From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:39:14 +0000 Ann: You hit it squarely on. From evidence I know of, r countrywide negotiators are hitting it out of the ballpark on pricing and terms. Other efforts particularly in the US, individually, consortia (or not) with few exceptions, pale in comparison to what some of the national groups have achieved in cost effectiveness. Thanks for making this ;point so cogently. I realize you are hitting other balls around the stadium too, but that one is clear and incontrovertible. Chuck ________________________________________ From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:28:15 -0400 Further to Erin's message of 27 June: The SCOAP3 (High Energy Physics) journals are a microcosm of the the larger findings in the work of T. Bergstrom et al. To participate in the Project, libraries were asked to re-direct the amounts paid for certain HEP journals *from* their current publishers *to* the SCOAP3 project. All this was done via detailed agreement between CERN/SCOAP3 and the participating publishers. 6 of the journal titles (2 titles from each of Elsevier, IoPP, and Springer) were within journal packages, IoPP's being the smallest and Elsevier's the largest. Formulae were developed to calculate the value of each of the participating HEP titles within any given library's package. It was expected that the HEP journal values for libraries would vary. In working with the US library participants, I found that the calculated values per journal title varied tremendously. The two larger publishers' calculated values were quite diverse, depending on various factors such as historical spend (before e-conversion and consortial or package pricing), length of time in the "big deal" and thus considerations such as loyalty discounts and price caps, and perhaps impact of e-book spend. Springer's calculations were further complicated by the move of numerous US libraries to a "database model," in which the historic spend basis continues, but the entire list of journals is treated as a full library owned/acquisition, which includes perpetual archival access. For the libraries that converted to this model, each individual subscription journal in the package (of 1200-1600 or so?) was valued as a proportion of the libraries' entire package spend, thus reducing the value of the previously subbed HEP titles. The price distinctions between titles of high interest to customers and of LOW to NO interest to customers, go away in such a database model. We didn't plot these $$ title-by-title findings, but the calculated variances between any of the Springer and Elsevier HEP journals could be significant, sometimes multiples, depending on any given subscribing library's circumstances. To me it seems reasonable that larger, research type libraries will pay rather more per title than medium or small ones, and this proved more or less the case. But what struck me in this effort was the unpredictability and unevenness of title values. All of our libraries and consortia are negotiating individually with journal suppliers, and we are often proud of the great arrangement we've achieved in any given round of talks. However, at a 30,000-ft view, with larger datasets, the landscape becomes what I began to call "The Dog's Breakfast." One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at this outcome of the free market system. It seems to me that the libraries that are able to negotiate by country - rather than as numerous separate library groups - are working smarter than we are in the US. Ann Okerson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Erin Gallagher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:33:56 +0000 Good morning, everyone. I’m interested to know if anyone has read this article yet: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6190/1332.full Or the original research here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1403006111.full.pdf+html It’s not exactly surprising, but it’s interesting to read from an economics perspective. This has spurred much discussion here at Rollins, and we will be conducting an analysis of our e-journal package payments in comparison with the mean bundle prices reported in the research. We’re also re-evaluating our licenses regarding non-disclosure agreements. I would love to hear your thoughts and whether or not this is a cause for concern and/or action at your institution. Cheers, Erin Erin Gallagher Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian Olin Library Rollins College Winter Park, FL 32789 [log in to unmask]