From: "Kearney, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:45:12 +0000
Jan Erik's claims may be "inaccurate," as you say, but the issue is a
matter of degree, not one of truth-vs.-falsity:
Yes, it is "not true that libraries are no longer buying individual
journal subscriptions," but what percentage of their
periodicals/serials budget is represented by such titles as compared
with the money spent on journal packages and leased periodical content
through full-text aggregator databases? And is that percentage
declining, staying the same, or rising? The pressures imposed on
strained budgets when annual price increases hit present libraries
with a very common problem: kill the big deal package and lose all
those titles, or trim those individual titles where you can be a
little more precise? And what has been the trend in those decisions
over the last decade? We had about 1,000 individual journal
subscriptions too at one time, but that number has been going in one
direction. I'd like to know more about the general trends - sounds
like a topic for a comprehensive survey.
>>I’m surprised by how often this inaccurate statement is repeated in
>>forums like this. While it’s certainly true that libraries regularly
>>buy journals in packages (both comprehensive publisher Big Deals and
>>smaller, subject-specific packages), it is not true that libraries are
>>no longer buying individual journal subscriptions. At my institution,
>>for example, we have a Big Deal package with Elsevier, and large
>>subject packages with several other publishers. But we also have more
>>than 1,000 individual journal subscriptions, and we make choices
>>between individual journal subscriptions on a pretty much constant
>>basis. This is also the case at every other research library of which
>>I’m aware.
>a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages
>may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase
>in titles and articles to justify price increases.
Another matter of degree, not an either/or proposition. What share of
institutional budgets is now devoted to "predatory" APCs as compared
with the share devoted to double-digit percentage profit margins for
big publishers? Is there any serious comparison of the two?
Nevertheless, I am not suggesting that prioritizing support for gold
OA at this time is a good idea. I agree with Stevan Harnad that a
"green-first" policy makes more sense and is probably the path most
likely to address what remains an ongoing scholarly communication
crisis.
>>I think you’re proposing a false dichotomy, Jan-Erik. Why can only one
>>of these things be “the financial burden”? Can’t subscription charges
>>and APCs charged by scam journals both be “financial burden(s)” upon
>>science?
>b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon
>science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the
>profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP
>2016).
***************************************************
Richard Kearney
Electronic Resources Librarian
David and Lorraine Cheng Library
William Paterson University
300 Pompton Road
Wayne, NJ 07470
Tel. 973.720.2165
Fax 973.720.2585
[log in to unmask]
***************************************************
________________________________________
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:30:33 +0000
>a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages
>may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase
>in titles and articles to justify price increases.
I’m surprised by how often this inaccurate statement is repeated in
forums like this. While it’s certainly true that libraries regularly
buy journals in packages (both comprehensive publisher Big Deals and
smaller, subject-specific packages), it is not true that libraries are
no longer buying individual journal subscriptions. At my institution,
for example, we have a Big Deal package with Elsevier, and large
subject packages with several other publishers. But we also have more
than 1,000 individual journal subscriptions, and we make choices
between individual journal subscriptions on a pretty much constant
basis. This is also the case at every other research library of which
I’m aware.
>b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon
>science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the
>profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP
>2016).
I think you’re proposing a false dichotomy, Jan-Erik. Why can only one
of these things be “the financial burden”? Can’t subscription charges
and APCs charged by scam journals both be “financial burden(s)” upon
science?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]
|
