I mean, they led it with “OA appeals to a library community dealing with flat budgets who would like to see more content available at no charge.” What a loaded statement; it makes me question who they believe is the audience for this paper.
Victoria Rodrigues, MLS
Systems Librarian
Health Sciences Library
Orlando Health
1111 Kuhl Ave. | MP 28 | Orlando, FL 32806
Tel: (321) 841-8569
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:34:50 +1000
I have just had a twitter rant https://twitter.com/dannykay68/status/1179867890725441536 about the statement:
"there is now real worry that a move to OA could mean lower funding for libraries as institutions look to fund the “publishing” side of OA by pulling from library budgets.”
That 'worry' is projected on behalf of libraries. The assumption is that we retain subscription payments and have to pay 'on top' for the OA costs. There are two confusions in the EBSCO statement. One is that 'publishing' costs should be/are managed outside the library.
Management of scholarly communication should be sitting within libraries. If it is not in your library, get yourself over to the research office and start this conversation. Libraries have the full overview, this work (and budget) belongs there.
The second confusion in the EBSCO statement is that the OA agenda automatically means more money flowing to publishers. This is where the concern about loss of budgets comes from
I am all too painfully aware of the false hopes the disastrous Finch decisions in the UK gave the publishers - where literally tens (if not 100's) of millions of £ were added into the system to pay for hybrid
But that was the failed experiment & demonstrated how NOT to proceed with OA. The way forward should be more or less cost-neutral. There should not need to be a net loss in budgets, just a shift in them, and those (complete - subs and OA) budgets should be held in the library
Which gets us back to the management of the whole scholarly communication agenda in a given institution. This is a library-managed agenda. If it isn't, fix that
Danny
Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
e: [log in to unmask]
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939
On 3 Oct 2019, at 09:06, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:57:10 +0000
I guess the main response of many librarians reading this will be a profound disappointment that however many decades into the serials crisis we are, publishers are still posting price increases that far outstrip any (if any) increases in materials budgets.
David
From: Gary Price <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:44 AM
EBSCO Releases Serials Price Projection Report for 2020
"Each year, EBSCO surveys a wide range of publishers and reviews historical serials pricing data in order to provide our customers with serials price projections to assist them in budgeting for the upcoming renewal season. While the serials price forecasts are based upon careful analysis, we recommend customers exercise caution when using these projections as they rely on historical trends and current estimates."
[SNIP]
"At the time of writing, we expect the overall effective publisher price increases for academic and academic medical libraries for 2020 (before any currency impact) to be in the range of 5 to 6 percent for individual titles. It’s also important to note the importance of e-journal packages in the information marketplace. With EBSCO transacting almost 20,000 e-journal packages annually and more than half of our sales turnover from e-journal packages, we expect the overall average price increase for e-journal packages, including provisions for mandatory takeover titles, upgrades, etc. to be in the range of 4 to 5 percent."
__gary
Gary D. Price, MLIS
Co-Founder and Editor, Library Journal's infoDOCKET
Information Industry Analyst
Librarian
http://infoDOCKET.com
@infodocket