[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)]

Hi Danny -

Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA - indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.

For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when and how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms - institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.

The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:


1. Usage Evidence



In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf



2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations



A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results "indicate that only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407  This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for ALPSP in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) found that "overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making cancellation decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that "the length of any embargo" would be the most important factor in making cancellation decisions.



A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of librarians are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed resources, given certain levels of reliability, peer review and currency of the information available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of librarians would use the green OA material over paying for subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material if it is available after 6 months. See http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences



3. Experiences of other journals



For example, the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open access with a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions over time. The journal was forced to return to the subscription model in 2009, see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/  Other examples that spring to mind are the Annals of Mathematics, the Journal of Dental Research, the American Journal of Pathology, and Genetics.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.wise at elsevier.com<mailto:a.wise at elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic


From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: goal at eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

<apologies for cross posting>

Hello all,

You may be interested in the latest Unlocking Research blog: 'Half-life is half the story' https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331

<snip>



This week the STM Frankfurt Conference<http://www.stm-assoc.org/events/frankfurt-conference-2015/> was told that a shift away from gold Open Access towards green would mean some publishers would not be 'viable' according to a story in The Bookseller<http://www.thebookseller.com/news/green-oa-will-hit-publishers-314667>. The argument was that support for green OA in the US and China would mean some publishers will collapse and the community will 'regret it'.

It is not surprising that the publishing industry is worried about a move away from gold OA policies. They have proved extraordinarily lucrative in the UK with Wiley and Elsevier each pocketing an extra £2 million<https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/publishers-share-10m-in-apc-payments/2019685.article> thanks to the RCUK block grant funds to support the RCUK policy on Open Access<http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/>.

But let's get something straight. There is no evidence that permitting researchers to make a copy of their work available in a repository results in journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.
</snip>

--

Dr Danny Kingsley

Head of Scholarly Communications

Cambridge University Library

West Road, Cambridge CB39DR

P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437

M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564

E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>

T: @dannykay68

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939

________________________________

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151016/cccb13f9/attachment-0001.html