Re: Future of the "subscription model?"

[Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Anyone want to consider the rise or fall the subscription model 
outside of journals, which has been the discussion so far?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Ann Okerson wrote:

> Fred:  In library training, we learned that the basic 
> definition of serials is "publications intended to be continued 
> indefinitely." (Or at least for some time to come.)  By my 
> lights, then, a "subscription" represents any ongoing, regular 
> payment for such continuing publications.
>
> Does this help with definitions?  Ann
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:21 PM, FrederickFriend
> <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well, Ann, if you wanted to start a controversial thread, I 
>> suspect you will have succeeded! Let me ask for clarification 
>> on the definition of the topic. I assume that you are asking 
>> about subscriptions in relation to journals or works in 
>> series. And I wonder how precise you want to be in your 
>> definition of "subscription"? I am not sure, for example, that 
>> a "big deal" counts as a subscription. I have thought of a 
>> "big deal" as being a licence for a specific period of time, 
>> and - in my view - part of the problem we have currently is 
>> that "big deals" have swallowed up journals which would 
>> otherwise be available on subscription. Anybody who knows me 
>> will not be surprised to learn that I see OA models as 
>> replacing both "big deals" and individual subscriptions to a 
>> large extent, but there will certainly be disagreement amongst 
>> liblicense subscribers about the extent and the timing of that 
>> development.
>>
>> Fred Friend