The problem with this analysis, from a another librarian's viewpoint, is that ...
1. Rick is suggesting that libraries reward publishers by providing subscription funds for "journals that [are] not green at all". ... and 2. It also penalizes responsible society publishers who allow quick access to 'green repository' manuscripts. In my mind, there are far too many examples of exorbitant library subscription pricing to avoid dealing with this problem FIRST! Dana L. Roth Caltech Library 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:15 AM To: David Solomon Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the calculus would be different-but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access. These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in making those decisions are not binary-we're typically considering multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu<mailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
