From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:27:18 +0000 Thanks for reading my post, Rick - and responding to it! Of course, there are still single journal purchases around, but the large money is spent on packages. And packaging can motivate sellers to create low-level (to say the least) journals to stuff the package with. I was responding to a point on traditional publishers, as opposed to OA publishers, not having any motivation to create low-quality jornals – in my opinion this motive exists, especially for package sellers. The financial burden: A matter of scale here. Of course, APCs to scam journals present a burden, but I have never seen any calculations showing this burden to be near the level of burden the super-profits of major publishers are. Super-profits are burdens, APCs to scam publishers are more on the level of financial nuisances. So for "the burden", stress the "the" to make it "the important burden". If you have any fresh numbers on the total of APCs paid to scam publishers, I'd be happy to get a link. It merits close following. Best, Jan Erik Jan Erik Frantsvåg Open Access Adviser The University Library UiT The Arctic University of Norway phone +47 77 64 49 50 e-mail [log in to unmask] -----Opprinnelig melding----- 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]