[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: puzzled by self-archiving thread
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: puzzled by self-archiving thread
- From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:00:59 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Margaret, I believe, as David Prosser has asserted, that the hard evidence that OA results in cancellations does not exist. Publishers worry about this as something that could have an impact on them in the future, a point that Stevan Harnad apparently acknowledges. There is, however, the question of what it means to cancel subscriptions based on "use." Does the use of articles in repositories, on authors' Web sites, and elsewhere undermine the "count" for the official usage statistics? Perhaps. Or, perhaps not yet.
In any event, I believe your closing comment ("I would wish this list might talk about ways libraries can partner with such publishers to find ways to change this situation") is right on target.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Landesman" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:03 PM
Subject: puzzled by self-archiving thread
Re: posts about self-archiving causing cancellations
Busy as I am each year cancelling serials and cutting the book budget, I have not read these complete postings, nor have I done studies or read most of these studies.
But I am puzzled.
As we cancel journals, we rely on reports which show the number of uses, the costs, and the costs per use. We have no reports which show the journal's stance on IRs or whether it is OA after an embargo. Do other libraries have such a thing? We do not have this information in our ILS and it would be a very big job to put it there.
If we know that the journal has a liberal stance, we exempt it from cancellation if possible - and we have done that with MUSE, BioOne, university press, etc journals in order to support those publishers.
We are cancelling journals - both print and electronic - as fast
as we can, generally on the grounds that they are:
1) high cost-peruse, or
2) not used
We expect to go on doing this, probably forever.
What has made me especially sad this year is that, very
reluctantly, we have cancelled packages from university presses
and smaller publishers because, after we have had them up for a
number of years, they are showing no use.
I would wish this list might talk about ways libraries can
partner with such publishers to find ways to change this
University of Utah