[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

Tue Jan 5 16:59:18 GMT 2016

Dana, the question is not about whether pay-per-view or interlibrary loan
should be available (they are, and should be).

The question is *whether all subscriptions canbe cancelled in favor of a
complete reliance of PPV/ILL* + Gold OA fees.

I think the answer to is probably a resounding "no," but *the option has
never been tested *-- not by U Tasmania and not by CalTech!

Stevan

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Roth, Dana L. <dzrlib at caltech.edu> wrote:

> I fully agree with Arthur Sale.  We initiated a 'photocopy request'
> service over 40 years ago, and quickly found that researchers primarily
> wanted to 'take care' of the request and were, over the years, quite
> willing to accommodate a one to two delay in actually receiving the
> photocopy.
>
>
> Dana L. Roth
>
> dzrlib at caltech.edu
>
> Special Projects Librarian
>
> Caltech  1-32
>
> 1200 E. California Blvd.
>
> Pasadena, CA 91125
>
> 626-395-6423
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Arthur Sale <ahjs at ozemail.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 4, 2016 2:19 PM
> *To:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>
>
> I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill
> 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free
> unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie
> in replacement for subscriptions). It is very much used, and regarded as a
> keystone of library research support. It simply is not true that academics
> are devoted to instant access, and they are prepared to wait a day or two
> to read the papers they think are relevant. Of course they use alert
> services, metadata, etc in making the judgment, but if they think a paper
> is worth reading in full (it may not be after they have read it but nobody
> cares) they have no hesitation in using the university’s service. The
> economics do stack up, and I am proud to have introduced it in about 1998.
>
> See http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery and
> http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/65611/Document-Delivery-Service-online-guide-v10.7.12.pdf.
>
> <http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery>
> Document Delivery - Library - University of Tasmania ...
> <http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery>
> www.utas.edu.au
> Document Delivery You are here. UTAS Home ; Library ; Researchers ;
> Document Delivery; Over 13,000 requests are submitted via our Document
> Delivery service per year.
>
> For context, the University is in the top ten Australian universities for
> research, and in student size modest (27,000 students, 18% of whom are from
> outside Australia).
>
> If someone wants to mine the data, contact the University Librarian.
>
>
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> University of Tasmania, Australia
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 January 2016 02:24 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Christian Gutknecht <
> christian.gutknecht at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> Stevan,
>
>
>
> *[ahjs] *…
>
>
>
> But I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much,
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals. With the free
> money the library then can create two kind of funds: One is the Gold OA
> fund (incl. hybrid options but with a cap) and one is the fund for costs
> resulting getting access to documents that are not longer available via
> subscription (like costs for pay-per-view, document delivery, individual
> subscription of a really important journal).. Because librarians constantly
> overestimate the importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big
> Deals where they buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their
> community. I think most libraries would find out that researchers would get
> along quite well with this option
>
>
>
> Christian, I strongly suggest that you look into the actual costs of such
> a proposal (replacing subscriptions by pay-to-view costs, per paper).
>
>
>
> We are in the online era, when scholars are accustomed to reaching content
> immediately with one click, and browsing it to see whether it's even worth
> reading. A scholar may look at dozens of papers a day this way. That's what
> they do with their institutional licensed content. You are imagining
> (without any data at all) that the cost of doing this via pay-per-view, at
> the usual $30 or so per paper, would amount to less cost for an institution
> than its current licensing costs.
>
>
>
> Please repeat this proposal once you have done the arithmetic and have the
> evidence. (It won't be enough to find out the license costs and the
> pay-per-view costs. You will also have to monitor the daily usage, per
> discipline, of a sufficient representative sample of researchers.
>
> Until then, subscription cancellation is not an option for institutions
> today. (But with universal immediate-deposit
> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>
> it will be.)
>
>
>
> As Thomas mentioned it’s really easy these days to get to the papers by
> simply asking the author. Also Researchgate and academia.edu close the
> gap where IRs fail to provide access.
>
>
>
> The ease and immediacy of online access to which institutional authors are
> now accustomed is for *licensed (+ OA) content*. Find the actual  user
> data for *unlicensed, non-OA* content. And prepare to discover that
> copy-requests -- for which you have expressed pessimism when they are
> Button-based -- may turn out to be much less immediate or reliable if they
> must be mediated by email address search and waiting to see whether the
> author responds then when they are requested. With immediate deposit and
> the Button, the request is just one click for the user and one for the
> author...
>
>
>
> *[ahjs] …*
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160105/571f3c16/attachment-0001.html 