From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:36:44 -0500
How are people taking into account the amount of usage that takes place at
Sci-Hub and ResearchGate, or does that not matter? (Roger Schonfeld calls
this "leakage.")
Joe Esposito
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:48 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Dmitri Zaitsev <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:21:49 +0000
>
> Dear Ted,
>
> If the faculty is the main user, what about letting them rate journals by
> importance and subsequently subscribe to the most requested ones? Your
> faculty is probably the best positioned to evaluate individual journals'
> quality, will appreciate being asked for their opinion, and library will
> have more evidence to justify the use of their funds.
>
> I would be curious to hear thoughts about it.
>
> Dmitri
>
> --
> Dmitri Zaitsev
> School of Mathematics
> Trinity College Dublin
>
> WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~zaitsev/
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:06 AM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Ted Bergstrom <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:10:17 -0800
>>
>> Negotiations between Elsevier and the University of California system
>> over open access and pricing seem to have reached a stalemate, and the UC
>> no longer has the Elsevier Big Deal. Currently, no UC campus subscribes
>> to any Elsevier journals. If the UC chooses not to reenter the Big Deal,
>> the UC campus libraries will probably find it worthwhile to subscribe to
>> some Elsevier journals. Which ones should they choose?
>>
>> A UCSB student, Zhiyao Ma, and I are developing a little tool that we
>> hope will help UC librarians in making cost-effective selections of
>> Elsevier journals for subscription. The UC has download statistics for
>> each Elsevier journal at each of its campuses. Elsevier posts *a la
>> carte* subscription prices for each of its journals. Our tool allows
>> one to select a cost per download threshold and obtain a list of journals
>> that meet this criterion, along with their total cost. It also allows for
>> separate thresholds to be used for different disciplines. You can check
>> out the current version at https://yaoma.shinyapps.io/Elsevier-Project/
>>
>> Since this project is still under way, we would be interested in any
>> suggestions from librarians about how to make this tool more broadly
>> useful. Extending this tool to make comparisons among journals from
>> multiple publishers is an obvious step. However, we are dubious about the
>> value of download statistics for cross-publisher comparisons. There is
>> evidence that download counts substantially overstate usage, because of
>> repeated downloads of the same article by the same users, and that the
>> amount of double-counting varies systematically by publisher. This is
>> discussed in a couple of papers of which I am a coauthor.
>>
>> "Looking under the Counter for Overcounted Downloads" (with Kristin
>> Antelman and Richard Uhrig)
>> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vf2k2p0
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Do Download counts reliably measure journal usage: Trusting the fox to
>> count your hens". (with Alex Wood-Doughty and Doug Steigerwald)
>> https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/17824/19653
>>
>> Instead of using download data, we could construct a similar calculator
>> using price per recent citation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. We
>> have found that the ratio of downloads to citations differ significantly
>> between disciplines. So it is probably appropriate for cost per citation
>> thresholds to differ among disciplines.
>>
>> At any rate, we would value suggestions.
>>
>> Ted Bergstrom
>>
>
|
