RE: Subscription to Open Access Transition

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

We have more than a proposed mechanism, we have a syllogism 
backed up by empirical evidence...

A. Librarians cancel journals when usage statistics are low [1]

B. Self-archiving reduces publisher-based usage statistics [2]

C. Therefore, self-archiving leads to journal cancellation. 
[Granted, this syllogism is overly simplified and doesn't 
incorporate other decision-making factors in the cancellation 
process.]

Notes:

[1] Most collection development librarians employ usage statistics as part
of their journal evaluation process
[2] see: "Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher
downloads for mathematics articles?" http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0603056


--Phil Davis


At 07:31 PM 7/27/2006, you wrote:
> Joe
>
> Well, in this case there ain't no global warming - yet!  We have 
> a proposed mechanism (as the proportion of free material 
> approaches 100% there will be a fall in subscriptions) but to 
> date the evidence - unfortunately only in one subject area - 
> shows that hasn't happened.  Thoughtful people with experience 
> in the field might find that odd, but it's true and so I'm 
> afraid people will continue to talk about it.  They will also 
> point out that the melting subscriptions we have seen over the 
> past two decades have had nothing at all to do with 
> self-archiving.
>
> Now, does that mean that sensible publishers shouldn't worry? 
> No, of course not.  As you say, they have a responsibility to 
> model potential futures and changes in the publishing 
> environment and to take action based on what they see is the 
> most likely direction of change.  If I were still a publisher I 
> would be looking to move my journals to open access as soon as I 
> could as I think the open access business models offer a 
> stronger long-term future than subscription models.  But I would 
> hope that I would base my decisions on evidence as well as 
> experience.
>
> David