Re. below, why not a tool that replicates the idea behind Bradford's Law? The tool would examine across big consortia what journals get cited. What stock of journals is demonstrably needed? This would help to transition toward a lower overall stock of journals. Good thing, all around. The big consortia can then lead the way in helping define what journals are indeed core, then use negotiating power to drive down the prices of those journals:
Let preprints (immediate OA!) w/ very light "peer review", and easy to understand and very noticeable disclaimers so the public will not be misled into thinking the stuff has undergone serious scientific scrutiny (caveat lector!), take up the slack of all those marginally valuable, non-core journals. Who really needs all this stuff? Pare it down.
Brian Simboli
==
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? .....
--