[GOAL] Re: GOAL Digest, Vol 47, Issue 34
Danny Kingsley
dak45 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Oct 22 15:21:31 BST 2015
Alicia,
Repeatedly saying something does not make it true. Davis's half life
study is interesting but it does not tell us anything about cancellation
behaviours. There is no causal arrow between half lives of articles and
journal cancellation. The evidence we are asking for is not conjecture
based on some old study, or an assumption there must be some sort of
relationship between two separate sets of information.
Please provide an actual example with actual data of a situation where a
journal has lost subscriptions because it has permitted researchers to
upload a pdf of a non formatted version of the article into an
institutional repository.
I am not even beginning to get into the question of what value add
publishers provide if they are so clearly threatened by *potential
*availability of a*small proportion* of articles in a given issue of a
journal that are uploaded in the form of *static unformatted pdf*s into
*unconnected repositories *across the globe.
Danny
On 22/10/2015 11:02, goal-request at eprints.org wrote:
> Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
> goal at eprints.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> goal-request at eprints.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> goal-owner at eprints.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
> (Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF))
> 2. Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday (Danny Kingsley)
> 3. Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half
> the story' (David Prosser)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:05:40 +0000
> From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <A.Wise at elsevier.com>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the
> story'
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
> Message-ID:
> <BY2PR08MB255852DCEDAC9E0013E8BD4E5380 at BY2PR08MB255.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi there -
>
> Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for librarians and publishers! My original posting was to push back on the idea that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if more is needed.
>
> Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years of experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing behaviors. We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set embargo periods. Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study the AAP commissioned from Phil Davis. You can see the full study for yourself at http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf but let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here: "An analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities reveals extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage half-life - the median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - just 3% of journals had a half-lives shorter!
> than 12-months".
>
> It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor in their purchasing decisions. Why else would services such as COUNTER exist? See http://www.projectcounter.org/ Again, to quote from the COUNTER website: "Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way. Later on that page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:
>
> "Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; plan infrastructure more effectively.
>
> Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a format they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; aggregate data for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about genuine usage patterns."
>
> Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light? I don't know if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to hear their perspective.
>
> Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion. There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and subscription decisions. A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will not necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly. There are at least a couple of reasons for this. First, for exceptional (not typical!) journals a six month embargo can be made to work. We have around 10 titles with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of science where there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these are sustainable (but of course we will continue to monitor and review). Second, the impact on subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific examples cited in my original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions over 5 or 10 years and where the publishers with hindsight understood the long term impact of their embargo decisions.
>
> With kind wishes,
> Alicia
>
> P.S. I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) on this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation which was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf of the Open Access Coordination Group. It covers both gold and green OA: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/ResearchInnovation/Pages/UUKOpenAccessCoordinationGroup.aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Dana Roth
> Sent: 18 October 2015 20:50
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
>
> There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ...
>
> I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are either very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals in a larger package, or a combination of these.
>
> Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional data?
>
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> ________________________________________
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] on behalf of David Prosser [david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
>
> It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be different. If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.
>
> There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 12 months. For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers freely available after 6 months:
>
> http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
>
> If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving? Their subscription base should be massively reduced. If they really are haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
>
> So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else. Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality. I would rather we worked with real behaviour.
>
> David
>
>
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <A.Wise at elsevier.com<mailto:A.Wise at elsevier.com>> wrote:
>
> 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> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
> Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
> To: goal at eprints.org<mailto: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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> ________________________________
>
> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:49:29 +0100
> From: Danny Kingsley <dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
> Subject: [GOAL] Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday
> To: goal at eprints.org
> Message-ID: <C9D59169-8E1E-404F-9A49-796F2B5F1927 at cam.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello all,
>
> Half way through Open Access Week and we are powering along...
>
> Discussion: 'How open access can help you'
> Today Dr Danny Kingsley accepted an invitation from Dr Rupert Gatti, one of the Directors of the Open Book Publishers http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/14/1/about <http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/14/1/about> to attend a discussion hosted by Professor Steve Connor, the Head of English about open access and the future of academic publishing. Some very powerful statements were addressed including 'The world of academic publishing is over? and 'The monograph as an entity is very powerful thing ? for the author not for the reader?. Issues around the readership of the legacy publishing model compared to those of open publishing models were explored in the context of the current reward system. These are profound questions for the Arts and Humanities in a time of drastic funding cuts. New ?publishing? models were discussed in light of the types of online and digital research now being conducted in the Humanities, and the challenges associated with maintaining the !
> integrity of the links into the long term. This is likely to be the first of a series of discussions about this important topic.
>
> Blog: Software Licensing and Open Access
> The third in our Open Access Week series is written by Dr Marta Teperek and addresses some of the uncertainties surrounding making software open access. https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=345 <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=345> <snip> If the questions that the Research Data Service Team have been asked during data sharing information sessions with over 1000 researchers at the University of Cambridge are any indicator, then there is a great deal of confusion about sharing source code <http://www.data.cam.ac.uk/faq-0/source-code>. ? We decided to call in expert help. Shoaib Sufi <http://www.software.ac.uk/about/people/shoaib-sufi> and Neil Chue Hong <http://www.software.ac.uk/about/people/neil-chue-hong>* from the Software Sustainability Institute <http://www.software.ac.uk/> agreed to lead a workshop on Software Licensing in September, at the Computer Lab in Cambridge. </snip>
>
> Danny
>
> 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
> T: @dannykay68
> ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151021/6bfedfd4/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:59:10 +0000
> From: David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is
> half the story'
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
> Message-ID: <55EAF255-22F4-425F-AAE9-5268DF4194A9 at bham.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> If the question is ?Is there any evidence showing a correlation between embargo length and subscription cancellations?? then the answer is clearly ?no?.
>
> If the question is ?Is there a disconnect between library behaviour and survey results?? then the answer is clearly ?yes?.
>
> Yes different journals have different usage half-lives and yes journal usage is a factor in libraries? purchasing decisions but nobody has shown any evidence that links usage, half-lives, and cancellations. This despite the ten years of experience of setting embargoes that Alicia tells us about - if they evidence exists then show it to us.
>
> Let?s remind ourselves of how this discussion started - Danny wrote '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.? Despite Alicia?s intervention that statement still stands.
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:05, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <A.Wise at elsevier.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi there -
>>
>> Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for librarians and publishers! My original posting was to push back on the idea that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if more is needed.
>>
>> Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years of experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing behaviors. We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set embargo periods. Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study the AAP commissioned from Phil Davis. You can see the full study for yourself at http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf but let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here: "An analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities reveals extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage half-life - the median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - just 3% of journals had a half-lives short!
> er than 12-months".
>> It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor in their purchasing decisions. Why else would services such as COUNTER exist? See http://www.projectcounter.org/ Again, to quote from the COUNTER website: "Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way. Later on that page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:
>>
>> "Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; plan infrastructure more effectively.
>>
>> Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a format they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; aggregate data for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about genuine usage patterns."
>>
>> Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light? I don't know if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to hear their perspective.
>>
>> Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion. There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and subscription decisions. A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will not necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly. There are at least a couple of reasons for this. First, for exceptional (not typical!) journals a six month embargo can be made to work. We have around 10 titles with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of science where there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these are sustainable (but of course we will continue to monitor and review). Second, the impact on subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific examples cited in my original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions over 5 or 10 years and where the publishers with hindsight understood the long term impact of their embargo decisions.
>>
>> With kind wishes,
>> Alicia
>>
>> P.S. I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) on this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation which was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf of the Open Access Coordination Group. It covers both gold and green OA: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/ResearchInnovation/Pages/UUKOpenAccessCoordinationGroup.aspx
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Dana Roth
>> Sent: 18 October 2015 20:50
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
>>
>> There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ...
>>
>> I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are either very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals in a larger package, or a combination of these.
>>
>> Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional data?
>>
>> Dana L. Roth
>> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
>> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
>> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
>> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu
>> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
>> ________________________________________
>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] on behalf of David Prosser [david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
>>
>> It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be different. If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.
>>
>> There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 12 months. For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers freely available after 6 months:
>>
>> http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
>>
>> If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving? Their subscription base should be massively reduced. If they really are haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
>>
>> So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else. Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality. I would rather we worked with real behaviour.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <A.Wise at elsevier.com<mailto:A.Wise at elsevier.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
>> Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
>> To: goal at eprints.org<mailto: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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> End of GOAL Digest, Vol 47, Issue 34
> ************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151022/5c74bfde/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list