From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:04:38 +0000

I don’t think that I know of any academic librarian who believes 'that they
are the only customers for peer-reviewed research material’.  We obviously
talk to different people.

The latest STM report on the state of publishing quotes estimates that:

"Academic libraries have traditionally been the primary source of journal
revenues, estimated at 68-75% of the total. Other revenue sources include
corporate subscriptions (15-17%), advertising (4%), membership fees and
personal subscriptions (3%) and various author side payments (3%)"
 But this is from a ten-year-old report and things may have changed.

David

On 12 Nov 2018, at 14:07, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:57:46 -0500

Adam,

If I understand your question correctly, it should be pointed out that many
publishers sell large packages (aka "Big Deals") to corporate accounts.
Corporations do not purchase materials as widely as universities, though in
many cases they purchase materials with what one could call greater
intensity by working with business research firms that do not sell their
content to academic institutions. I have never seen a thoroughly convincing
analysis of what are known as "sales by channel," but only humanities
publishers find all of their customers at universities. For some STM
publishers the percentage of academic sales is as low as 30%. Most STM
publishers have about 40-60% of their revenue coming from academic
accounts.

I am baffled why academic librarians seem to think that they are the only
customers for peer-reviewed research material. I am also perplexed by
librarians' interest in OA, since OA materials go to corporations for free.
Plan S, to take one of many examples, is a gift to the likes of Exxon
Mobil, Dupont, Google, and Aetna.

Joe Esposito

[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito


On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 5:13 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:41:53 +0000
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> There's nothing intrinsically illegal about a cartel.
>
> Can you point to purchasers of "big deal" packages other than
> academic/research libraries?
>
> Adam
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:17:26 +0000
>
> Adam, what cartel are you referring to? Are publishers colluding with each
> other to exert illegal control over a market?
>
> Also, what monopsony are you referring to? A monopsony is a situation in
> which there’s only one buyer for a product. I can’t think of any publisher
> that is in such a position.
>
> ---
> 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:44:34 +0000
>
> And rather than monopoly, we should be looking at a cartel's ability to
> exploit a monopsony.
>
> Adam Siegel
> Business, Economics, and Agricultural and Resource Economics Librarian
> University Library
> University of California, Davis
> Davis  CA  95616
> http://people.lib.ucdavis.edu/~apsiegel/
>
>
> [SNIP]
>