From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:13:33 +0000
Christina: See:
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCAccessvsImportanceGlobalNov2010_000.pdf
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:47:47 -0500
This is an interesting response. You say:
" In a recent study by the Publishers' Research Consortium over 90% of
nearly 4000 researchers surveyed, reported "very high satisfaction"
with access to research articles."
And indeed many publishers have been repeating this finding, but I'd like
more details. Can you cite the exact study? What was the survey question?
Who answered the survey (what population were they from?) What were the
methods... etc?
I'm skeptical but am open to seeing the data/methods.
Christina Pikas
(my opinions do not reflect any position of my employer, etc)
----
Christina K Pikas
Librarian
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: Exciting World of Research Information
From: "Lowe, Chrysanne (ELS-SDG)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:10:51 +0000
I was watching Twitter last night; literally watching the boycott commentary
run by like a market ticker, and wondered to myself "when did research
information get so exciting?" Now it seems that the world has discovered
what Librarians and Scholarly Publishers have known and struggled with for
years. The information industry is exciting; and the issues at hand are
complicated and at the forefront of the intellectual property and copyright
arena; with far-reaching repercussions.
Although it's tempting to boil issues down to catch-phrases like "Publicly
funded research should be free to the public," it is much more difficult to
divine the implications of such statements. I was recently told about a
dynamic government-funded research center to develop flexible display
technology. What portion of that research should be free: the research
report to the funding agency; the peer-reviewed published article; or the
new flexi-plastic tablet as the result of that publicly-funded research?
How did we come to accept that the peer-reviewed article meets that
obligation? I think this is an important discussion; one that needs much
more thoughtful debate.
And as that debate is fueled in part by three criticisms of Elsevier on
thecostofknowledge.com, I hope readers will keep these facts in
mind:
First, that access to published content is actually greater and at its
lowest cost per use than ever. This is a direct result of investments from
publishers to digitize and disseminate content and the effort of libraries
to form consortia to negotiate discounts for increased volumes of quality
material.
Secondly, that Elsevier offers a broad menu of purchasing options:
from pay-per-view, title-by-title, to collections; however, there is no
contesting that the introduction of large collections have added enormous
access at fractions of the list prices; and resulted in reduced cost per
use. It's just not true that the "extra titles" are unused, we can see from
usage reports that in fact approximately 40% of usage from the Freedom
Collection comes from previously unsubscribed journals.
Finally, it is Elsevier's mission to expand access to content, not restrict
it. And because of the actions that Libraries and Publishers have taken, we
have together been hugely successful in this mission.
In a recent study by the Publishers' Research Consortium over 90% of nearly
4000 researchers surveyed, reported "very high satisfaction"
with access to research articles. Elsevier supports open access. We offer
several open access options including a sponsored article option for over
1,100 titles. We have always allowed authors to voluntarily post
manuscripts.
Elsevier aims to make research more accessible and discoverable while
ensuring the integrity of the scientific record. We've always supported the
principle that the public should have access to publicly funded research. We
believe this can best be achieved in an environment without government
mandates.
From what I see inside Elsevier, there is universal recognition that we are
on a journey. We are furiously looking to innovate, adapt, and change; as
any company that has existed for well over a hundred years must. I know that
many libraries struggle with budget problems right now; but Librarians and
Publishers, in my humble opinion, have accomplished a great deal since we
embarked on this transition from print to electronic dissemination. The many
customers that I have worked with over the years have never failed to
address these complex issues with thoughtful and considered approaches. Why
do we, Libraries and Publishers, continue to do this? Maybe because we both
know that this is exciting and meaningful work; that simple slogans won't
serve science in the long run; and that although we understand there will be
differences of opinion, continued engagement and respect will continue to
advance the cause.
Chrysanne Lowe
VP Global Marketing Communications for Elsevier A&G Research Markets
http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/blog
|
