 |
 |
Bernd-Christoph et al, Thanks for forwarding this to the list. We have only ever had a single subscription to EMBO Journal, so in no way does our 175% price increase restore a former situation of multiple subscriptions. I noticed that when I visited Nature last year I got a pop window along the lines of 'Your institution subscribes to Nature online, and this entitles you to a 50% discount of a personal print subscription' Would anyone at NPG be willing to comment on whether this attempt to use an institutional subscription as a marketing opportunity was successful? We have looked at the cost-per-download of EMBO Journal compared to other HighWire journals. And under the new pricing model its value for money will be significantly worse than other titles that get used a similar amount. Very generous of EMBO to offer a bundled subscription to Journal and Reports, but like to be able to CHOOSE if we want that, and we'd like the CHOICE of a print-only subscription too! Terry Bucknell Electronic Resources Manager Harold Cohen Library University of Liverpool PO Box 123 Liverpool L69 3DA Tel: +44 (0)151 794 5408 Fax: +44 (0)151 794 5417 Email: [log in to unmask] --On 23 January 2004 13:34 +0100 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Forwarding from David Prosser, SPARC Europe ... > > -----Original Message----- > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:20:01 -0000 > From: "David Prosser" <[log in to unmask]> > > Dear All > > Please find attached the response that SPARC Europe has received from > Professor Frank Gannon to the open letter we sent regarding the bundling > together of The EMBO Journal and EMBO Reports, and the subsequent price > increase (which for many institutions has been around 100%). > > Best wishes > > David > > David C Prosser PhD > Director > SPARC Europe > > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 > Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 > http://www.sparceurope.org > > -- Attachment (copy and paste from original > Winword File, SPARC_LetFG04.01.14.doc) -- > > Subject: A reply to the open letter from SPARC Europe > > I read with interest and concern your open letter related to The EMBO > Journal and EMBOreports. I would like to take this opportunity to > balance some elements of your message. The open letter refers to: > > (a) the increase in the price of The EMBO Journal > (b) the coupling of the sales of The EMBO Journal and EMBO reports > (c) the desirability of a move to open access publishing. > > The increases in price that you refer to arises from a shift to a site > licence model that provides access to the electronic version of the > journals to all on a site. EMBO has been one of the last groups to move > to this particular pricing structure but the logic of doing so has > become inescapable. The reality is that at individual institutions, > multiple subscriptions for The EMBO Journal have been (not surprisingly) > dropped by libraries because complete institutional electronic access > has been available for the price of a single subscription. Most of the > smallest institutions will pay less than 5% more for their site licence > than they did under the subscription model. However, if a larger > institution previously reduced the number of its subscriptions, and now > falls into a higher size/price bracket, then the price will obviously > increase. For very large institutions, this price change may indeed be > a dramatic one. In fact, just as dramatic as the price reduction at an > earlier stage. However, I think that a fairer situation has been > reached through the change to the site licence. I can affirm that, > apart from corrections for inflation rate, the increase in 2004 is not > planned to be repeated in the future years. I trust that once this > realignment has taken place, then the widely accepted good value of The > EMBO Journal will be again the predominant message which will be sent by > librarians to each other. I should also point out that EMBO continues > to make its journals available freely to all after 1 year and that they > are immediately freely available to scientists in the poorest countries > of the world. > > The obligatory coupling of the purchase of The EMBO Journal and > EMBOreports is more problematic, I accept. The reality is that > EMBOreports is a top class publication as evidenced not least by the > fact that its initial impact factor was 6.0 and now is 7.7. You will > recognise that achieving such a high impact factor immediately shows the > quality of EMBOreports. Those who have not yet looked at EMBOreports > perhaps should do so to see that this is not just a journal that > publishes focussed scientific papers, but also one that contains much > background information about science and society and topics of very > general interest to not only the molecular biology community but all > scientists. The combination of The EMBO Journal and EMBOreports is > complementary with comments, reviews and short papers in one journal and > full papers in the other. This warrants their sale as a combination. > We also monitor the visits to the EMBOreports site and the traffic there > is extremely high. Indeed the increase in traffic on all sections of > the EMBOreports site in the last year has been remarkable. Many parts > of EMBOreports were freely accessible following its launch. The > subscription uptake for EMBOreports on the other hand, has remained > resolutely disappointing despite all the other indicators of success. > Our analysis is that the scientific community would be well served by > having greater physical and electronic access to EMBOreports. As the > standard "sales procedures" had not been sufficient, we have attempted > to increase availability by selling it in combination with The EMBO > Journal at a price that, for most institutions on the lowest price > tier, is less than 5% more than for the two journals combined last > year. All librarians will be provided with information on the use by > their institution of EMBOreports during 2004 and again we are confident > that this will show that the community is indeed very pleased to have > much more ready access to EMBOreports than has been the case in the > past. > > The final point in your message relates to open access. As you are > well aware, the economic aspects of open access publication are complex, > and EMBO's position is currently completely open on how best to serve > the scientific community on this question. We have recently > established a working party to look into all aspects of open access, > including the feasibility of launching a new open access journal, since > any transition from a traditional to an open access business model is > likely to require both careful analysis of alternative models and time > to test them. Even the start of a not-for-profit new open access > journal with a model in which the author pays for publication carries > with it a large number of unknowns in terms of both the economic > sustainability of such a journal and the real costs to authors and their > institutions. Hence, although we are very sympathetic and supportive > of open access, we have not yet completed the analysis that we feel such > a step into uncertainty requires. When we have done so (in the next > few months) we will be happy to let you know of our plans. > > I hope that the above paragraphs help to clarify the position of EMBO > and I remain open to further dialogue on this matter as is needed. > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > Prof. Frank Gannon, > Executive Director, EMBO > Secretary General, EMBC