[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Factors involved, Re: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread :
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Factors involved, Re: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread :
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:14:00 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
OK, involvement, what else do your present to them? I've collected for a similar audience. The other factors I took into account besides price and cost, are: 1.Citations. Not raw citations, but citation from the university's faculty, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and, in my university upper division undergraduates. Citations in theses too, both graduate and undergraduate. Used with care, because a journal may very intensively for an undergraduate thesis, and then never again. 2. Purchase requests, especially from the faculty, but from any regular users. Used with care, because purchase is not always the best way. 3. Document Delivery requests. This needs care: same reason as #1--people may use one journal very intensively for a thesis or paper, and then never again. 4. Expected price increases, judged by the practice of the publisher. (looking at both dollars and percentage). 4A. "Big deals;" even with interchangeability of titles, a large library may already subscribe to everything of conceivable interst from some publishers. 5. Permanence of access-- A. In the short run, this applies to material available only on the basis of a big deal, or through an aggregator. B. Archival responsibilities. (That is, true archival responsibilities--a library without a comprehensive collection in a subject is not ready to assume them, and normally as a first priority should expand the collection.) 6. Alternative routes: A. Availability of electronic copy for immediate purchase B. Expected rapid availability from document delivery C. Various consortial arrangements. D. Open Access: Here is where open access comes in, or to be exact will come in, because the concentration of such availability in other than OA journals is not yet sufficient to make the difference, especially considering finadability. But this should increase rapidly in biomedicine, with the growth of PMC and the linking to OA copies in PubMed. (And, as we all know, there are other excellent ways to get Open Access copies; details are for another day.) And there are of course subsidiary factors, such as the variable likelihood of budget changes and the expected development of academic programs. (These, and the other factors can of course also be explained in detail) But all the above are only modifying factors; while I have used them on occasion, almost always the question came down to the money and the use. >From the reputation of your library, and Rick's, I am certain you take account of all this. Even though most of the librarians on ths list do not need reminding either, librarians in general have not done enough public explanation, so users--even publishers and information scientists--may not be aware of all the possibilities. David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. email@example.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Leah Krevit <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:22 pm Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread To: email@example.com >>Eventually, we have to pick subscriptions to cancel. If we >>don't make our cancellation decisions based on usage and cost, >>what criteria should we use? I don't ask that question >>facetiously -- I'd be honestly interested to know, from a >>publisher's perspective, what other criteria _would_ make sense. > > Rick, we are never happy with simple algorithms around here. > No, the STM journal world is a complicated place. We not only > consider use and cost, but impact factors as well. When looking > at 8,000 in-scope journals which are critical to the research, > education, and clinical care activities in the biomedical > environment this library serves, finding titles to cut becomes > a dangerous activity. So, we gather as much ammunition as we > can before making those cancellation lists public. Having open > access journals of high quality now helps ease the pain a bit, > but each year is more of a nightmare--cut journals? Stop buying > books? Pray the journal price increase will not exceed 5%? What > about databases? > > Impact factors may not have the "impact" they once did, but > they are still useful pieces of the overall data picture I have > to present to faculty and biomedical researchers, who > understand them. > > Happy New Year to all on this wonderful list!! > > Leah Krevit, M.L.I.S. > Associate Director > Collections Management > Houston Academy of Medicine - > Texas Medical Center Library > Houston TX 77030-2809 > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://resource.library.tmc.edu
- Prev by Date: Re: Requirements for mass digitization projects
- Next by Date: Re: No, Mandating Self-Archiving Is Not Like Invading Iraq!
- Previous by thread: Usage and impact (RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread)
- Next by thread: Re: No, Mandating Self-Archiving Is Not Like Invading Iraq!