RE: Interview with Springer's Derk Haank

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com>]

It seems to me that Ivy Anderson makes some very reasonable 
points but I would suggest that it is the "funding ebbs and 
flows" that will represent a problem for any publisher. It was my 
understanding that one of the advantages of the Big Deal for both 
libraries and publishers was that it enabled planning ahead for 
both parties. Those who invest in publishing whether they are 
learned societies or commercial entities demand this sort of 
planning ahead if they are to invest in the constant new 
developments which the user population demands.

Can libraries really not plan ahead and if not why not? Surely 
universities are planning ahead? Is it possible that libraries 
have failed to convince the people in higher education who hold 
the purse strings that there is more research being funded and 
that this is likely (and does) lead to more published articles 
and that they have to be paid for? I have a suspicion that, if 
ARL graphs are anything to go by with their failure to relate 
increase prices to increased number of articles, that ARL as an 
organisation and many librarians have had their heads in the 
sand.

Note - I am not suggesting that the Big Deal does not need to be 
restructured. Who does not? Publishers respond to pressure from 
authors who want to publish. The numbers of authors wanting to 
publish goes up. I am of course assuming (but I would believe 
rightly assuming) that these increased number of authors are 
producing much the same percentage of good papers.

Anthony

Anthony Watkinson
University College London

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Ivy Anderson
Sent: 26 January 2011 03:38
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Interview with Springer's Derk Haank

Apologies for weighing in a bit late on this thread, but I do 
think that some additional perspective is warranted on the 
questions that Sandy posed.  While I appreciate the views of my 
good colleagues Warren and Syun, as well as those of Mr. Haank, 
there is more to this story.

The large publisher deals have indeed expanded access and lowered 
the unit cost of journals for many libraries.  ARL charts clearly 
show these effects beginning in around 2000, and it would be 
disingenuous to claim otherwise.  In this sense, Mr. Haank is 
right when he says that the big deals ameliorated the serials 
crisis of an earlier era.  What is less salubrious about these 
arrangements however, is the way in which they have locked up 
library budgets in large, single-block expenditures. If the great 
invention of sliced bread is the slices, then these deals do not 
qualify because the loaves are frozen and typically unsliceable.

On top of that, unfortunately many structural problems remain in 
this market.  The problems can be illustrated by juxtaposing two 
other well-known charts, one from ARL documenting the long 
decline in the proportion of research university funding 
allocated toward libraries, and another reproduced by STM 
documenting the equally steady increase in journal publication 
over time.  These trends have long been on a collision course, 
one that's being hastened by the current economic downturn.  And 
as Sandy points out, the increasing budget share consumed by 
journal packages has squeezed university presses and other small 
market players to near-extinction and reduced the breadth and 
diversity of library collections, despite concomitant increases 
in book publishing.  Large packages of books, while arguably 
offering similar value to the journal big deal, are nonetheless 
no easier for libraries to fund than their individual 
counterparts when the aggregate spend is sufficiently large.  As 
more and more purchasing becomes locked in large block 
expenditures, it is becoming impossible for libraries to 
maneuver. And with double-digit declines still looming on the 
horizon for many libraries, maneuver we must.

What to do?  Of course, there are many efforts afoot aimed at 
producing authentic transformation in the form of dramatically 
lower production costs and barrier-free access, as well as 
important initiatives to re-introduce more non-library sources of 
funding to sustain the academic publishing enterprise.  But on a 
more incremental scale, and within the market as it exists today, 
there is at least one key adjustment to these deals that can 
help.  We can collectively weather the current economic crisis by 
recognizing that the unit costs inherent in the 'big deal' are 
the new norm and making it possible to scale these deals up and 
down in proportional ways as funding ebbs and flows, without 
reverting to the truly unsustainable pricing of an earlier era.

The unit-cost gains of the big deal that Mr. Haank rightly notes
- redressing an old and egregious imbalance - need to be
preserved in the face of current economic challenges.  It will
have proven to be no gain at all if these arrangements cannot be
proportionately dialed back to accommodate new funding realities.
Unless we can find a way to do that, our frozen bread with the
slices stuck firmly together will become inedible indeed.

Ivy Anderson
Director of Collections
California Digital Library
University of California, Office of the President


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 6:23 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; warren.holder@utoronto.ca
Subject: Re: Interview with Springer's Derk Haank

Maybe for the big publishers and maybe for some libraries, but
certainly not for all the smaller journal publishers whose
journals get dropped because the Big Deals cost so much, not to
mention the publishers of monographs whose sales have flatlined
for years because of STM journal subscription costs. And how does
that make this the best invention for scholarship overall?

Sandy Thatcher