From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:24:14 +0000 Dear David Researchers in those areas of physics and mathematics that use ArXiv as a place they almost invariably put their preprints still check out the journal article for the VOR when they cite the content - or at least the ones I have been interviewing recently said they did. I do not know how frequently the preprint is replaced by the postprint or even by the VOR on ArXiv (I believe there have been estimates), but I do know that the sort of big science represented in some (but not all) of the sub-disciplines we are talking about produces papers which are essentially refereed by the group before submission. That being said mathematical physicists use ArXiv a lot (normally) and they are not big science people, so one would assume distinct differences between preprints and postprints/VOR. These people like computer scientists but at least a postprint and sometimes the VOR on their own sites as routine. So you see I do not understand what is really happening any more than you do... but I am adding to the complexity. Anthony -----Original Message----- From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:31:02 +1100 That's why I asked the question. ArXiv is often held up as the poster child for OA, and has been around for a long time, could it replace the need for journal subs sufficiently in this case? Would 80% be enough? I have no idea, but I'm interested to know if there is an answer. David On 20/03/2014 11:55 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:21 -0400 > > A common misconception is that all physics is in ArXiv. While some > areas of physics are covered as much as 80%, others like AMO are only > covered at about 20%. That's one reason the journals are still needed. > For HEP, the SCOAP3 deal will make the articles available. Once again, > that's just a small area of Physics. > > Christina > > Christina K. Pikas > Librarian > The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory > [log in to unmask] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:01:10 +1100 > > Given that these are all Physics titles it would be really interesting > to know if arXiv becomes the default option for accessing these > articles in the future. Have you thought about trying to track that? > > Are you planning to direct your users there as an option for accessing articles? > > David Groenewegen > > > On 17/03/2014 7:27 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote: >> >> From: "Nunnenmacher, Lothar" <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:20:16 +0000 >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> In the last summer, there was a discussion about the new APS tiering >> system here in the list, which is based solely on usage. It was >> discussed, whether this is fair and whether smaller institutions >> suffer most from it. >> >> Actually, we - the Library for the Research Institutes within the ETH >> domain - did suffer. And we draw consequences of this. We cut down >> the subscription from APS-ALL to two titles. Some of you might be >> interested in seeing our news on this topic, where we also explain, >> that tiering according to usage is a bad idea: >> >> http://www.lib4ri.ch/news.html++/year/2014/item/82/ >> >> We did not have many reactions of our users, yet (which is a also >> good indicator for a reasonable decision), but at least one senior >> researcher will cease doing reviews for APS as long as he has no >> access to the journals. And the decision was discussed in several >> directorates within our research institutes. >> >> I know from similar problems in France and Belgium: >> >> http://www.mysciencework.com/news/11109/an-epidemic-of-journal-subscr >> i >> ption-cancellations >> >> However, with a cursory search on the web I did not find any such >> news from UK, US or elsewhere. Was there no problem with these >> immense price increases? >> >> Lothar