Re: Elsevier and cancellations

[Tony Ferguson <ferguson@columbia.edu>]

Chuck, et al.,

I can't help but challenge the assumption that the journals we librarians
select are all good journals, and the ones we don't select and are in
e-journal packages that we didn't previously select in print are bad
journals.

As your work at LSU demonstrated, few journals are used really intensively
-- most are used sparingly including many of the ones we bought and the
ones we couldn't afford.  The ones we didn't own we got for people at
$25-$35 a shot -- concealed as ILL transaction fees.

Now we have a new model.  It sells research papers -- partially as
journals, partially one article at a time.  It gives users access up front
without having to trudge to ILL, fill out the paperwork, wait for the
phone call, e-mail, or snail mail and then trudge back to ILL (some places
I understand are enlightened and mail or hand deliver the articles).  The
data that is coming in demonstrates that our users (the ones whose
information needs we take 3-8% of our universities' funds to support) like
full text.  I think it is a sure thing that where e-journals exist and
link to each other and to indexing tools, they will be embraced by our
users.

I fear that some of us are apprehensive that if we give up SELECTING
journals in behalf of our users, we will not be valued as much.  We are
valued when we bring users and the information they want together.  Tony

___

"Hamaker, Chuck" wrote:

> RE: telling publishers about reasons for cancellations.
>
> Anthony, I haven't been around quite as long as you have, but I can tell
> you that written "reasons" for cancellation can turn around and bite the
> librarian back.
>
> I can't tell you how many times in the past publishers have gone back to
> individual faculty to get that individual to "complain" about a
> cancellation or cancellations.
>
> Personally, I have experienced that--there is ALWAYS someone who will say,
> no journal of "mine" ":theirs" "somebody's" should EVER be cancelled, and
> by the way here's a few new ones you MUST add.
>
> That doesn't mean the particular title being spoken for is something the
> particular "defender" really cares about deeply.
>
> A few years ago "Sourdough" was defended by a faculty member in Human
> Ecology--working not unsurprisingly in food and nutrition. sounds
> right..sure, must be important. .
>
> I think the Alaska Library Association (which published Sourdough) would
> have been surprised at where the defense came from.
>
> So, nope, sorry, I don't believe in written explanations to publishers,
> and seldom give verbal either. The WHOLE story of how a journal gets
> cancelled is longer than they want to hear, and will only help many of
> them not correct the problems with the journal, but figure out who to find
> to put pressure on to "reinstate".
>
> We all remember much too well the introduction of the vicious marketing
> approach to faculty often with new journal introductions..if you want a
> personal subscription at pennies on the dollar, your "institution" must
> subscribe first.
>
> been there, done that.
>
> If publishers think they "deserve" explanations they need only look at
> their own behaviours over the last twenty years to understand why they
> don't get many.
>
> And if they don't know that their particular title isn't quite as
> important as the editor says, then they are not doing their own research.
>
> You do remember british publishers back in the good old differential
> pricing days saying to librarians, in the end, you have to have what we
> publish. This was not necessarily because their stuff was so good.
>
> It was because their marketing strategy was so bad.
>
> Faculty have become MUCH more sophisticated in the last few years about
> defending quality and selecting quality, in my experience. I seldom hear
> faculty anymore defending second and third rate journals. They know, as
> well as librarians know, there are objective criteria for evaluating the
> importance and value of a title and are much more reluctant to come across
> as second rate researchers by supporting second rate journals. If
> anything, the last decade has seen an increase in senstitivity to quality
> by teaching and research faculty in terms of the journals they want access
> to. Publishers can thank themselves for that development too.
>
> And in asort of contrarian way, I think we have to thank Gordon and Breach
> for their lawsuits for contributing to general awareness of issues that
> before were ignored.
>
> The good old days of big names on the editorial board means we have to buy
> it are about gone. peformance is the key, and it doesn't matter how trendy
> the title or that they accept YOUR articles when the top journals don't.
> So, faculty and librarians, again in my experience, are much more
> sophisticated in terms of quality and value.
>
> Package deals will put off the inevitable only a little while because the
> in-depth education we've all had in jouirnals means we know how to
> identify quality and recognize the high cost of second rate journals
> (whether direct or in package deals, you know we also remember quite
> clearly the "changing" packages of various publishers, a different package
> and a new promotion every year... . What intial use of electronic package
> deals can create is an opportunity for good journals in cognate and
> support fields to be recognized. it's the really high quality cross over
> or interdisciplinary journals that will become important, as librarians
> and faculty alike realize that clinging to that journal that takes all
> articles when all else fails, isn't really worth the candle.And as the
> less important journals really are identified, pressure will rise
> astronomically high on publishers to keep-and offer the good and quit
> pushing the junk. there are too many things to do to continue to subside
> poor quality titles with high value journals.
>
> Chuck Hamaker
> UnC Charlotte.