From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:24:14 +0000

Dear David

Researchers in those areas of physics and mathematics that use ArXiv as a
place they almost invariably put their preprints still check out the journal
article for the VOR when they cite the content - or at least the ones I have
been interviewing recently said they did. I do not know how frequently the
preprint is replaced by the postprint or even by the VOR on ArXiv (I believe
there have been estimates), but I do know that the sort of big science
represented in some (but not all) of the sub-disciplines we are talking about
produces papers which are essentially refereed by the group before
submission. That being said mathematical physicists use ArXiv a lot
(normally) and they are not big science people, so one would assume distinct
differences between preprints and postprints/VOR. These people like computer
scientists but at least a postprint and sometimes the VOR on their own sites
as routine. So you see I do not understand what is really happening any more
than you do... but I am adding to the complexity.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----

From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:31:02 +1100

That's why I asked the question. ArXiv is often held up as the poster child
for OA, and has been around for a long time, could it replace the need for
journal subs sufficiently in this case? Would 80% be enough? I have no idea,
but I'm interested to know if there is an answer.

David

On 20/03/2014 11:55 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:21 -0400
>
> A common misconception is that all physics is in ArXiv. While some
> areas of physics are covered as much as 80%, others like AMO are only
> covered at about 20%. That's one reason the journals are still needed.
> For HEP, the SCOAP3 deal will make the articles available. Once again,
> that's just a small area of Physics.
>
> Christina
>
> Christina K. Pikas
> Librarian
> The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:01:10 +1100
>
> Given that these are all Physics titles it would be really interesting
> to know if arXiv becomes the default option for accessing these
> articles in the future. Have you thought about trying to track that?
>
> Are you planning to direct your users there as an option for accessing
articles?
>
> David Groenewegen
>
>
> On 17/03/2014 7:27 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>>
>> From: "Nunnenmacher, Lothar" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:20:16 +0000
>>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> In the last summer, there was a discussion about the new APS tiering
>> system here in the list, which is based solely on usage. It was
>> discussed, whether this is fair and whether smaller institutions
>> suffer most from it.
>>
>> Actually, we - the Library for the Research Institutes within the ETH
>> domain - did suffer. And we draw consequences of this. We cut down
>> the subscription from APS-ALL to two titles. Some of you might be
>> interested in seeing our news on this topic, where we also explain,
>> that tiering according to usage is a bad idea:
>>
>> http://www.lib4ri.ch/news.html++/year/2014/item/82/
>>
>> We did not have many reactions of our users, yet (which is a also
>> good indicator for a reasonable decision), but at least one senior
>> researcher will cease doing reviews for APS as long as he has no
>> access to the journals. And the decision was discussed in several
>> directorates within our research institutes.
>>
>> I know from similar problems in France and Belgium:
>>
>> http://www.mysciencework.com/news/11109/an-epidemic-of-journal-subscr
>> i
>> ption-cancellations
>>
>> However, with a cursory search on the web I did not find any such
>> news from UK, US or elsewhere. Was there no problem with these
>> immense price increases?
>>
>> Lothar