From: "Mr. Gunn" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:11:41 -0500

In this talk about the hypothetical cancellations, let's not lose
sight of the fact that the mission of both libraries and publishers in
this respect is to provide access to research for the researchers.
From the researcher's perspective, it doesn't matter so much WHO is
providing the access, so long as they can get what they need. They
certainly don't have such a strong preference for the upselling,
(excuse me, community building) that publishers can provide, that they
would put up with reduced access in order to have such community
building opportunities.

So with the demographics of this email list noted, I feel like it
would be good to see the discussion start from what the researchers
need, as opposed to just how to maintain one of the current methods of
meeting that need. If it turns out that publishers need more eyeballs,
(and don't they always), they still have a number of ways to reach
people and perhaps they can learn a trick or two from what the other
content industries are doing with engaging their readers through
content creation. See http://inside.flipboard.com for a good example
of old media learning some new tricks.

Respectfully submitted,

William Gunn | Head of Academic Outreach | +1 646 755 9862
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/william-gunn


On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:33:23 -0400, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From:�Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>Date:�Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:22:48 +0000
>
>>These journals make the content
>>available ether through their own websites, through others (such as
>>PubMedCentral), or both. �Some of them have been doing so since well
>>before the Beckett and Inger study so we potentially have six years of
>>data to test the hypothesis that a six-month embargo could lead to
>>subscription losses in the order of 44%.
>
><snip>
>
>>As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that six months
>>embargoes have led to 44% reductions in subscriptions as predicted by
>>this latest survey. �The journals that make their content available
>>after six months appear to be thriving and are sustainable. �If I have
>>missed the evidence please let me know.
>
>David makes a very good point and implicitly asks an excellent question
>here. As a follow-up to the ALPSP study, it would be great to see a
>comprehensive (or responsibly sampled) list of journals that:
>
>a) started out as toll-access journals;
>b) changed to OA journals with a six-month embargo;
>c) have since experienced cancellations, or
>d) have not experienced any cancellations
>
>Has anyone actually gathered this data, and if not, is it available
>somewhere for gathering? As someone who is neither an OA evangelist nor an
>opponent and who has no vested interest in the results, I'd be happy to
>collaborate with someone on putting it together and creating a report.
>
>Rick Anderson
>Acting Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
>University of Utah
>[log in to unmask]