The editor has to correct an error. The url given in issue no. 219 for the German mirror site of the Newsletter was incorrect. The correct url is http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/aw/nspi. Thanks to Sheila Webber and Monique Marchand for calling the error to my attention. And thanks to Sheila for supplying the correct url.
221.2 ELECTRONIC JOURNALS PRICING - STILL IN THE MELTING POT?
Ros Doig, Serials and Inter-lending Librarian, University of
Derby, m.r.doig@derby.ac.uk
A paper given by Albert Prior of Swets and Zeitlinger at the UK Serials Group 22nd Annual Conference/4th European Serials Conference at UMIST, Manchester, April 14, 1999.
Prior's talk lasted 30 minutes and used twenty-seven overheads packed with information! It would be impossible to summarise them all properly without virtually re-doing his paper. This will be published in the July issue of the UK Serials Group journal Serials. (A note on the UKSG appears at the end of this article.) On the whole the paper encompassed issues which are familiar to most of us dealing with such publications. However, Prior had conducted a short ad hoc survey of publishers in relation to their electronic material, their pricing models and licences, and it is this that will be of most interest to the readers here.
He started by pencilling in the background to the current e-journal pricing debate -- new opportunities, budgetary concerns, ownership etc. He identified the various ways in which e-journals are offered, e.g., in bundles, as individual titles, by article, and so on, and the various ways that we librarians can purchase them (e.g., through consortia deals). He then presented the results of his survey detailing a number of pricing and licence models. The survey was based on twelve questions Albert emailed to 56 publishers/suppliers. He received 37 replies. The results given below are lifted directly from Prior's overheads and used with his kind permission and that of the UK Serials Group.
- E-journal Pricing: some models.
Pricing based on FTEs, concurrent users, IPs, workstations, geography
Consortium (and multi-site corporations)
Pay per view
Extra fee for software or platform
Print + electronic - one price
Print + electronic - surcharge for electronic (optional)
Electronic available separately (individual titles) at 90%, 100%, 110% cost of print
All titles of publisher - print optional
- Survey Results. 62% have single combined price. Where there is a surcharge, it is between 8%-65% with the most common being 15%-20%. 50% offer 'e-version' separately, with a price range between 65% and 150% of print (90% and 100% are most common; 23% charge less than print). 30% of the publishers have changed policy this year. 37% offer pay-per-view; the price range is (US$) $13.60 to $43, most commonly $16-$20. Of those not offering, 14 plan to or are considering it. Science Online: $5 per article per day or $10 per day to access site.
- Consortia Pricing: common conditions.
Surcharge - access to all consortia titles, or all titles of publisher
Amount spent for print is base price
Often three-year agreements; annual price cap
Discount/reduced surcharge for numbers of sites
Print may be optional at discount
- Survey Results. 40% of publishers have a consortium 'policy.' Their comments: "negotiated individually; unique agreements," "extra revenue sought for extended access;" "volume discounts."
- What does the site licence fee give? Possibilities include extra functionality/benefits of e-versions; sometimes backfiles thrown in and wider database (e.g. TOCs); search, view, download, print, store; ILL (print and electronic?); access after cancellation/expiry, longer term access/archive.
- What do you get? -Site licence
Use electronic for paper ILL 53%
Use for electronic 'ILL' 8%
Use for course packs 41%
Continued access after cancellation 59%
"Electronic was free - paid for print"
"Free to public 18 months after publication"
What do you get? - Archiving
"Archival CD or can download;" 50% stated they had archive policy: "committed in principle;" committed as long as in business; learned societies - long term
commitment to online version; OCLC, JSTOR working with aggregators; working with international and national initiatives; working with national library; storing material in readiness; CD ROM is archive; print is archive.
Prior also mentioned other approaches such as PEAK, offering bundles of tokens for articles. He highlighted some of the subscribers' views on what is currently on offer -- three-year agreements, dislike of bundling, extra titles at discount being just some. He mainly concluded that experimentation would continue, some models will dominate but become customised with new ones emerging, and that consortia purchasing would increase. There would also be a rise in alternative e-publishing. Undoubtedly there is a considerable challenge for agents and suppliers alike (not to mention information professionals!).
* NOTE: The UK Serials Group is an autonomous, non-profit making, national and international interest group representing the common interests of librarians, subscription agents, publishers and all participants in the serials information chain world wide. Further details can be found on the UKSG web site: http://www.uksg.org
221.3 TOP TEN SCIENCE PUBLISHERS TAKE 76 PERCENT OF SCIENCE BUDGET
William Loughner, Physical Sciences Bibliographer, University of
Georgia, bill@loughner.com
Received April 19, 1999.
The proposed merger of Elsevier and Kluwer got the attention of the international library community (and also the US Justice Dept), but the buying and selling of publishers (and individual journals) has been a major theme of the past decade. Since 1990 I have been trying to keep track of science journal costs at the University of Georgia and also who publishes those journals. A major conclusion of that data is that a larger and larger proportion of our budget is going to a small number of major publishers. Currently we spend 76% of our science journal budget with the top ten publishers! This is up from 54% in 1990.
The following table gives some relevant data for publishers of science journals (only) at our library. It lists the 10 publishers that we spent the most money with in 1999, 1996, 1993 and 1990. Differential price increases and journal cancellations (and additions) have had a major effect on the data given here, but the effect of publisher wheeling and dealing should also be clear. I realize that each library will be different, but I think readers will find this table most interesting, especially the last line of the table which gives the percent of our total science journal budget we spent with the top 10 publishers in the 4 years covered.
Keeping track of who publishes what is a difficult task so I may have missed a few changes, especially those taken place recently, but hopefully not too many. Following the table is a list of imprints of some of the publishers listed.
The amounts given are in 1000s of dollars and are rounded off.
-------------------
| 1999 | 1996 | 1993 | 1990 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elsevier | Elsevier | Elsevier | Elsevier |
| 767 | 591 | 427 | 278 |
| Wiley | Springer | Springer | Springer |
| 222 | 173 | 121 | 88 |
| Springer | Wiley | Wiley | Plenum |
| 199 | 119 | 75 | 64 |
| Kluwer | Harcourt | Harcourt | Harcourt |
| 181 | 91 | 60 | 49 |
| Harcourt | Kluwer | Kluwer | Wiley |
| 140 | 74 | 48 | 47 |
| BlackwellSci | Plenum | Plenum | GordonBreach |
| 92 | 55 | 46 | 29 |
| MarcelDekker | BlackwellSci | BlackwellSci | Kluwer |
| 50 | 51 | 31 | 28 |
| AmInstPhys | AmInstPhys | AmInstPhys | AmInstPhys |
| 49 | 40 | 30 | 25 |
| TaylorFrancis | MarcelDekker | MarcelDekker | MarcelDekker |
| 41 | 38 | 27 | 21 |
| InstOfPhys | Karger | Karger | BlackwellSci |
| 29 | 25 | 19 | 19 |
| Total | Total | Total | Total |
| 1,771 | 1,258 | 884 | 649 |
| 75.8% journal budget | 67.8% journal budget | 64.2% journal budget | 54.0% journal budget |
--------------------
Wiley: VCH
Springer: Birkhauser, Physica Verlag
Kluwer: ADIS, Akademiai Kiado, Aspen, Consultants Bureau, Human
Sciences, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Plenum
Harcourt: Academic Press, Churchill Livingstone, Mosby, Saunders
Blackwell Science: Munksgaard
Taylor & Francis: Carfax, Psychology Press
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues are made on the responsibility of the authors alone, and do not imply the endorsement of the editor, the editorial board, or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Readers of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues (ISSN: 1046-3410) is published by the editor through Academic Technology and Networks at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, Internet: marcia_tuttle@unc.edu; Telephone: 919 929-3513; Fax: 919 960-0847. Editorial Board: Keith Courtney (Taylor and Francis Ltd), Fred Friend (University College, London), Birdie MacLennan (University of Vermont), Michael Markwith (Swets Subscription Services, Inc.), James Mouw (University of Chicago), Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division), David Stern (Yale University), and Scott Wicks (Cornell University).
To subscribe to the newsletter send a message to LISTPROC@UNC.EDU saying SUBSCRIBE PRICES [YOUR NAME]. Be sure to send that message to the listserver and not to Prices. You must include your name. To unsubscribe (no name required in message), you must send the message from the e-mail address by which you are subscribed. If you have problems, please contact the editor.
Back issues of the Newsletter are archived on 2 World Wide Web sites. At
UNC-Chapel Hill the url is: http://www.lib.unc.edu/prices/. At Grenoble the url is: http://www-mathdoc.ujf-grenoble.fr/NSPI/NSPI.html.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++