The elephant in the room is not the prospect of journal subscription
cancellations, because as long as researchers need access to peer-
reviewed journals, and as long as peer-reviewed journals are
accessible only via subscriptions, subscriptions will remain viable,
and institutions will just have to keep paying for whatever fraction
they can afford them.

The elephant in the room is Open Access (OA) self-archiving of journal
articles by the "Slumbering Giant" -- the universal provider of all
the content of the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals: the
planet's 10,000 universities and research institutions.

As soon as the Slumbering Giant awakes to the fact that OA is fully
within its reach -- all it has to do is to mandate it -- all the fuss
about journal affordability, institutional serials crises, and
publisher overpricing will fade, for researchers will have access to
all refereed research, not just the fraction of it to which their
institutions can afford to subscribe today.

And then, maybe, institutions will start canceling, their users' needs
no longer being inelastic, thanks to the OA mandates.

And then publishers will cut costs, lower prices, and eventually make
a transition to OA publishing, recovering the costs of peer review
from institutional publication fees, paid out of a fraction of
institutions' windfall subscription cancellation savings.

That's the real elephant in the room, if you like. But as long as we
persist in imagining instead that it's something to do with journal
pricing, "Big Deals," and the need for pricing reform, we will not
only fail to notice the elephant, we will fail to grasp its tail,
which is fully within our reach. Instead, we will, like the drunk and
the lamp-post, keep fumbling where the elephant isn't (or, like the
blind men and the elephant, fail to grasp what it is)!

Lester Loxodont

On 27-Nov-09, at 3:54 PM, FrederickFriend wrote:

> The phrase "the elephant in the room" was used by a librarian at
> a recent UK meeting to describe the big issues we were not
> allowed to discuss about how the current economic crisis is
> affecting scholarly communication. Representatives of all
> stakeholder groups present - including publishers - agreed that
> the economic crisis was hitting them badly, with cost-cutting
> happening across the board and hopes for growth put on hold. The
> curious feature of the conversation was that nobody present was
> able to discuss the one topic which could get us through the
> crisis and prevent the journals market collapsing, viz. the
> pricing structure for journal "big deals". Pricing can only be
> discussed in one-to-one meetings between suppliers and
> purchasers. It would be easy to blame legislators for anti-trust
> legislation and the dominance of contract law, but the legal web
> within which publishing is entwined is of our own making - and I
> include the academic community in that statement.
>
> The importance of this failure to discuss structural and pricing
> issues is that the dominance of library budgets by "big deal"
> expenditure has the potential to bring the journal publishing
> industry to its knees in the same way as sub-prime mortgages did
> for the banking industry. It will only take a few cancellations
> of "big deals" by major institutions to make investors nervous
> about the future of companies heavily dependent upon such deals,
> and a domino effect could follow. We may be sure that there will
> be no government bail-out of the journal publishing industry.
> This scenario would not be good for any of the current
> stakeholders. The big journal publishing companies have failed to
> respond positively to the ICOLC initiative on the economic
> crisis, and the inability to discuss structural and pricing
> issues in a collaborative way is preventing solutions which have
> been of benefit in other sectors of the economy. For example,
> heavily-discounted pricing (by which I do not mean 1%) could ease
> the burden upon library budgets for one or two years until the
> overall economic situation improved. No publisher will want to be
> the first to discuss such solutions, but equallly no publisher
> will want to be the first to feel the effects of cancellations of
> its "big deals".
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>