From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:30:33 +0000 >a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages >may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase >in titles and articles to justify price increases. I’m surprised by how often this inaccurate statement is repeated in forums like this. While it’s certainly true that libraries regularly buy journals in packages (both comprehensive publisher Big Deals and smaller, subject-specific packages), it is not true that libraries are no longer buying individual journal subscriptions. At my institution, for example, we have a Big Deal package with Elsevier, and large subject packages with several other publishers. But we also have more than 1,000 individual journal subscriptions, and we make choices between individual journal subscriptions on a pretty much constant basis. This is also the case at every other research library of which I’m aware. >b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon >science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the >profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP >2016). I think you’re proposing a false dichotomy, Jan-Erik. Why can only one of these things be “the financial burden”? Can’t subscription charges and APCs charged by scam journals both be “financial burden(s)” upon science? --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask]