Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled Subscriptions

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Wrong question, Sally. The right question is whether they have 
seen a substantial loss of subscriptions beyond the usual. From a 
librarians perspective 10% is substantial, because most years we 
do not have to cut quite that many.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman@princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled Subscriptions
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> I'd say that publishers, given the chance, will work out what
> delay is likely to be sufficient to protect their
> subscriptions/licences from large-scale erosion.  A number of
> different factors will be at work:  the subject field (e.g. how
> fast-moving is it?) and the frequency of the journal are both
> likely to have a significant bearing on this.
>
> Do journals see cancellations?  Well, when the British Medical
> Journal made all its content (not just primary research articles)
> freely available immediately, it lost subscriptions. When it
> changed policy, and restricted access to everything except
> primary research articles, it managed to stop and even (I think)
> reverse the trend.  But the BMJ is not typical - its USP is its
> non-research content...
>
> I'd be very interested to hear any (albeit anecdotal) evidence
> from publishers who have, or have not, seen a loss of
> subscriptions when access was opened up at x months -
> particularly those who might have changed the embargo period and
> seen a difference.  I wonder whether OUP has any data?
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham
> Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org