Journal Pricing Models Spark an Angry Response by Librarians

8/13/2019 Journal Pricing Models Spark an Angry Response by Librarians

1/5

JOURNAL PRICING MODELS SPARK AN ANGRY RESPONSE BYLIBRARIANSBy Gina Shelton, November 6, 2012

The angry librarian, a stereotype perpetuated through cartoons and media , is no longer

the image of an old curmudgeon, behind a wooden desk, silencing unsuspecting patronswith a deadly shhh! Instead, angry librarians are sending messages via blogs andtweets, asking the unsuspecting community to end the silence. What is the source of thismodern anger, you might ask? Journal pricing.

The source of the anger: budgets vs. journal pricesThe rising costs of journal prices plus falling (or steady) library budgets, has forcedlibraries to make tough decisions about collection development and stirred a debate aboutthe fairness of pricing models in scholarly publishing. The Library Journals 2012Periodicals Price Survey reported a trend in price increases for serials. Depending on thedata analyzed the prices increased by 4.3-5% during 2010-2011 and by 5.5-6% during

2011-2012. Compared with the 2.9% increase in the Consumer Price Index, it is nowonder librarians are upset with journal prices when they increase more than the rate ofinflation.

What does this mean for libraries? As library budgets decrease or flatten out librariansstruggle to meet the collection needs of their patrons. Agreeing to a subscription with alarger price tag, means forfeiting in other areas of the collection. Plus, as patrons demandmore instant, electronic access to information, the more necessary electronic journalsubscriptions become. And this is why librarians are angry. How can they possibly meetthe information needs of their patrons, with tight budgets and current journal pricingmodels?

The most popular model for journal pricing, both physical and digital, is a subscription.Libraries pay a yearly fee to have access to the volumes published in the coming year.This sounds straightforward initially, but how this is implemented for a digital version isdifferent than the physical counterpart. When a library subscribes to a print edition of a

journal, a physical copy is provided and remains in the library as long as deemednecessary. Digital editions are often bundled with other titles, and the library purchasesthe package for a set number of years. When a contract is up for renewal, if the packagechanges or a library chooses not to renew, then the library does not retain access tomaterial paid for during previous subscriptions.

This digital journal subscription model is often called the Big Deal and was initially a popular option. The Big Deal bundles multiple titles with varying rates of popularity andimpact factors. Originally this option was more cost effective than purchasing each titleindividually, and then libraries would have access to additional material within the

bundle. As prices rise for these bundles and consume a greater percentage of a librarys budget, institutions are rethinking their contracts.
http://www.yabooklove.com/2010_09_01_archive.htmlhttp://www.yabooklove.com/2010_09_01_archive.htmlhttp://www.yabooklove.com/2010_09_01_archive.htmlhttps://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-librarian/id507049774?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-librarian/id507049774?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-librarian/id507049774?mt=8http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/http://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/The-Big-Deal-Not-Price-But-Cost.shtmlhttp://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/The-Big-Deal-Not-Price-But-Cost.shtmlhttp://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/The-Big-Deal-Not-Price-But-Cost.shtmlhttp://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/The-Big-Deal-Not-Price-But-Cost.shtmlhttp://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-librarian/id507049774?mt=8http://www.yabooklove.com/2010_09_01_archive.html


2/5

Libraries across the United States vocalize their angerUniversity of CaliforniaLibraries have vocalized their discontent for journal prices for many years. However, inthe last two years, several institutions have gone a step further by acting upon their

discontent. Such movements are making the headlines of popular education and library publications.

In 2010, Norman Oder of the Library Journal ( LJ ) reported on the University ofCalifornias (UC) battle over pricing with the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). On June4, 2010 a letter was posted to a UC blog outlining the crisis. According to Oders article,the NPG proposed a new contract for 2011 that would increase prices by 400%, from$4,465 per journal in 2010 to $17,479 per journal in 2011. The authors of the letter wereangry about the increases, and argued that the integral involvement of the UC facultywith the NPG publications is one reason to reconsider the proposed prices. The UCfaculty have conducted lots of research published by the NPG and are involved in the

publishing process as editors and reviewers. Keith Yamamoto, a UC professor, proposeda boycott that would negatively affect the NPG, as highlighted by the previouslyestablished relationships between the two groups.

The Nature Publishing Group argued in response that the UC was receiving a largediscount that was no longer sustainable. The proposed contract reflected current day

pricing, which was comparable to costs paid by other institutions. The increase can also be partly explained by the NPGs shift in models; instead of a subscription model theychanged to a cost-per-download model, which at the time of the LJ article was $0.56 perdownload.

Only two months passed after the University of California s initial letter, before bothgroups met and released a joint letter about their efforts to work together. They expressedinterest in experimenting with new publishing models that would benefit both parties, aswell as the scholarly community. A year and a half later, they are still in discussions, pera February 2011 letter released by the UC. While the University has maintained thelicense they had with the NPG, they have not agreed to a new model for any new titles.Even as they negotiate, the UC is vocalizing their desire for faculty to pursue other

publishing models, including Open Access.

Harvard UniversityEarlier this year, Harvard University s faculty advisory council announced that thelibraries could no longer sustain contracts with large journal publishers. The authorsstated that the source of the problem is the rising costs of journal bundling. According tothe memo, the journal prices set by the unnamed publishers will mean that Harvard willspend a little under 10% of their entire acquisitions budget for these specific bundles.Two online journal subscriptions increased by 145% over six years. In The Guardians review of this memo , the director of Harvard Library, Robert Darnton, reported that, o neyear's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/885271-264/uc_libraries_nature_publishing_group.html.csphttp://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/885271-264/uc_libraries_nature_publishing_group.html.csphttp://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/885271-264/uc_libraries_nature_publishing_group.html.csphttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cdl.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/press_releases/cdl.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/press_releases/cdl.htmlhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/statement_092510.htmlhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/statement_092510.htmlhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/statement_092510.htmlhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4.17.2012%20(1)&utm_content=http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4.17.2012%20(1)&utm_content=http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4.17.2012%20(1)&utm_content=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-priceshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-priceshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-priceshttp://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4.17.2012%20(1)&utm_content=http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/statement_092510.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/press_releases/cdl.htmlhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/npg/http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/885271-264/uc_libraries_nature_publishing_group.html.csp


3/5

monographs. If Harvard choses the large publishing contracts, other areas of thecollection would suffer.

Costs of journals alone are upsetting, but when you examine the system of scholarly publishing, the ethics behind the costs come into question. Typically scholarly research

and peer review are free systems. An author submits an article to a journal, which is thenreviewed for free. When an article is accepted, the author(s) dont usually receivecompensation. As Ian Sample from The Guardian article points out, libraries have to pay

publishers to have access to the material produced by their own community.

This arguably unfair system of access may have been one of the issues that promptedHarvards suggestions for change. The memo contains nine options for responding to thecrisis, most pertaining to Open Access. Faculty and librarians were challenged toconsider publishing in, advocating for, and purchasing open access journals. Such astrong statement by a noteworthy institution may be a sign of changes within theacademic publishing community.

State University of New York at PotsdamThe most recent public statement against journal pricing came from Jenica Rogers, thedirector of the SUNY Potsdam libraries in New York. In September she posted a blogentry about her decision to cancel the librarys subscription to the American ChemicalSocietys (ACS) journal package for 2013. She stated that the tiered pricing model, whilereasonable in theory, was untenable for her library. In the tiered pricing model, libraries

pay different rates based on multiple factors, like usage, number of full-time students(FTEs) and budget. Simply put, smaller libraries pay less than larger libraries because,theoretically, less material will be accessed. According to Rogers, the base price for the

package is just too costly for small institutions like hers.

At SUNY Potsdam the chemistry department is small; the program has 7 facultymembers and grants only undergraduate degrees. In Rogers s blog, she explains thatagreeing to the ACSs pr oposed pricing would have used more than 10% of her totalacquisitions budget. And in an article published by The Chronicle of Higher Education ,Rogers explains that the ACS package would cost more than all the music databases

purchased for their large music conservatory.

The American Chemical Societys initial response to Rogerss blog was limited as printed in The Chronicle . The spokesperson, Glenn S. Ruskin, would not provide aresponse to Rogers, explaining the companys views that online communication is notconstructive. He encouraged phone or face-to-face dialogue.

The news media and blogosphere picked up on the story, highlighting an interestingdebate about how to fairly price journals for various institutions. John Dupuis chronicledvarious missives and news articles on the blog Confessions of a Science Librarian, andreported that a heated debate ensued on a chemistry listserv. One might speculate that allthis attention prompted the ACS to respond publicly, despite the companys earlier

position. Their first response was an open letter by Brandon Nordin to the library
http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765http://chronicle.com/article/As-Chemistry-Journals-Prices/134650/http://chronicle.com/article/As-Chemistry-Journals-Prices/134650/http://chronicle.com/article/As-Chemistry-Journals-Prices/134650/http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/10/01/around-the-web-suny-potsdam-vs-american-chemical-society/http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/10/01/around-the-web-suny-potsdam-vs-american-chemical-society/http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/10/01/around-the-web-suny-potsdam-vs-american-chemical-society/http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1349451421945/acspublications_letter.pdfhttp://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1349451421945/acspublications_letter.pdfhttp://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1349451421945/acspublications_letter.pdfhttp://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1349451421945/acspublications_letter.pdfhttp://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2012/10/01/around-the-web-suny-potsdam-vs-american-chemical-society/http://chronicle.com/article/As-Chemistry-Journals-Prices/134650/http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765


4/5

community stating their interest in finding a reasonable solution to the pricing problem. Afull-page copy of this letter was published in the October 19 th edition of The Chronicle .

The second response, also by Brandon Nordin, was an email posted to the ChemicalInformation Sources Discussion list hosted by Indiana University. Nordins opening

paragraph states his plan to clarify information that has been shared on this listserv andelsewhere . Following is a brief overview of the negotiations with SUNY Potsdam forthe last few years. In 2009 the library was offered access to more journal titles for a smallincrease, about 7% yearly. At the beginning of 2012, the State University of New Yorkrequested a review of the contract, and the ACS explored pricing that reflected a cost-per-download model. In addition, the ACS offered an alternative subscription called the ACSAcademic Core+. This package contains 15 essential chemistry journals and is gearedtowards schools with a small focus on research.

Nordin ends his email stating the American Chemical Societys goal to provide equitableaccess to their content. To accomplish this goal he poses several issues to address. He

questions whether or not distinctions should be made between institutions regarding pricing options, and how those distinctions should be made. From the customer s perspective, he asks librarians to consider methods for assessing the value of a packagefor their patrons. And he challenges institutions to consider the possible trade-offs whentrying to meet patrons demands for electronic access on a limited budget. Nordinsquestions are not unique the ACS vs. SUNY Potsdam debate. Going forward, thesequestions will be useful in guiding all discussions between libraries and publishers.

Anger managementThe University of California, Harvard and SUNY Potsdam are great examples of librariesat the forefront of the changing landscape of scholarly publishing. Libraries, large orsmall, can participate in this movement. It doesnt have to be at the same scale as Harvardor through the same method as SUNY Potsdam. Think of your institutions unique set ofstrengths and challenges and consider the following responses.

1. Modify subscriptions and supplement collectionsBrandon Nordins email to the chemistry community addresses a great point: there aretrade-offs in the management of collections. Unless you have an unlimited budget or

patrons with no information needs, chances are you will need to make some sacrifices orchange your purchasing model.

You can start by investigating your current contracts and ask to negotiate. This may meansubscribing to a different package or debundling any Big Deals. Reviewing usage datamay reveal that it is less expensive to subscribe to just the high usage journals, instead ofa package with mixed usage journals. Demand transparency. By knowing what othersimilar institutions are paying for compara ble products, publishers can t be inconsistentwith their pricing. This may mean refusing to agree to language in a contract that keepsthis information confidential.
https://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/chminf-l/2012-10/msg00101.htmlhttps://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/chminf-l/2012-10/msg00101.htmlhttps://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/chminf-l/2012-10/msg00101.htmlhttps://list.indiana.edu/sympa/arc/chminf-l/2012-10/msg00101.html


5/5

Should you have to downsize your journal offerings, consider other means for gettingaccess to materials for lower usage subject areas. For example, supplement with pay-per-view (PPV) or interlibrary loan. It may be less expensive to pay per article with a PPVmodel, or pay l enders fees or copyright fees for access through interlibrary loan.

2. Suggest alternatives to traditional publishing models Both Harvard and the University of California suggested other means by whichinformation can be stored and distributed. The popular alternatives right now are OpenAccess (OA) journals and Institutional Repositories (IR). Typically OA journals providecontent at no cost to the user. There are mixed OA models in which a journal providesonly some content for free, but overall OA is a more user/library-friendly option. An IRstores the scholarly content of the faculty and students at a particular institution. Bystoring your institutions scholarly work you retain some say over who has access andhow.

When working with students and faculty, suggest that they utilize research published in

Open Access journals and Institutional Repositories. Make it easier for patrons to accessthese sources, by including them on your website or in your librarys catalog. Considerdeveloping an IR if yo u dont already have one. If you do, market the benefits of thisservice to encourage more people to participate.

3. Encourage change through faculty Your very own faculty have great influence in the publishing world. Harvard realized thisand asked their faculty members in their memo to reconsider where they publish and howtheir professional partnerships with publishers can change. At your own institution,encourage faculty to publish in Open Access journals and your Institutional Repository(if you have one), or to select journals with fair pricing models. Encourage editors toinvestigate changing their journals to OA. Lastly, urge your community to voice theiropinions about publishing models and pricing issues. Communal protest does work .

Moving past angerThere is no doubt that there is a sea change in academic publishing. While there is surelydiscontent on the academic side, publishers have acknowledged the need for change too.All parties are interested in finding models that fairly pay for scholarly work and themethods of distribution. In addition, the model would ideally include equitable access tothat work. Suppressed anger over the current system will only keep us stagnant. By actingon our discontent, and participating in the discourse, we can work towards a set ofcommon goals to improve access to scholarly research.
http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020961http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020961http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020961http://www.doaj.org/http://www.doaj.org/http://www.doaj.org/https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/gb19f5810https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/gb19f5810https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/gb19f5810http://thecostofknowledge.com/http://thecostofknowledge.com/http://thecostofknowledge.com/http://thecostofknowledge.com/https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/gb19f5810http://www.doaj.org/http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020961http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020961http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e7ff53rlna6l0nuv/

Journal Pricing Models Spark an Angry Response by Librarians

Documents

Transcript of Journal Pricing Models Spark an Angry Response by Librarians