Re: ALPSP library survey

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

Having attended the seminar Sally refers to, I remember the evidence from
IOPP in particular that titles held in arXiv receive a lower use on the IOPP
web-site than titles not held in arXiv. I do not dispute the statistics but
I am not sure what this tells us about possible future cancellations by
libraries on the basis of repository content. There is no evidence so far as
I know that the arXiv use has resulted in lower subscriptions for the titles
used heavily on arXiv. Usage statistics are only one factor in a complex
cancellation environment.

The strategic message for me in this discussion of the relationship between
library cancellations and repository content is that publishers have to move
away from high-dependence upon library subscriptions. The study Mary Waltham
conducted for JISC last summer illustrated that high-dependence, and Richard
Gedye of OUP has just said much the same in an article in "The Bookseller".
However great or small the use of repository content, the library market is
shrinking, and publishers can have a much healthier future by using the
grants funding agencies like the Wellcome Trust make available to authors
for open access publication charges. That route links their income to
increases in research funding instead of to decreases in library budgets.
This is why I feel publishers' rejection of policies from bodies like RCUK
is counter-productive.

Fred Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: ALPSP library survey


> I know that some publishers have noted a very marked effect - this
> was reported at our recent seminar (see presentations at
> http://www.alpsp.org/events/2005/PPR/default.htm).  Perhaps some of
> them  will comment to this list
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: ALPSP library survey
>
> > While I understand the logic of this survey, I hope that the ALPSP will
> > first determine whether there is evidence that articles placed in public
> > archives decrease publisher downloads (the stated and untested assumption
> > behind their survey).  To date, I have not seen evidence of this
> > connection.  As a consequence, one could equally assume that public
> > archiving increases the number of publisher downloads, since archiving
> > (especially of preprints) makes material more public.  In essence, the
> > effect on downloads would be cumulative, and public archives would not be
> > previewed as parasites on the publishing system, but as an additional
> > source for promotion.  Before we start looking at the cancellation
> > behaviors of librarians, it would be more helpful to establish whether
> > public archives decrease publisher-site article downloads, and if so, by
> > how much.
> >
> > Phil Davis
> > Cornell University