From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 12:04:49 +0000
John Abbott gets it about right. Publishers will and do lie and
subvert any system, gaming them at their leisure. In the mid-eighties
Stuart Grinnell and I published research showing that Pergamon over a
5 year period had prices invariably going "up" based on who knows
what, but from their propaganda, because of increased output. ( or the
funniest, increased postage costs from Europe...Weren't most
publishers at that time drop shipping from East Asia??) But as we
tracked the number of journal articles over a period (5 years if I
remember correctly) we found that the number of articles in their
journals seemed to increase or decrease without regards to pricing,
prices which were completely separate, always going up, almost in a
straight line year over year. Never of course going down when output
dropped. Similarly with Michael Mabes famous number estimating a year
over year growth in the journal system of articles correlating with
number of increaes in scientists, I seem to remember that at about 3%
a year, a number you couldn't correlate with ISI's measures of journal
article output. But 10%, 15% and even more price increases un related
to output measures. Now publisher's have found a new way to subvert
what was supposed to be a win win situation, the big deal. First of
all slap an NDA so no one can systematically show what the real price
increases are then immediately start planning how to get beyond that
5% cap in the license. One example, just remove a portion of your
output where you REALLY want more than 5% a year. Make it must have
content, (there actually is still some of that) and off to the races.
The cap, in case anyone cares to remember was to protect library
budgets. Ha Ha very funny our publisher friends respond. The no
cancellation clauses were to protect publishers. So a win win. But in
practice as John implies below, perversion of the clear intentions at
least in the goals of libraries. I realize this probably needs a whole
article detailing all the ways in which publishers have subverted the
intent of these license agreements, but we'd still have publisher
agents provacateur arguing, but look we produce more so proportionally
we have to charge more. NO such thing of course as savings based on
volume, those all go to the publisher side of the equation. You'd
think 5% a year would be enough for anyone, but no, not at all. I've
got publishers that are clocking in once again at those 10% to 15% a
year increases. Anyone else? --Don't tell me their names, they might
sue you for NDA ....!!!
Chuck Hamaker
________________________________________
From: "John P. Abbott" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:05:29 -0500
On 12/1/2011 7:22 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> Toll-access publishers fight hard to get the best publications and the best
> authors for those publications because that perceived quality can lead to
> stronger revenues.
This is an idealized vision of large publishers slugging it out in the
best interests of competition and so driving the market's invisible
hand. Most large
publishers produce and clog the market with more mediocre journals
than prestigious ones. Once competition in the title-by-title
acquisition by libraries helped purge
the market. Now in the Big Deal model, new journals are added to the package
and often there is no opt-out, only notification that the Big Deal will inflate
some percentage and there will be a forced acquisition of these new titles at
some percent of an imaginary list price for the new titles. Journal titles
rarely cease in this market.
John
John P. Abbott, MS MSLS
Associate Professor& Coordinator, Collection Management
University Library
Appalachian State University
ASU Box 32026
218 College Street
Boone, NC 28608
828-262-2821 (vox)
828-262-2773 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
|
