From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 12:04:49 +0000 John Abbott gets it about right. Publishers will and do lie and subvert any system, gaming them at their leisure. In the mid-eighties Stuart Grinnell and I published research showing that Pergamon over a 5 year period had prices invariably going "up" based on who knows what, but from their propaganda, because of increased output. ( or the funniest, increased postage costs from Europe...Weren't most publishers at that time drop shipping from East Asia??) But as we tracked the number of journal articles over a period (5 years if I remember correctly) we found that the number of articles in their journals seemed to increase or decrease without regards to pricing, prices which were completely separate, always going up, almost in a straight line year over year. Never of course going down when output dropped. Similarly with Michael Mabes famous number estimating a year over year growth in the journal system of articles correlating with number of increaes in scientists, I seem to remember that at about 3% a year, a number you couldn't correlate with ISI's measures of journal article output. But 10%, 15% and even more price increases un related to output measures. Now publisher's have found a new way to subvert what was supposed to be a win win situation, the big deal. First of all slap an NDA so no one can systematically show what the real price increases are then immediately start planning how to get beyond that 5% cap in the license. One example, just remove a portion of your output where you REALLY want more than 5% a year. Make it must have content, (there actually is still some of that) and off to the races. The cap, in case anyone cares to remember was to protect library budgets. Ha Ha very funny our publisher friends respond. The no cancellation clauses were to protect publishers. So a win win. But in practice as John implies below, perversion of the clear intentions at least in the goals of libraries. I realize this probably needs a whole article detailing all the ways in which publishers have subverted the intent of these license agreements, but we'd still have publisher agents provacateur arguing, but look we produce more so proportionally we have to charge more. NO such thing of course as savings based on volume, those all go to the publisher side of the equation. You'd think 5% a year would be enough for anyone, but no, not at all. I've got publishers that are clocking in once again at those 10% to 15% a year increases. Anyone else? --Don't tell me their names, they might sue you for NDA ....!!! Chuck Hamaker ________________________________________ From: "John P. Abbott" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:05:29 -0500 On 12/1/2011 7:22 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > Toll-access publishers fight hard to get the best publications and the best > authors for those publications because that perceived quality can lead to > stronger revenues. This is an idealized vision of large publishers slugging it out in the best interests of competition and so driving the market's invisible hand. Most large publishers produce and clog the market with more mediocre journals than prestigious ones. Once competition in the title-by-title acquisition by libraries helped purge the market. Now in the Big Deal model, new journals are added to the package and often there is no opt-out, only notification that the Big Deal will inflate some percentage and there will be a forced acquisition of these new titles at some percent of an imaginary list price for the new titles. Journal titles rarely cease in this market. John John P. Abbott, MS MSLS Associate Professor& Coordinator, Collection Management University Library Appalachian State University ASU Box 32026 218 College Street Boone, NC 28608 828-262-2821 (vox) 828-262-2773 (fax) [log in to unmask]