From: Brian Simboli <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:25:16 -0500

Jim,

Great questions. I'm starting to work on responses. Will get back to you
directly to discuss possible replies after thinking some more about this.

Always good to hear the counterarguments, to sharpen one's views.

My main focus has up to this point been mainly on physics publishing, for
one or two reasons.

Brian Simboli
[log in to unmask]



From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:08:58 -0700

Brian, you make good points and I still worry.  One of the ways we get
where we are is through the expectation that we will provide access to what
I could call minor or niche journals.  Why?  I can think of a live example
right now:  contingent faculty member hired to teach a rather second order
subject (one that nobody here actually majors in) wants their students to
have access to the top four journals in that marginal field.  Students will
benefit and indeed that struggling-to-make-a-career faculty member will
also benefit.  Do any of your categories give weight that would help this
request?  Should we write it off and let that faculty member twist in the
wind?  Goes against the culture, to say the least.  Is it arguable that the
now-traditional big packages get us a lot of undoubtedly useful stuff of
lower priority?  If so, how would we address such needs?

Here's a data question that could be interesting.  How large was the
universe of academic journals held in American universities in 1995?  How
many titles?  Now, how many do we have now?  I pick 1995 as the year in
which big deal pricing began more or less and the big publishers started
offering e-access.

All the best,
Jim O'Donnell
ASU
--