From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 18:50:37 -0400 Joe, an interesting question, but it looks like one that Winnie-the-Pooh would be poohzled over for quite some time. There's so much data we don't have to hand. Adding up the payments is probably the easiest part, (1) but how to find out how many articles are published by those providers? and (2) all kinds of secondary questions arise, like: do you count the articles anyone in your institution has clicked on or all of them? (3) if the used ones, do you count each instance of use? (4) what about getting the New England Journal of Medicine (or AAAS) from multiple sources? and so on. We'll leave aside the question of utility for the moment and just think of this as some kind of ... data point. But, if well defined, one could do interesting things with it... If someone has ideas about some piece of such a calculation that can be readily done, speak up. Cheers, Ann Okerson On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:32 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 22:11:57 -0500 > > The use of list prices in discussions of journals is at best irrelevant > and probably cynical. > > May I raise a data question? What is the cost per article across a > library's many vendors? I am not suggesting that this is a good or useful > metric; I am simply attempting to ascertain what that figure is. So, for > example, if a library gets 1 million articles for $1 million, the cost per > article would be $1. Are these figures commonly calculated? Are there any > publicly available summaries? > > Thank you. > > Joe Esposito > > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:33 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 09:31:11 +0000 >> >> A couple of comments. >> >> Firstly, Gemma mentions the ‘journal subscription list prices’. Data >> from Elsevier shows that less than 10% of their journals revenue comes from >> customers paying list prices. Most are paying through big deals and so any >> list price adjustment is irrelevant. >> >> Secondly, a sample of 36 UK institutions showed that in 2016 they were >> paying a 17% premium on top of their big deals to make UK-authored papers >> OA. The vast majority of that was for hybrid i.e., content that was >> included in the big deal subscription price. >> >> David >> >> On 25 May 2018, at 03:19, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)" <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 20:08:54 +0000 >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I wanted to clarify one of the comments made below regarding double >> dipping. >> >> >> >> Elsevier has a strict no double dipping policy, as described here >> <https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/pricing#dipping>. >> Our journal subscription list prices are calculated based only on the >> subscription articles in a journal. We do not charge twice for access to >> the same article. >> >> >> >> Understandably, as open access content continues to grow, some have >> wondered why this is not translating into a corresponding decrease in >> subscription prices. And this is fueling concern about double dipping. >> However, it is important to note that while OA is growing, the subscription >> model is growing too. Certainly for Elsevier, the volume and quality of the >> articles we publish continues to grow, across both the subscription and >> open access business models. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Gemma >> >> >> >> Gemma Hersh >> >> VP, Open Science >> >> Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS >> >> M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: [log in to unmask] >> >> *Twitter: @gemmahersh* >> >>