LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (103 lines)
From: "Renison, Neil" <[log in to unmask]>
 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:13:51 -0800

Hello Bill,

The first reaction to proposed changes from most people (and
institutions) are what is in it for me.  So with purely hypothetical
amounts, the question is difficult to answer. This is because no
matter how much the model makes sense and seems fair and reasonable,
if its application is going to increase costs for my institution, my
hypothetical support for a great idea quickly evaporates.  Moreover
your model puts the spotlight on the uncomfortable reality that
libraries have lost ownership and control of what used to be "their"
journals and that may not be where all librarians want to be going.
(Actually we only ever had part ownership because of copyright; but
having the physical issue in your hand provided the illusion of
ownership, while eventually the copyright could expire).

Nonetheless it is an interesting model and I will also be interested
in the response you get.  With a bit of tweaking it might find
acceptance.

Difficulties that would have to be overcome are:

* Transitional pricing arrangements for institutions which find the
final "real" prices make the model a much more expensive option (or
alternatively maintenance of old arrangements for those disadvantaged
by the new model).

* A perpetual archiving solution might be assigned to a trusted third
party (e.g. Portico).

* At present some of your clients are probably paying way too much
(relative to other clients) for the value they are receiving.  Those
other clients are unlikely to want make up that contribution to your
profits within the new model, but can you afford to carry the loss?

To conclude, the Big Deal only makes sense where it is the most
economical way to meet your library user's requirements; where it
doesn't one should get out.  Same will be true of your model; however
I can see a benefit to all in positive feedback from allocating
funding to the journals actually satisfying need and not the
"proportion of unwanted, unused, content".   In answer to your final
question about budget and purchase constraints; there are none that I
am aware of locally.

Neil Renison| Librarian, Acquisitions Services
Information Resources
Library & Information Services
Eddie Koiki Mabo Library
James Cook University, Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD 4811
E: [log in to unmask]
W: http://www.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/


-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 8:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Moving towards paying only for usage?

From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:45:13 +0000

As a publisher I sense librarian dissatisfaction about how publishers
offer their wares to libraries. Traditional single journal
subscriptions are condemned as too expensive; discounted multi-journal
'Big Deals' often entail taking a proportion of unwanted,  unused,
content.

Here, I want to briefly explore an idea which might go some way to
meeting libraries desires for better value from publishers, and
creating a closer relationship between payment and usage.

Take all amounts as purely hypothetical, simply for the purposes of
argument. Suppose, for an annual fee of $1500, a library could access
all my journals and the backfiles - see
http://multi-science.metapress.com Downloads would be charged at $5
each. At year end, if the library had had more than 300 downloads, we
would invoice them for the balance. So that the library is protected
from unlimited liability, we would set a cap, the maximum we could
charge regardless of how many downloads - say $10,000 for a major
institution, $3500 for a smaller one. To further eliminate
uncertainty, agreements could be for 3 years, with fixed price
increases - which could be 0%. 3 years worth of data would then give
an equitable basis for renewing, renegotiating, or cancelling the
contract. The core point is that, through this approach, steadily we
move towards a world where payment is for usage only, which is where
librarians seem to want to be going.

It may be that this model or something like it is common anyway, so I
am merely re-inventing existing practice: it would be useful to be
told. It may be that there are practical reasons in the way libraries
work, perhaps in terms of budget allocations or purchasing cycles,
that make this idea a non-starter, and I would be interested to know
about such constraints. Or it may even be a useful thought.

I would welcome feedback from the library community.

Bill Hughes
Director
Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd

ATOM RSS1 RSS2