OK, just so I know the rules - how many >$1k/year, non-non-profit society journals not in larger packages do I need to find?
Of course none of these criteria were in the survey - we appear to be inventing post-hoc justifications. David On 18 Oct 2015, at 20:49, Dana Roth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
