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