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
[email protected]
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of David 
Prosser [[email protected]]
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) 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Twitter: @wisealic


From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to