puzzled by self-archiving thread

I have been trying to think of an analogy.

Suppose I have a friend who has a chronic disease - one not 
necessarily, but sometimes, fatal in the long run.  And my 
friends' company has downsized. His job is now half-time,
which 
he can ill afford.

I'm downtown shopping - crossing the street across the TRAX
lines 
- and run into said friend and start to chat.

TRAX trains come every few minutes - there've been
fatalities - 
pedestrians trying to outrun the train.  To discourage this,

jaywalking is a $200 ticket and a policeman is eying us from
the 
sidewalk.

The number of seconds on the 'Walk' sign is clicking
down....and 
the large flashing 'Train Coming' comes on.  The policeman,
who 
had started in our direction, is covering his eyes...

All my friend will talk about is his disease.

Margaret Landesman
Possibly more frustrated than puzzled
Head, Collection Development  (for many, many years)
Marriott Library
University of Utah

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of David Goodman
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:59 PM
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

Perhaps an example will clarify: Consider the American
Journal of 
Physiology. generally considered the highest perceived
journal in 
its subject, published by the American Physiological
Society, 
with over 10,500 members.

Before discussing the numbers for those who might want to 
subscribe though only a portion of the articles are
available 
online, let us look at the desired goal of all Open Access
plans: 
where 100% of its content will be open access online. Then:

For all subscribers, the number who might want subscriptions
will 
then be limited to those who want them in print. For
individual 
subscribers, this might include:

1/academic specialists, who want paper for intensive use for

themselves or their research group. Since almost all such
people 
are members, who currently receive the entire journal free 
online, this should equal the number who now subscribe to a 
section in print-- at the 2007 discounted domestic rate of 
between $105 and $350 per section according to size. The 
publishers will know the number.

2/clinician subscribers who are not members, who may want to

display the print journal to the public (as an implied 
certificate that they keep up with the literature) -- this
not 
being a clinical journal, there are probably few who will
want to 
do this, but if they want print now, they will want print
later.

3/possibly a few others who are not members and yet want a 
personal copy of a section; these might include those with
no 
current library access. Those who only want online will no
longer 
need to subscribe, so the number that would will be those
who 
currently buy both print and online plus some portion of
those 
who currently buy print only.  The publisher will know the 
numbers--they might be very small.

while for library subscribers:

4/ The few libraries that are a national resource in
biomedicine 
and thus responsible for guaranteeing access, might
justifiable 
subscribe, but I can not think of any good reason for any
other 
library to subscribe. However, many libraries think they
have 
archival responsibility, and will irrationally subscribe for
just 
that reason.

The number who think they are will be some fraction of those
who 
now pay the 22% surcharge for print as well as electronic. 
The 
publisher knows the maximum, but there is no saying how many
are 
irrational. (It depends on both the library and the
faculty--and 
the willingness of the university to support it.) It is
difficult 
to predict the degree of irrationality.  Irrational answer
to 
questionnaires will not necessarily mean similarly
irrational 
action. Only one of the library, or faculty, or university 
funders need be rational enough to prevent subscribing where

subscriptions are not needed. However, to the extent that it
is a 
matter of self- preceived prestige, they may all share that 
perception.

Add it up.  Considering the production charge for print, and
even 
including advertising and only minor sources of income, I
doubt 
it would yield enough revenue.

For a clinical research journal in a specialty, such as
Diabetes 
Care (and probably Diabetes) the efffect of continuing
individual 
print subscriptions, and advertising, might be much higher.

To be continued tomorrow, respecting partial Open Access
coverage.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodmanprinceton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Frank <MFrankThe-APS.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:24 pm
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu

> Margaret,
>
> I am curious what you mean about partnering with
publishers.  I have
> always viewed society journals as part of the academy
because of our
> relationship with the faculty as authors, editors and
reviewers.  It
> is for that reason that most society journals are
bargains when
> assessed on cost per page, cost per citation, etc.  It
has been the
> commercial journals that have apparently not been good
partners with
> institutions.
>
> Creating bundles has increased content for the
libraries, but not
> necessarily content that is of the most favorable cost
per use,
> citation, or page.  The bundles suck money out of the
library coffers,

> diminishing their ability to be good partners with
society publishers
> who have sought to hold costs down to institutions. 
Instead we hear
> that we are short of money and can no longer subscribe
to your
> journal.
>
> As journal content is increasingly available in
repositories, either
> university or government repositories, it will become
easier to cancel

> subscriptions.  Will it happen?  That is the great
unknown.  I wish I
> knew what the answer was.  If I did, I would have a
better idea how to

> guide our publication program.
>
> Martin Frank, Ph.D.
> Executive Director, American Physiological Society 9650
Rockville
> Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991
> Tel: 301-634-7118     fax: 301-634-7241
> email: mfrankthe-aps.org
> APS Website:  http://www.the-aps.org
> ...integrating the life sciences from molecule to
organism
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu on behalf of
Joseph J.
> EspositoSent: Mon 12/18/2006 7:00 PM
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: puzzled by self-archiving thread
>
>
> Margaret, I believe, as David Prosser has asserted,
that the hard
> evidence that OA results in cancellations does not
exist.
> Publishers worry about this as something that could
have an impact on
> them in the future, a point that Stevan Harnad
apparently
> acknowledges.  There is, however, the question of what
it means to
> cancel subscriptions based on "use."  Does
the use of articles in
> repositories, on authors' Web sites, and elsewhere
undermine the
> "count" for the official usage statistics?
Perhaps.
> Or, perhaps not yet.
>
> In any event, I believe your closing comment ("I
would wish this list
> might talk about ways libraries can partner with such
publishers to
> find ways to change this situation") is right on
target.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Margaret Landesman"
<margaret.landesmanutah.edu>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:03 PM
> Subject: puzzled by self-archiving thread
>
>> Re: posts about self-archiving causing
cancellations
>>
>> Busy as I am each year cancelling serials and
cutting the book
>> budget, I have not read these complete postings,
nor have I done
>> studies or read most of these studies.
>>
>> But I am puzzled.
>>
>> As we cancel journals, we rely on reports which
show the number of
>> uses, the costs, and the costs per use.  We have no
reports which
>> show the journal's stance on IRs or whether it is
OA after an
>> embargo.  Do other libraries have such a thing?  We
do not have this
>> information in our ILS and it would be a very big
job to put it
>> there.
>>
>> If we know that the journal has a liberal stance,
we exempt it from
>> cancellation if possible - and we have done that
with MUSE, BioOne,
>> university press, etc journals in order to support
those publishers.
>>
>> We are cancelling journals - both print and
electronic - as fast as
>> we can, generally on the grounds that they are:
>>
>> 1) high cost-peruse, or
>> 2) not used
>>
>> We expect to go on doing this, probably forever.
>>
>> What has made me especially sad this year is that,
very reluctantly,
>> we have cancelled packages from university presses
and smaller
>> publishers because, after we have had them up for a
number of years,
>> they are showing no use.
>>
>> I would wish this list might talk about ways
libraries can partner
>> with such publishers to find ways to change this
situation...
>>
>> Margaret Landesman
>> University of Utah