From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:39:14 +0000

Ann:

You hit it squarely on. From evidence I know of, r countrywide
negotiators are hitting it out of the ballpark on pricing and terms.
Other efforts particularly in the US,  individually, consortia (or
not) with few exceptions,  pale in comparison to what some of the
national groups have achieved in cost effectiveness.

Thanks for making this ;point so cogently. I realize you are hitting
other balls around the stadium too, but that one is clear and
incontrovertible.

Chuck

________________________________________

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:28:15 -0400

Further to Erin's message of 27 June:

The SCOAP3 (High Energy Physics) journals are a microcosm of the the
larger findings in the work of T. Bergstrom et al.  To participate in
the Project, libraries were asked to re-direct the amounts paid for
certain HEP journals *from* their current publishers *to* the SCOAP3
project.  All this was done via detailed agreement between CERN/SCOAP3
and the participating publishers.

6 of the journal titles (2 titles from each of Elsevier, IoPP, and
Springer) were within journal packages, IoPP's being the smallest and
Elsevier's the largest.  Formulae were developed to calculate the
value of each of the participating HEP titles within any given
library's package.  It was expected that the HEP journal values
for libraries would vary.

In working with the US library participants, I found that the
calculated values per journal title varied tremendously.  The two
larger publishers' calculated values were quite diverse, depending
on various factors such as historical spend (before e-conversion and
consortial or package pricing), length of time in the "big deal" and
thus considerations such as loyalty discounts and price caps, and
perhaps impact of e-book spend.

Springer's calculations were further complicated by the move of
numerous US libraries to a "database model," in which the historic
spend basis continues, but the entire list of journals is treated as a
full library owned/acquisition, which includes perpetual archival
access.  For the libraries that converted to this model, each
individual subscription journal in the package (of 1200-1600 or so?)
was valued as a proportion of the libraries' entire package spend,
thus reducing the value of the previously subbed HEP titles.  The
price distinctions between titles of high interest to customers and
of LOW to NO interest to customers, go away in such a database
model.

We didn't plot these $$ title-by-title findings, but the calculated
variances between any of the Springer and Elsevier HEP journals
could be significant, sometimes multiples, depending on any given
subscribing library's circumstances.

To me it seems reasonable that larger, research type libraries will
pay rather more per title than medium or small ones, and this proved
more or less the case.  But what struck me in this effort was the
unpredictability and unevenness of title values.  All of our libraries
and consortia are negotiating individually with journal suppliers, and
we are often proud of the great arrangement we've achieved in any
given round of talks.  However, at a 30,000-ft view, with larger
datasets, the landscape becomes what I began to call "The Dog's
Breakfast." One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at this outcome
of the free market system.  It seems to me that the libraries that are
able to negotiate by country - rather than as numerous separate library
groups - are working smarter than we are in the US.

Ann Okerson


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Erin Gallagher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:33:56 +0000

Good morning, everyone.

I’m interested to know if anyone has read this article yet:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6190/1332.full

Or the original research here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1403006111.full.pdf+html

It’s not exactly surprising, but it’s interesting to read from an
economics perspective.  This has spurred much discussion here at
Rollins, and we will be conducting an analysis of our e-journal
package payments in comparison with the mean bundle prices reported in
the research.  We’re also re-evaluating our licenses regarding
non-disclosure agreements.

I would love to hear your thoughts and whether or not this is a cause
for concern and/or action at your institution.

Cheers,

Erin

Erin Gallagher
Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian
Olin Library
Rollins College
Winter Park, FL 32789
[log in to unmask]