From: Brian Simboli <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:02:21 -0500

Re. below, why not a tool that replicates the idea behind Bradford's Law?
The tool would examine across big consortia what journals get cited. What
stock of journals is demonstrably needed? This would help to transition
toward a lower overall stock of journals. Good thing, all around. The big
consortia can then lead the way in helping define what journals are indeed
core, then use negotiating power to drive down the prices of those journals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford%27s_law

Let preprints (immediate OA!)  w/ very light "peer review", and easy to
understand and very noticeable disclaimers so the public will not be misled
into thinking the stuff has undergone serious scientific scrutiny (caveat
lector!), take up the slack of all those marginally valuable, non-core
journals. Who really needs all this stuff? Pare it down.

Brian Simboli
[log in to unmask]


==
From: Ted Bergstrom < <[log%20in%20to%20unmask]>[log in to unmask]
<http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind1911%26L%3DLIBLICENSE-L%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D543007%26B%3D--000000000000a85f390597a66903%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26pending%3D>
>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:10:17 -0800

Negotiations between Elsevier and the University of California system over
open access and pricing seem to have reached a stalemate, and the UC no
longer has the Elsevier Big Deal.   Currently,  no UC campus  subscribes to
any Elsevier journals. If the UC chooses not to reenter the Big Deal, the
UC campus libraries will probably find it worthwhile to subscribe to some
Elsevier journals.  Which ones should they choose?      .....
--