RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

["Raewyn Adams" <Raewyn.Adams@bopdhb.govt.nz>]

Hi Kathryn

We are a small library and don't buy many new subscriptions, but 
when we do the decision making comes from a combination of 
requests from potential users and/or recommendation from an 
appropriate specialist, etc. As well as looking at the title's 
place in our collection and whether it is appropriate, I can also 
check for interloan statistics (a quantity of interloans can 
reflect a need, but not always of course) and online usage. Most 
journals provide free access to Tables of Contents, abstracts and 
some free articles. If that access in our organisation has been 
through our library systems, the data are there to be seen, along 
with the data relating to online usage of what we do subscribe 
to.

So I guess we have gone full circle. Publishers providing 
something for nothing can potentially see a benefit. If I can see 
my users accessing a journal, then when they request purchase, 
that adds some evidence to the possibility that we need to buy 
it. At least it shows some interest in the title from someone. 
Trouble is, more often than not I don't have the funding to 
respond.

Regards

Raewyn Adams
Librarian
Tauranga Hospital Library
New Zealand



-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Kathryn Earle
Sent: Friday, 29 December 2006 04:12 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

As a publisher, I feel that usage and cost (along with faculty 
recommendations) seem very sensible criteria when deciding what 
journals to renew. What troubles me is what criteria are used for 
acquiring new journals? Are faculty recommendations the sole 
criterion? (It seems they must be, given the pressure on 
librarians to cancel subs.)

Journals that are innovative in terms of approach or topic take 
time to establish -- especially if they are interdisciplinary. 
There is a great deal of dialogue within academia about the value 
of interdisciplinary research but, from a publisher's 
perspective, this is risky business. I can't see renewal policies 
based solely on usage and cost as good for this sort of research 
over the longer term.

I would welcome comments!

Kathryn Earle
Managing Director
Berg Publishers
www.bergpublishers.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rickand@unr.edu]
Sent: 27 December 2006 01:33
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: puzzled by self-archiving thread

> I plead ignorance here, and welcome instruction from you librarians,
> but as a publisher of 11 journals in the humanities, it bothers me to
> think that cancellations could occur just because of usage statistics
> alone.

It's not that we care only about usage and cost -- it's that fiscal
reality forces us to make difficult decisions based on imperfect and
incomplete data.  Spiraling journal prices and (for many of us)
effectively static budgets mean that we can't afford to keep buying
everything this year that we bought last year. So something has to go --
but what will it be?  We can't just keep a subscription because the
journal is good and worthwhile; the world is full of good and worthwhile
things that we can't afford.
In the short term, we can protect current subscriptions by buying fewer
books, but that's no long-term strategy.

Eventually, we have to pick subscriptions to cancel.  If we don't make
our cancellation decisions based on usage and cost, what criteria should
we use?  I don't ask that question facetiously -- I'd be honestly
interested to know, from a publisher's perspective, what other criteria
_would_ make sense.

Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu