1. Guest Post: Cost per Use Overvalues Journal Subscriptions
Digital delivery of scholarly publications has enabled far more robust tracking of usage, with the COUNTER Project providing and periodically updating the defining standard for usage measurement. As a result, usage has become a critical metric for establishing the value of a given journal or content bundle in many circumstances, including licensing negotiations between publishers and libraries. In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Curtis Kendrick, Dean of Libraries at Binghamton University, raises questions about whether cost-per-use is the appropriate metric for measuring the comparative value of library subscriptions.
The blog post says (quote): Libraries have an opportunity to seize greater control of the negotiation conversation by reducing the substantial informational asymmetry that privileges vendors. They must conceive of a different scale for evaluating journal subscriptions. Whereas an advantage of the cost per use model is that it is relatively easy to calculate and easy to understand, it doesn’t get us too far from our practice of mistaking “counting things” for assessment. While our industry norm has been to think in terms of the cost of the journals we license, what if that cost were to be viewed instead as an investment? Less, “how much does this journal cost?” and more “what are we getting for our investment in this journal?”.................(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Considered and visionary: a grown-up approach to lifelong learning
Change is happening – and fast. The fourth industrial revolution is disrupting old business models before our eyes, bringing new challenges and new ways of working. Shifting labour market requirements and rapid developments in technology require agility. Responding to the Education Committee's inquiry into adult skills and lifelong learning, Paul McKean, in the JISC Blog, outlines Jisc’s vision for an agile, joined-up, data-driven approach.
The blog post says (quote): Industry 4.0 requires an education system to match. Jisc’s vision for Education 4.0 explores the effect of emerging technology on teaching and learning now and into the future and calls for a joined-up approach to ASALL and flexible opportunities to learn through a variety of routes. As part of this work, Jisc is supporting the Independent Commission on the College of the Future and is working with members to meet the challenges of Education 4.0.................(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Embargoes Aren’t the Answer
Through this post in the Library Journal Rebecca T. Miller joins those from the library community urging a reconsideration of Macmillan’s recent decision to limit libraries to one copy of new ebooks for the first two months of publication. This one size fits all embargo is, at best, an insensitive blockade. Libraries are key engines of book culture, and willing collaborators in the process of finding a path to access.
The blog post says (quote): Publishers understand the importance of physical space when it comes to bookstores: they even pay for premium placement in them through coop dollars. When it comes to libraries, placement is free, but that doesn’t mean it is without value. Publishers should be embracing what libraries offer, not casting their shared lending as “cannibalizing” a bottom line that will only diminish if book culture dissipates from lack of engagement................(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Will Libraries Help Publishers Prop Up the Value of the Big Deal?
This is a disruptive moment for journal licensing. The value of the big deal has declined. When the value of a product declines, one expected outcome is for customers to drive down its price in the market. But something slightly different is instead taking place. In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Roger C. Schonfeld will look at if libraries will drive down its price — or help publishers prop up its value?
The blog post says (quote): Of course not all libraries face identical interests. Indeed the director of one major research library expressed relief to me this summer that their licensing consortium recently reached an agreement with Elsevier, avoiding the distraction from higher strategic priorities that would have come from a protracted negotiation if starting today. And more broadly, the university groups with the highest research output — like California — clearly face different incentives than those that publish less. Most libraries and consortia will be trying to determine their best individual negotiating opportunities in this moment of disruption, rather than all working from an identical playbook..................(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply