[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: Rich Dodenhoff <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:28:28 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Editorial boards already try to determine the most "valuable" articles. It is hard to imagine an editorial board that wants to publish articles with limited appeal to its discipline and a low probability of being cited. Many biomedical journals ask reviewers to rate a manuscript's priority or novelty and reject those that simply rehash previously published findings. It is difficult for an editorial board to determine which manuscripts are going to be "hot" and which will be of little interest. Richard Dodenhoff Journals Director American Society for Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814 www.aspet.org Find us on Facebook; Follow us on Twitter -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Brooks, Robert Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:42 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?" Rick's post does remind me of his remarks at the Charleston Conference last year. I think the "pay for what you need" approach to electronic journals is a rational one for a library to take, particularly during difficult financial times. My question to the readers of this list revolves around the effect this would have on scholarly communication, and I hope you will humor me as I think this through. Traditionally, "value" or "impact" of an article is determined by the academy, yes? Publishers present a collection of articles in the form of a journal which libraries subscribe to and make accessible to their patrons. Academics filter through these articles, choosing to use certain articles in their research and passing over others. By virtue of the citation, some articles then become more "valuable" than others. How does this work in the environment Rick describes? Do the publishers take on the responsibility for determining value and only publishing articles THEY expect to be the "best" or most valuable to academics? Do libraries determine value by only buying the individual articles THEY believe will be used by their patrons? My hunch, though, is that the expectation would be for publishers to continue to produce a full range of articles and for libraries to keep providing access at least to the abstracts for a full range of articles, and instituting some type of PDA model to purchase the full text for "valuable" articles using tokens or a similar purchasing model. This makes a certain amount of sense to me, however the challenge would be that the price for the "valuable" articles would inevitably have to subsidize the cost of publishing the less valuable articles, correct? Is this model preferable to libraries? I recognize the dilemma and the numerous challenges currently facing libraries. My concern, I suppose, would be if the article based approach to purchasing content resulted in a significant reduction in how much research actually gets published. What impact might this have on the ability of faculty to get published and on research as a whole? What solutions can we collaborate on that address Rick's point of view and also promote scholarly publishing and communication? Hob Brooks Senior Library Sales Manager SAGE Publications (805) 410-0907