Simon
Well, I think we're not going to agree. Your report said ''We believe our research demonstrates that mandating self-archiving within 6 months or less of publication will undermine the subscription-based peer review journal.' This may not reflect the subtlety of your full report, but it was a piece of rhetoric which the commissioners of the report were happy to use.
The reality is that there are any number of journals that are thriving despite making their content freely available after 6 months - there were in 2007 and there are today. You made no effort to understand this when you wrote your report and the new report makes no effort to understand it now. I stand my my contention that this is a flaw in both reports. One is always going to be wary of results that don't reflect reality.
David
On 8 Jun 2012, at 09:27, Simon Inger wrote:
> David,
>
> It may be the summary of the report didn't contain the same exact language
> used in the body of the report. That I will concede. The survey, and the
> report that followed from it, was there to test acquisition preferences
> across a range of purchasing options - open access content being one of
> them, journal subscriptions and aggregated databases being the others. The
> report found, amongst other things, that libraries were even more likely to
> substitute aggregated database access for subscriptions than they were to
> substitute open access for subscriptions. Six years on, as I talk to
> librarians, I find that this is increasingly the case.
>
> You say that we should have sanity-checked the results at the time by
> comparing with real librarian attitudes toward embargoed openly accessible
> journals. I have several points to make on this:
>
> 1. At the time, this was very early in the whole open access debate as far
> as the great majority of libraries were concerned and I, for one, wouldn't
> have expected much of a result from any testing of this at that time.
> Libraries, and institutions in general, are slow to steer. And perhaps quite
> reasonably so.
> 2. There was anecdotal evidence at the time that libraries were not
> acquiring (rather than actively cancelling) subscriptions that meet your
> criteria for the test. I had feedback as part of the survey from a number of
> librarians particularly in SE Asia that they would take the embargoed free
> version rather than spend their money on these products. They saved their
> money for other products. Now there weren't a statistically significant
> number of these to report, so I chose not to report them. Quite rightly I
> believe, because we would have been criticised for putting out such
> anecdotal evidence as if it were provable.
> 3. Not all "OA after 6-months" products remain free forever. A number of
> them go free after 6 months or a year, stay free for a couple of years, and
> then disappear once more behind a pay-wall. So that would be another factor
> for librarians to take into account.
>
> I did try to get a research project going a few years ago now looking at the
> subscription numbers for titles from across a range of publishers that
> publish titles that go open after an embargo period. While individually they
> all had a mass of anecdotal evidence about cancellations due to their OA
> policy, you couldn't show it from the raw numbers because there were so many
> other factors present that made such an analysis impossible, for example
> decline in some market sectors and regions, growth in others, enhanced
> marketing to counteract cancellation, product realignment (so not everything
> in a journal became free, so a direct comparison for cancellation would be
> no longer possible) and so on.
>
> I would love to see such a study actually conducted, but it isn't going to
> be simple.
>
> Let me paint one scenario for you. Let's say that for the last ten years a
> publisher has offered embargoed free access to its own journals. Let's say
> that had the effect of leading to a 4.5% cancellation rate each year. At the
> same time new money and new markets have emerged. Let's say that adds back
> 1.5% per annum. And then the publisher, seeing a decline, invests in further
> marketing and sales activity to increase its subscriptions in its core
> markets. Let's say that adds another 1% back in. This would lead you to a
> conclusion where the publisher has shrunk by an average of 2% per annum, but
> compounding up the 4.5% you see that it would have lost over 40% of its
> subscribers to its own OA policy, even though it gained others back. I'm not
> saying that this is how things are, but this is one scenario that would give
> you the end results observed by many society publishers with this policy.
>
> My point is that there is no study out there right now that could prove this
> point either way.
>
> Simon.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: An informal open list set up by UKSG - Connecting the Information
> Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: 07 June 2012 22:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [lis-e-resources] Press Release: The Publishers Association
> releases report detailing the potential effect of making journals free after
> a six month embargo - corrected link
>
> Hi Simon
>
> Interesting. Reading your Executive Summary again (p. 3
> http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/Self-archiving_summary2.pdf) I'm
> not sure I can see the 'organised' aspect. I can see emphasis on the
> dangers of embargoes and from the Conclusion:
>
> 'We believe our research demonstrates that mandating self-archiving within 6
> months or less of publication will undermine the subscription-based peer
> review journal.'
>
> What neither you or the author of the new report asked was what actually
> happens when journals make their content available after 6 months or even
> less. This I think is a flaw in the new study as it was, unfortunately, in
> yours. There are definitely examples to draw on today as there were six
> years ago.
>
> And I'm not sure the 'organised' argument works - what can be more
> 'organised' than content from the journals' own website? If these journals
> do not see the catastrophic collapse in subscriptions you predicted you
> would?
>
> But perhaps as you say these journals with freely available content on their
> own sites' at six months or less have experienced slower subscription growth
> than journals where no copy is available. It is a bit of a stretch - the
> journal market, certainly in the West, is not a growing one. Perhaps in
> emerging markets? But wouldn't their publishers have noticed - one journal
> going great at 44% growth, the other not growing at all. The only
> difference the length of embargoes? And as embargoes are a controversial
> issue then somebody may have mentioned it. (Not forgetting that the tenor
> of the latest press release and your report was not that six month embargoes
> would make massive growth tricky, but that, to quote you again, they would
> 'undermine the subscription-based peer review journal'.)
>
> I don't believe for a moment that the fact that these two reports were
> funded by publishers influenced the findings. But I still don't understand
> why there was no 'reality check' - comparing the results of the survey with
> the evidence of what is (or was, in the case of your report) actually
> happening in libraries.
>
> I also posted my original comments to Liblicense - you may wish to follow-up
> there.
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2012, at 16:59, Simon Inger wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> The study that Chris Beckett and I undertook in 2008 showed a
>> preference in acquisitions that would place a significant percentage
>> of librarian preference for selecting "green" open access materials if
>> access to that material were *organised*. I would suggest that the
>> aggregate of institutional and other open repositories today is far
>> from organised from the point of view of user discovery and as such
>> does not represent a viable alternative for the great majority of
>> librarians doing any kind of selection. So I'm more than happy to stand by
> our findings of the time.
>>
>> Even if that weren't the case, I would have to add that you cannot
>> possibly know how much growth in subscription purchase from those
>> markets that still have money (or have growing amounts of money) has
>> been thwarted by the availability as it stands right now of green OA
>> content. No-one to my knowledge has that data, nor are they likely to
>> ever have it. It may mean that 44% of subscriptions "never happened"
> because of this effect.
>>
>> Of course, what would be interesting would be to actually build a
>> discovery platform for green OA content, organised along the lines
>> that libraries clearly understand (i.e. in journal-title silos, each
>> with a ToC pointing to the relevant component of each, now
>> virtualised, journal), and then see how well they are "acquired". I
>> appreciate such an experiment would need the buy-in of publishers to
>> test the impact, but it would be a good thing to build and would prove the
> point one way or the other.
>>
>> By the way, I don't like the inference that the funder of the research
>> that Chris and I undertook in 2008 influenced the outcome. Chris and I
>> don't work like that.
>>
>> David, would you mind posting this reply to all the lists you posted
>> on? I probably don't monitor all of the same ones. Many thanks.
>>
>> Simon Inger
>> Simon Inger Consulting Ltd.
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: An informal open list set up by UKSG - Connecting the
>> Information Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of David Prosser
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 16:33
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [lis-e-resources] Press Release: The Publishers
>> Association releases report detailing the potential effect of making
>> journals free after a six month embargo - corrected link
>>
>> *Cross posted*
>>
>> This survey reminds me of one carried out by Chris Beckett and Simon
>> Inger back in 2007. Both were surveys of libraries carried out on
>> behalf of publisher associations, both appeared to suggest that
>> six-month embargoes would trigger massive rounds of cancellations, and
>> both took no account of what actually happens in reality.
>>
>> There are a growing number of journals that already make their content
>> freely available after six months. These journals make the content
>> available ether through their own websites, through others (such as
>> PubMedCentral), or both. Some of them have been doing so since well
>> before the Beckett and Inger study so we potentially have six years of
>> data to test the hypothesis that a six-month embargo could lead to
>> subscription losses in the order of 44%. We also have extensive
>> experience in some fields of what happens to subscriptions if
>> peer-reviewed copies are made available immediately on publication.
>>
>> As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that six months
>> embargoes have led to 44% reductions in subscriptions as predicted by
>> this latest survey. The journals that make their content available
>> after six months appear to be thriving and are sustainable. If I have
>> missed the evidence please let me know.
>>
>> So, what do you do if you discover that your survey results do not
>> necessarily reflect reality? Well, I guess that if the results match
>> your ideological bent you ignore the discrepancy and issue press
>> releases. If you are interested in actually looking at behaviour you
>> try to dig a little deeper. One can begin to think of a number of
>> possible reasons for this discrepancy, including:
>>
>> 1. Librarians don't realise that the material is available six months
>> after publication (unlikely, surely) 2. The journals that make
>> material available tend to be in biomedical fields - perhaps these
>> areas are less susceptible to cancelations. But it doesn't explain
>> high-energy physics and economics where green OA copies of all papers
>> in some journals can be found without embargo.
>> 3. People don't always do what they say they do in surveys.
>>
>> The trouble is that in the cases where six month embargoes have been
>> tried they give results that completely fail to match the results of the
> survey.
>> Until we come to terms with why this is the case I find it hard to see
>> how we can take the survey at face value.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2012, at 17:15, Nicola Swann wrote:
>>
>>> The Publishers Association releases report detailing the potential
>>> effect of making journals free after a six month embargo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Report suggests that libraries would cancel 65% of AHSS[1] and 44% of
>>> STM[2] journal subscriptions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Libraries and Publishers need to work towards a mutually attractive
>>> publishing model
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Publishers Association argues for 'Gold' Model of Open Access -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> London, 1 June 2012 - 'The potential effect of making journals free
>>> after a six month embargo'[3], [http://bit.ly/NoE4HB], a report
>>> commissioned by The Publishers Association and the Association of
>>> Learned, Professional and Society Publishers [ALPSP], found that an
>>> across-the-board mandate might have a material effect on libraries'
>>> subscriptions; and that the impact on publishers' revenues would be
>>> considerable. Higher Education Institutions' libraries may be
>>> impacted by the collapse or scaling down of academic publishing
>>> houses. The world's most distinguished research institutions would,
>>> the report suggests, be impacted the most, since published outputs
>>> are essential for the work carried out by their researchers. The
>>> reports' results indicate that STM publishers could expect to retain
>>> full subscriptions from 56% of libraries, compared with 35% for AHSS
> publishers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Commenting on the findings of the report, Graham Taylor, Director of
>>> Educational, Academic and Professional Publishing at The Publishers
>>> Association, said: "We need a sustainable publishing model which is
>>> mutually attractive for both publishers and libraries. The findings
>>> of the report are testament to the fact that a six month embargo
>>> period is too short for the 'green' model of open access. The
>>> Publishers Association is in full support of a funded version of open
>>> access as we hope will be recommended by the report of the Finch
>>> Committee, which is expected to be published shortly".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Audrey McCulloch, Chief Executive of The Association of Learned,
>>> Professional and Society Publishers, said: "ALPSP is very concerned
>>> about the effect this may have on non-profit publishers, many of whom
>>> may not survive. The responses in the report show that the 'green'
>>> model of open access will reduce the number of journals and thus choice
>>> available to academics. Learned societies rely on income from their
>>> publishing activities - how will this affect them and the services
>>> they provide? ALPSP will only support appropriately funded
>>> publishing models, such as the current subscription model or the
>>> 'gold' open access model".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The report documents the results of a survey carried out to obtain a
>>> significant body of information on how the acquisitions policies of
>>> libraries might be affected by an across-the-board mandate to make
>>> journals articles free of charge six months after publication. The
>>> report analyses the results of responses from 210 libraries across
>>> the world who were asked whether they would continue to subscribe to
>>> research journals were their content freely available within six
>>> months of publication. Libraries were asked to send separate
>>> responses for Scientific, Technical and Medical (STM) journals and
>>> Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences journals (AHSS).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Notes to Editors
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Publishers Association
>>>
>>> The Publishers Association is the leading trade organisation serving
>>> book, journal, audio and electronic publishers in the UK. Membership
>>> is comprised of 117 companies from across the trade, academic and
>>> education sectors. Its core service is representation and lobbying,
>>> around copyright, rights and other matters relevant to members, who
>>> represent roughly 80% of the industry by turnover.
>>> www.publishers.org.uk <http://www.publishers.org.uk/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
>>> (ALPSP)
>>>
>>> The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
>>> (ALPSP) is the international organization for non-profit publishers.
>>> It has a broad and diverse membership of over 300 organizations in 37
>>> countries who collectively publish over half of the world's total
>>> active journals as well as books, databases and other products.
>>> ALPSP's mission is to connect, train and inform the scholarly and
>>> professional publishing community and to play an active part in
>>> shaping the future of academic and scholarly communication.
>>>
>>> www.alpsp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
>>>
>>> [2] Scientific, Technical and Medical
>>>
>>> [3] This report has been prepared by Linda Bennett of Gold Leaf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kelly Signorelli-Chaplin
>>>
>>> Head of Communications
>>>
>>> The Publishers Association Limited
>>>
>>> 29B Montague Street
>>>
>>> London
>>>
>>> WC1B 5BW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> t: +44 20 7691 9191
>>>
>>> f: +44 20 7691 9199
>>>
>>> e: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> w: www.publishers.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Publishers Association Limited is a company limited by guarantee
>>> incorporated in England and Wales.
>>>
>>> Registration number 3282879; Registered Office: 6th Floor, 25
>>> Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4AB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials UKSG
>>> groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
>>
>> lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials UKSG
>> groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
>>
>> lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials UKSG
>> groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
>
>
> lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials UKSG groups
> also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
>
> lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials
> UKSG groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials
UKSG groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
|
