Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled Subscriptions

["chris beckett" <cblists@scholinfo.co.uk>]

Just briefly, in response to Heather's points [MOD NOTE:  from 
another list but of interest here]:

1. "Removing a key factor, at best, makes the validy [validity] 
of a study questionable.

- No it doesn't. The survey doesn't pretend to have measured all 
the factors in content selection preference - but most of them. 
The factors measured were validly measured. (Bad brakes and worn 
tyres increase the likelihood of car crashes - I don't need to 
know how bad the brakes are to know that worn tyres increase the 
likelihood of car crashes.)

2.  "The fact that physics journals are co-existing with arXiv is 
fairly clear evidence that "importance to the collection" is a 
key factor in library decision-making. "

- No, not particularly. There could be (and probably are) very 
many more factors at play here - including one we measured, ie 
article version. ArXiv is populated with a mix of pre-prints and 
post-prints. Amother importnant factor may be as described in 
previous posts the level of organisational overlay.

3. "Chris is suggesting that including cost makes up for not 
addressing price increases as a factor in cancellations.  These 
prices increases over the past few decades are one of the most 
important environmental factors.  An objective study would make 
reference to this"

- We believe that the study was most certainly objective. I am 
sure that when you say "cost" to librarians they do think about 
price increases and take that into account when considering the 
spectrum of price points to consider.

Chris Beckett
Director
Scholarly Information Strategies Limited
E: chris@scholinfo.com
W: www.scholinfo.com

____________________________________

In response to a long reply from Chris Beckett, at: 
<https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/3464.html> . I 
would like to focus on two factors:

>"Importance to your Collection", which I think equates to 
>Heather's point of "research and educational priorities of the 
>university and faculty assessment of the importance of 
>journals", was therefore considered and proposed for inclusion 
>in the formulation of the conjoint survey. However as indicated 
>in the paragraph above and footnote this was excluded from the 
>final survey in order to simplify the completion of the survey.

What Chris is saying is that the library experts consulted 
initiatily did indicate that "Importance to the Collection" is a 
key factor in cancelling / keeping journals, but that this was 
excluded "in order to simplify the completion of the survey".

Removing a key factor, at best, makes the validy of a study 
questionable.

The fact that physics journals are co-existing with arXiv is 
fairly clear evidence that "importance to the collection" is a 
key factor in library decision-making

Chris is suggesting that including cost makes up for not 
addressing price increases as a factor in cancellations. These 
prices increases over the past few decades are one of the most 
important environmental factors. An objective study would make 
reference to this.

best,

Heather Morrison
<http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/>