From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:30:31 +0000

Thanks Alicia

The thrust of my very short (and, as Rick Anderson points out,
ambiguously worded) post was addressing the first point.  Usage and
citation half-lives are often used to justify varying embargo periods,
but the link between either usage or citation half-lives and
cancellations has not been made.

The ALPSP survey is rather simplistic.  We know that freely available
post-embargo material is way down the list of criteria that librarians
use to make purchasing decisions (for example, this was the finding of
a report from the British Academy).  Cost, fit with the academic
mission of the institution, etc. all are much, much more important.

As an aside, the question of usage - in the sense Rick used it - in a
big deal environment is an interesting one.  Many institutions are
purchasing - through big deals - access to journals that are never or
rarely used at their institution.  The nature of the current market
means that purchasing decisions and usage information about individual
journals have become only loosely coupled.

Alicia quotes the Journal of Clinical Investigation as an example of
where short embargoes lead to difficulties.  This isn’t quite
like-for-like as in this case the material was made freely available
from the journal itself, including the final ‘version of record’.  I
believe it is the same for the Annuals of Mathematics - the complete
journal, including final versions of papers, was made freely available
by the publisher.  That’s very different to what we are talking about
here - which is the accepted manuscript.  If you present customers
with a product and say ‘you can either subscribe or not subscribe -
but in either case you get exactly the same product’ you may have some
trouble with subscribers.  However, if you believe that the publisher
is creating significant addition value in the version of record as
oppose to the authors’ unformatted accepted manuscripts then surely
those that value the additions will continue to subscribe.

I guess the problem would come if the price you charge is perceived to
be greatly in excess of the value that you add.  I suppose in that
case one would be tempted to apply long embargoes.

David



On 22 Jun 2015, at 23:21, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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: