From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Cc:
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:07:45 +0000
Subject: RE: Future of the Subscription Model

________________________________________
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [[log in to unmask]]
Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
From: Heather Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:02:16 -0800

>Usage-based pricing makes sense for resources that are limited in
>nature, such as electricity or gas. As these kinds of resources become
>more scarce, prices go up, providing a necessary disincentive to
>usage.

The more you use an electronic journal, the lower the cost per use
goes. Journal subscriptions are not like electricity or gas, you pay a
flat fee, and get to use everything you need. The trick is being sure
you need the resource and being allowed by contract, to use it.
(Rather than paying for things you don't use)

>For scholarly knowledge in electronic form, usage-based pricing such
>as pay by the drink or pay per view, is at the very best a stopgap
>measure to address the high cost of subscriptions. However, as a
>default model this presents significant challenges for education and
>for scholarship.

Usage based pricing, in my experience might be the very best model for
many sholarly journal articles. I suggest you take a look at
Interlibrary loan and look at cost per article under the subscription
based model and compare it with cost per article in say a Copyright
Clearance Center based economy. I'm in the process of doing this for
last year's ILL transactions for my library and the evidence is
exactly opposite of this claim for the vast majority of ILL
transactions. We saved big bucks not subscribing but instead buying by
the drink. There ARE instances where subscriptions make more sense,
but generally for ILL, they don't. The problem with the big deal is
too often we are locked into non-economic titles and models. Tere are
other models that are much less expensive and academic publishers will
have to be accommodating to them ultimately if they want their primary
customers to thrive (I.e. libraries and authors) .

>When we pay by the use, the research of the first and second year
>students are likely to be seen as a cost item, and cut in times of
>hardship. Similarly, pay-per-use is a reason to turn away the walk-in
>user. Odlyzko found (with respect to internet usage) that cost-per-use
>discourages usage, even at very low cost-per-use rates. In scholarly
>terms, this is discouraging reading and research.

Well, again, I have to disagree. For first and second year students we
provide even LOWER CPU articles in the form of secondary aggregator
databases. Sometimes pennies an article is the result. At least that's
my experience. Is your experience different?

>Examples of how libraries use usage-based pricing to discourage
>excessive use are photocopier / printing costs and ILL fees.

ILL fees are mostly fear based. If you compare, as has been done now
for about 30 years, cost per use for ILL/document delivery and
subscriptions, in place of expensive lesser used journals, I'm not
aware of any research that shows high priced lower use subscriptions
come out ahead.  In fact, rather the opposite for a large number of
titles. There ARE subscription titles that are so heavily used by a
particular institution that the warrant the annual flat fee.
Publishers have been trying hard to force the purchase of low use high
priced titles. I think there is about to be a major battle against
that practice.

>If scholarly articles and journals are assessed by usage, this will
>work against areas with fewer researchers.

Do you have proof, or are you just conducting a thought experiment?
Are you meaning something by assessed that is different than cost per
use? And is that cost per use of the whole run of the jorunal or cost
per use of the current year only? (i.e. COUNTER definitions?) Perhaps
the most effective way for areas with fewer researchers to communicate
is a low cost journal.

>Without outlets for publication, there could be impacts on whole
>fields.

Any evidence that movinig the more expensive journals to pay per view
would mean fewer outlets for publication?

>Consider, for example, how many researchers are likely to be
>studying and reading about any one endangered species (excluding
>the popular and cute).

>This is a topic I write about in some depth in this book chapter
>(includes the Odlyzko citation): http://summit.sfu.ca/item/439

There is a substantial literature disproving many of the assertions
you make in this posting.

>My perspective is that there is point in moving to pay-per-use when
>open access is growing so rapidly that even commercial publishers are
>now moving to compete in this arena.

This final argument has little to do with open access.  I don't think
you are managing a budget right now. If you were your perspective
might be a bit different as you would be focused on getting the most
use for the least cost. In many instances that means pay per use.


Chuck Hamaker