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]