From: Allen Jones <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 23:05:22 -0400

Richard,

I echo your concern.  I’m wondering about the lack of current issue
and it’s impact on current research and scholarship practices (if any)
across various disciplines.  We are seeing that we have to buy current
or ancillary subscriptions because of embargoed content within
aggregators - particularly in science and business.  Wondering if
others have thoughts behind these licensing schemes that still require
libraries to pay twice for some title....

Best,

Allen Jones

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2017, at 7:36 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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]
> ***************************************************