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 --