy exists, and the time-line for downloads is also a
> > significant factor. If public positions are to be based upon such
> > statistics, as when publishers base resistance to repository deposit
> > upon lower downloads from their own sites, we need to be sure that the
> > statistical base is firm. The point is often made that we need more
> > evidence of the effects of changes in scholarly communication, and JISC
> > and other organizations have been gathering evidence. Making download
> > statistics available for examination alongside download statistics from
> > repositories would be one way in which publishers could work with the
> > academic community in gathering evidence about the effect of
> > repositories.
> >
> > Frederick J. Friend
> > JISC Consultant
> > OSI Open Access Advocate
> > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> > E-mail ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk