From: FrederickFriend <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:42:10 +0000


I shall “de-personalise” this reply to Anthony although what I shall
write below is derived from my experience and the experience of other
librarians and former librarians.

On the influence of librarians within universities on copyright
issues, this has developed because researchers, teachers and students
have asked librarians for advice when faced with copyright issues
affecting their work, for example on the copying of library materials
for classroom use. In some institutions this has led to a nomination
of a librarian as Copyright Officer, in others it has remained
informal. Librarians recognise that they are not copyright experts,
but they always have recourse to institutional legal advisers if
necessary. (I wonder what the situation is in publishers’ rights
offices: are all the staff there legally-qualified, or do they also
turn to the legal officers when they face an unusual situation?)
Although librarians are not copyright experts, they do build up
experience, particularly when they see the effect of restrictive
copyright legislation or licences upon their institution’s research
and teaching.

Likewise it is librarians’ experience of dealing with problems in the
current scholarly communication system that has led to their
involvement in campaigns for change. Some librarians are scholars,
some may not be, but most librarians know what it is like not to be
able to purchase enough research monographs or textbooks because a
very high proportion of the library budget is spent on journals from a
handful of publishers. Librarians cannot ignore such situations,
especially at a time when there is little hope of increased public
funding of libraries. What librarians have to do in such situations is
advise their university authorities on the allocation of the library
budget which yields the highest return in terms of access, use and
impact for researchers, teachers and learners. Some academics will not
and do not agree with changes in scholarly communication. Others do
agree. We all have to say what we believe to be right.

The big publishers do spend a  lot of money on lobbying. I do not
blame them for that (although it is galling that high journal prices
paid by libraries provide the money for them to lobby). Publishers
have to do what they feel to be right to protect their profit margins.
Librarians also lobby for what they feel to be beneficial change. It
is a reality within universities and within governments.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL



From: LIBLICENSE
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model

From: "Anthony Watkinson" <[log in to unmask]>

I have refrained from commenting on posts by Fred Friend for some time but I
cannot refrain from commenting on this one. Big publishers have absolutely
no influence on universities. Big librarians have a huge influence within
universities as he knows very well. For example in most universities
librarians are the copyright officers whether or not they know anything
about copyright. They organise campaigns about transforming scholarly
communication even when they are not scholars. Yes of course some academics
who are editors of journals published by big publishers (whether for profit
or not-for-profit) do not want their journals to be removed from purchase
but they are not acting as representatives of big publishers. They are
acting as academics. Unfortunately for Fred Friend academics on the ground
do not always agree with him. Librarians do not represent academics and of
course publishers do not either. I guess few academics would wish to have a
model of scholarly communication under which they would always to get money
to pay fees to publish. I suggest that most academics whether they prefer to
publish in open access journals or not would want the mixed economy that we
currently have.

Anthony Watkinson
University College London

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of FrederickFriend
Sent: 17 November 2011 03:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?"

Bill's contributions to such discussions are always to the point.
Some librarians are capable of playing hardball with publishers.
The problem I experienced in so doing was that my university
authorities and senior academics were not willing to support a
"take it or leave it" result from the negotiations. The big
publishers have so much influence within universities that they
often undermine a tough stance from the library. University
authorities do not apply the same criteria of impact and value
for money to journal purchases as they would to other
expenditure, and senior academics confuse the retention of the
really key journals with the occasionally useful titles that all
get bundled together in a big deal.

Open Access has become far more than a "solution to library
budgets". It started in that way for some people, but the more we
looked at open access, the more attractive became the benefits to
all stakeholders, including some publishers.

Fred Friend

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?"

Rick this cuts both ways. First, OK, let's concede that a handful
of top tier journals are "must have." And so libraries which have
researchers in certain fields have to pay through the nose for
some - some - of Big Publishings products. But in my 30 years
plus in this business, it seems to me libraries have little
grasped that Big Publishing needs you, the university library, as
much as I (small publisher) do. And while librarians may be adept
at saying 'take it or leave it' to the smaller pubishers, the
community seems far less capable of doing that to Big Publishing,
which has been one of the ways this hugely skewed market has
emerged.

Few librarians grasp that EXXXXXXX is, for example, our company
with a few noughts on the end of the balance sheet. Very recently
the library of a large technological university in Europe wanted
to acquire 13 of our titles. They wanted a discount, fair enough,
so we offered them one. But, in fact, after negotiating, what I
was to take or leave was a price some 30% lower than our offer,
effectively diminishing over time as the built-in increase was
only 2%, i.e., less than inflation.

Did I say 'hop it'? Of course not, I'm not going to turn down an
order for a few thousand dollars. And is a large publisher going
to turn down an order for a few tens of thousands, or hundreds of
thousands, even though it's 30% less than it wanted?

Libraries have the willpower and skillset to play hardball with
small publishers, but will they apply those talents to their
dealings with big publishing? The result is a market so skewed
that some people believe complex initiatives like Open Access
provide the solution to library budgets.

Best wishes
Bill Hughes
Multi-Science Publishing
www.multi-science.co.uk