From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:28:17 +0000

Hi David,

The evidence available for publishers to factor into embargo setting includes:

1. Usage Evidence

In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association
of American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage
varies widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of
journals have half-lives of 12 months or less. Health sciences
articles have the shortest median half-life of the journals analyzed,
but still more than 50% of health science journals have usage
half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the longest usage
half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 50% of
the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf

2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations

A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the
(majority of) content of research journals was freely available within
6 months of publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results
“indicate that only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM
field would definitely continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to
just 35%. See:

http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407

This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken
for ALPSP in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last
bullet) found that "overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians
use in making cancellation decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points
7 and 8) found that "the length of any embargo" would be the most
important factor in making cancellation decisions.

A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of
librarians are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed
resources, given certain levels of reliability, peer review and
currency of the information available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of
librarians would use the green OA material over paying for
subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material if it is
available after 6 months. See:

http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences

3. Experiences of other journals

For example the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open
access with a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional
subscriptions over time. The journal was forced to return to the
subscription model in 2009, see
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/
Other examples that spring to mind are the Annals of Mathematics, the
Journal of Dental Research, the American Journal of Pathology, and
Genetics.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:13:03 +0000

I feel contractually obliged (and I know I’m boring everybody) to
point out that the evidence that links journal usage patterns to
library purchasing patterns is pretty much non-existent.  Setting
embargoes based on usage patterns is faith-based, not evidence-based.

David

On 19 Jun 2015, at 00:46, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:54:19 +0000
>
> Hi Ann,
>
> Thank you, and Rick, for drawing attention to the What's Changed slide
> (http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/whats-changed-in-sharing-policy).
> It's been viewed 581 times, c. 125 of these when I first distributed
> the link and a further 200 times in the last couple of days.
>
> You ask several questions about embargos: their length, how they are
> set, and whether we would like to rationalize or normalize the embargo
> periods.
>
> First, the length of our embargo periods, and particularly how many
> journals have 48 month embargo periods.  The answer is that only 25,
> or 1.1%, of our journals have 48 month embargo periods.  54.7% of our
> journals have embargo periods of 12 months.  We are using a shorter
> embargo list in the UK, and in that case 83.7% of our journals have
> embargo periods of 12 months.  Longer embargo periods are typically
> used for social science and some physical science titles where there
> is a longer usage half-life.
>
> (For us, and for other publishers, see:
> http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf).
>
> We are reviewing our embargo periods in 2015, and while I cannot
> pre-judge the outcome of this review, we are very conscious of the
> many new funding body policies that have emerged in the last year with
> 12 month embargo periods.  We obviously want embargo periods that
> support authors, funders and journals.
>
> Second, you ask about how we set embargo periods.  These are largely
> based on underlying usage patterns, but following review of usage data
> we do sense-check the suggested embargo period with publishers and
> consult with Society publishing partners.  This sense-check factors
> in: feedback from researchers, analysis of researcher sharing
> behaviors, what our competitors are doing, and funder policies and
> mandates that might influence author submission decisions.  As I
> explained above, we want embargo periods that support authors, funders
> and journals, but there will be occasions where the requirements of
> funders for short embargo periods, for example of six months, won’t
> align with our need to protect journals.  If a funder insists on 6
> month embargo periods and we can’t see a way for that to be
> sustainable for a journal, then we have gold OA options available.
> Most funders with such policies provide funding for gold OA
> publishing.
>
> Third, you ask if we would like to rationalize or normalize the
> embargo periods.  We do understand the administration and
> communication benefits for us all of increased simplicity, and we do
> see more coherence in embargo periods over time.  However it is likely
> there will always be some exceptions and that it will not be possible
> to get 100% alignment for all our journals on one specific embargo
> period.
>
> With kind wishes,
> Alicia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:45:55 -0400
>
> Alicia Wise also linked to this chart in her posting of 4 June, and I
> happen to agree that the clarifications are more crisp and thus are
> useful -- and in some cases actually increase share-ability.
>
> In the extensive liblicense-l discussion on this whole matter, Rick is
> the one commentator who references the chart.  Others haven't
> commented - perhaps they haven't yet looked at it?
>
> The largest amount of heat has been generated over the length of
> embargoes, some (?) being as long as 48 months, presumably.  Now, I've
> assumed that Elsevier (like Springer, Wiley, and others) distributes
> (or publishes, if you will) a number of journals that it doesn't own
> or control.  These are likely produced by societies and research
> organizations and contracted with Elsevier.
>
> What I next assumed is that the owners of those journals are
> responsible for their policies about revenue, access, editorial, etc.
> And so, it would be up to them to decide about the length of the
> embargo period, not necessarily Elsevier.  Since Alicia noted that the
> length of embargo is an ongoing topic of conversation at Elsevier, I
> also assumed that as much as possible Elsevier would like to
> rationalize or normalize the embargo period, but is not always able to
> do that.  So I've not laid the responsibility for longer embargo
> periods squarely at Elsevier's door.
>
> Is this correct (Alicia, please!) or am I wrong here (possibly many
> readers will tell me that I am.
>
> Regards, Ann Okerson