[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Future of the "subscription model?"

As someone who was connected with Penn State for 20 years, i 
think there is something to be said for moral outrage effecting 
change, too.

Sandy Thatcher

At 9:53 PM -0500 11/14/11, Hamaker, Charles wrote:

>Joe Esposito said in this string:
>"Many of the tactics used to effect change are pointless, the 
>expression of moral outrage among them.  "
>I'd like to speak up for moral outrage. There are instances 
>where it is perfectly usable and legitimate, not pointless as 
>Joe states.
>The moral outrage of the mid 80's when UK publisher's were found 
>to be charging U.S. libraries two to three times the rate they 
>were charging the rest of the world was neither pointless nor 
>useless. I suspect that if we understood world pricing dynamics 
>a bit better, that we would find that U.S. deals with publishers 
>are being used to subsidize the rest of the world once again, as 
>I am receiving reports from colleagues worldwide of total 
>journal run Cost Per Use studies that document prices half or 
>less what U.S. libraries are paying. An official of one of the 
>major physics publishers stated in a public conference that 
>worldwide the CPU for his journals was $2.00 a download. My CPU 
>for that publisher is $20.00 a download.
>I suspect that when we assimilate Year of Publication data a bit 
>(COUNTER JR5) you will see another wave of outrage that could 
>have real impact on how researchers and libraries behave. And 
>ultiamtely on publishers. What if I told you for example, that I 
>suspect that some publisher's pricing to libraries for Year of 
>Publication use is in the neighborhood of $1,200 dollars an 
>article for current year use of current output? That's what we 
>are actually paying for,( current use), with our subscription 
>dollars: the past year's use is sunk cost.
>Since books are running about $60.00 a volume right now (any 
>update on that figure is welcome if I"m out of date) is there 
>any way in talking with Rick'Anderson's Associate Dean that the 
>conversation might just change if Rick could demonstrate current 
>year costs of $3,000 an article for individual journals --a 
>figure I've seen in some of my analysis? How inefficient does a 
>system have to be before it can be demonstrated that it is 
>either corrupt or just plain destructive to the goals of the 
>participants? And what responses should there be.
>I believe and know from personal experience that moral outrage 
>is a powerful persuader if the data backing it are sound, the 
>logic impeccable. It can be the critical factor that moves us 
>from so what to what if, to concrete action. In fact I doubt any 
>concrete action will be taken radically changing the journal 
>system as it is right now without moral outrage or moral 
>Chuck Hamaker
>UNC Charlotte