From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:36:44 -0500 How are people taking into account the amount of usage that takes place at Sci-Hub and ResearchGate, or does that not matter? (Roger Schonfeld calls this "leakage.") Joe Esposito On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:48 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Dmitri Zaitsev <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:21:49 +0000 > > Dear Ted, > > If the faculty is the main user, what about letting them rate journals by > importance and subsequently subscribe to the most requested ones? Your > faculty is probably the best positioned to evaluate individual journals' > quality, will appreciate being asked for their opinion, and library will > have more evidence to justify the use of their funds. > > I would be curious to hear thoughts about it. > > Dmitri > > -- > Dmitri Zaitsev > School of Mathematics > Trinity College Dublin > > WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~zaitsev/ > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:06 AM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Ted Bergstrom <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:10:17 -0800 >> >> Negotiations between Elsevier and the University of California system >> over open access and pricing seem to have reached a stalemate, and the UC >> no longer has the Elsevier Big Deal. Currently, no UC campus subscribes >> to any Elsevier journals. If the UC chooses not to reenter the Big Deal, >> the UC campus libraries will probably find it worthwhile to subscribe to >> some Elsevier journals. Which ones should they choose? >> >> A UCSB student, Zhiyao Ma, and I are developing a little tool that we >> hope will help UC librarians in making cost-effective selections of >> Elsevier journals for subscription. The UC has download statistics for >> each Elsevier journal at each of its campuses. Elsevier posts *a la >> carte* subscription prices for each of its journals. Our tool allows >> one to select a cost per download threshold and obtain a list of journals >> that meet this criterion, along with their total cost. It also allows for >> separate thresholds to be used for different disciplines. You can check >> out the current version at https://yaoma.shinyapps.io/Elsevier-Project/ >> >> Since this project is still under way, we would be interested in any >> suggestions from librarians about how to make this tool more broadly >> useful. Extending this tool to make comparisons among journals from >> multiple publishers is an obvious step. However, we are dubious about the >> value of download statistics for cross-publisher comparisons. There is >> evidence that download counts substantially overstate usage, because of >> repeated downloads of the same article by the same users, and that the >> amount of double-counting varies systematically by publisher. This is >> discussed in a couple of papers of which I am a coauthor. >> >> "Looking under the Counter for Overcounted Downloads" (with Kristin >> Antelman and Richard Uhrig) >> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vf2k2p0 >> >> and >> >> "Do Download counts reliably measure journal usage: Trusting the fox to >> count your hens". (with Alex Wood-Doughty and Doug Steigerwald) >> https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/17824/19653 >> >> Instead of using download data, we could construct a similar calculator >> using price per recent citation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. We >> have found that the ratio of downloads to citations differ significantly >> between disciplines. So it is probably appropriate for cost per citation >> thresholds to differ among disciplines. >> >> At any rate, we would value suggestions. >> >> Ted Bergstrom >> >