RE: Graphing the Bergstrom and McAfee Journal Pricing Data

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Perhaps I shall partly anticipate Phil on value, but our viewpoints are 
not identical.

We can look at value as a global concept, including all users anywhere, or 
as it applies to a specific institution. Viewed globally, there are many 
different meanings mostly not yet understood. We can approach this by 
incorporating the ones we know.

The most obvious one is downloads/readings. The best approximation to this 
will be the total COUNTER data for a journal. The first obstacle is the 
technical one that the data are not yet comparable between publishers, but 
only within the journals of the same publisher; see 
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/interface.pdf This will presumably 
soon be overcome.  But the second obstacle is that almost all publisher 
refuse to release global usage data.  They cite unspecified "business 
models;" but the only way such data can harm a publisher is if it is lower 
than it would like us to believe. I challenge any publisher to provide 
another, on line or off. reason.

The next parameter to be considered is total circulation; some publishers 
do release this because of postal regulations, but most of the expensive 
one distribute in a manner to avoid needing to state these figures. It 
would be useful to have a compendium of such figures as are available, 
including but indicating unverified values from Ulrich's. This is a 
complicated figure to calculate in the presence of "big deals," but there 
is usually a difference between the journals paid for at full price, and 
the ones added.

As an excuse for not providing figures, publishers again answer "business 
model," as if that were a reason rather than a refusal. The only way such 
data can harm a publisher is if it is lower than it would like us to 
believe. I challenge any publisher to provide another reason, on line or 
off.

These factors should be included; others have been used, such as the 
proportion of research libraries owning the journal or interlibrary loan 
demand. There are surely others, but there is no need for them until we 
have incorporated the basic ones of downloads and subscriptions.

Returning to a local university level, "Value" has a clear functional 
meaning: it is a summary of the likelihood that a library will continue or 
add a subscription.  It is in fact this understood but not-mentioned 
meaning which explains the virulence of some recent postings. It is 
measured by such of the above parameters as apply.  In addition, here is 
where the variation in literature use between disciplines becomes a 
practical question, but libraries take account of both this variation, as 
it applies to their local priorities.

(Princeton or MIT are not going to buy Diabetes, no matter how good it is 
in any or all factors. I suppose Cornell Medical or Yale would buy it even 
if it were a poor value in financial terms.)

It is also at this level that the possibility of substituting 
copyright-paid document delivery, fair use interlibrary loan, or Open 
Access becomes relevant.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu