[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Summary paper from the Publishing Research Consortium
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Summary paper from the Publishing Research Consortium
- From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:19:58 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sally Not really the most compelling of examples (in my opinion, of course). SM - 'British Medical Journal - when all content was free on BMJ site, print subs (and ads) fell dramatically. Now that only research articles are free, revenue has almost recovered.' This proves that varying the length of embargo on primary research articles had no effect on the subscription and ad revenue for the BMJ. Open access advocates are only interested in research articles and so the BMJ has proved (for at least one type of journal) you can make all of the primary literature freely available on publication with no negative effects. SM - 'Molecular Biology of the Cell - in the 3 years following introduction of free access after 2 month embargo, average annual subscription growth fell from (spectacular!) 84% to 8%' We can trade statistics ad nauseam, but let me give you a cited quote from the American Society of Cell Biology, publishers of Molecular Biology of the Cell (http://www.ascb.org/files/ascboadraft.pdf): 'The ASCB was the first publisher to participate in the NIH's PubMed Central by releasing its high-impact monthly research journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell, for free public access two months after publication. The Society is confident in its claim that the proposed NIH policy will not adversely affect the subscription income of otherwise successful journals based on its own experience with MBC. In fact implementation of this aggressive release schedule for MBC coincided with an increase in number of subscriptions of 16% in the year following implementation compared to the year prior, and an increase of 14% in submissions to the journal comparing the same time periods.' (My speculation here, for what it's worth, is that any journal is going to see a fall in the rate of increase of subscriptions 10 years or so after launch. The general pattern is that following launch journals see subscriptions increase over time, reach a maximum, and then start to decline. The effect of reducing the embargo to two months may well have slowed this decrease, not caused it as Sally implies!) SM - 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science - free access after 1 month embargo in 2000 led to 11% fall in subscriptions in 2001; extending the embargo to 6 months reduced this to 9% in 2002.' A 2% difference is probably not statistically significant and it is certainly not the catastrophic decrease that the Beckett and Inger study predicts - remember they predict a 50% fall in subscriptions with a 24 month embargo! This conversation started because I suggested that the practice of publishers making papers freely available after an embargo period gave us a chance to test the Beckett and Inger model for cancellations. All the evidence we have so far shows that Beckett and Inger's model does not accurately predict library behaviour when faced with the free availability of content following embargos. David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe http://www.sparceurope.org -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates) Sent: 26 April 2007 02:29 To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: RE: Summary paper from the Publishing Research Consortium Apologies for picking this up so late There are, in fact, tangible examples where publishers have experienced serious consequences from offering too short an embargo British Medical Journal - when all content was free on BMJ site, print subs (and ads) fell dramatically. Now that only research articles are free, revenue has almost recovered Molecular Biology of the Cell - in the 3 years following introduction of free access after 2 month embargo, average annual subscription growth fell from (spectacular!) 84% to 8% Proceedings of the National Academy of Science - free access after 1 month embargo in 2000 led to 11% fall in subscriptions in 2001; extending the embargo to 6 months reduced this to 9% in 2002 Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
- Prev by Date: RE: Clarification on SERU proposal
- Next by Date: Re: Clarification on SERU proposal
- Previous by thread: RE: Summary paper from the Publishing Research Consortium
- Next by thread: RE: Summary paper from the Publishing Research Consortium
- Index(es):