From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:51:52 -0800

> Someone somewhere must have done the sums - surely[.]

How about Bergstrom and McAfee's "Journal Cost-Effectiveness"-
site ( http://www.journalprices.com/ ) ( currently :  2004-2011 ) ?

Maybe it's appropriate to remember here, as well, things like Tenopir
and King's "cost per article reading"-approach ( _Towards electronic
journals : realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers_ (Special
Libraries Association, 2000) ;  King et al., "Library economic metrics:
examples of the comparison of electronic and print journal collections
and collection services", _Library trends 51.3 ( Winter 2003 ), p.376-
400 ). -- And, following along, Holmström's "The cost per article
reading of open access articles" in _D-Lib Magazine_ 10.1 ( January
2004 ).

Does any of this help ?

Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland


----- Original Message -----

> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>:
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:16:26 +0000
>
> Sorry Joe and everyone else. I was not referring to APC costs (which have
> gone up and also gone down depending on the publisher) but to costs per
> article for libraries under the subscription model over the last few
> decades. We know the costs of journals has gone up but we also know that the
> number of articles in the journals have increased. The cost per article to
> libraries is an indication is a better indication of wickedness among
> publishers than the cost per journal unless you believe as some seem to do
> that it is in the interest of publishers to fill journals with a lot of
> rubbish which will have a very bad effect on impact factors. Someone
> somewhere must have done the sums - surely
>
> Anthony