Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 17 May 2018 20:14:17 -0700 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:06:44 -0700
The price of textbooks and the consequent burden on students is a hot topic
in higher education, leading both to initiatives to expand the usage of
Open Educational Resources (OERs – roughly open-access textbooks) and to
experiments in different pricing models by which publishers offer
e-textbooks. One commonly discussed model is a ‘subscription’ or ‘site
license’ to attain ‘inclusive access’ by charging a single price to an
institution for access to all the students in a given course. This usually
leads to lower cost-per-student and (and this is what academics like) much
broader access to textbooks by students where now many choose not to buy
textbooks they find too expensive.
So now a publisher is facing blowback from textbook authors:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/05/16/
textbook-authors-sue-cengage-over-subscription-model#.Wvx3HR7yzeA.twitter
Without knowing anywhere near enough facts of the case, I think it’s
permitted to wonder whether a lower price guaranteed for a larger number of
students might not in some cases bring equal revenue to publishers and
authors over a current situation where non-purchase, reliance on
second-hand texts, and the like already brings less than the notional
maximum revenue that would come from 100% of students paying retail price.
My view is that libraries will be increasingly pressed to engage in this
space, whatever models emerge as preferable.
Jim O’Donnell
Arizona State University
|
|
|