The New Abnormal: Periodicals Price Survey 2021 | Library Journal

“A large number of public and academic libraries are also looking at moderate to severe budget contractions due to unplanned COVID-related expenses, declines in tuition dollars, and/or local and state funding cuts. Many institutions are seeing or planning for permanent cuts between 9 and 13 percent to their base budget, a key difference from temporary cuts made after the Great Recession. Public libraries may fare better than academics: in an LJ survey of 223 public libraries across the United States, 84 percent reported an increase in FY21 total operating budgets for a rise of 2.9 percent. (See “The Price of a Pandemic.”) This was more modest than last year’s 3.5 percent increase, but represents continued, if uneven, gains….

Transformative agreements will make more content openly available, but they won’t pump any more money into library budgets or promise to make scholarly communications more sustainable. In the absence of national or statewide plans for funding OA (California being the notable exception), it’s difficult to see most “publish” universities in the United States agreeing to shoulder the costs of transformative agreements to make content open for all to read, particularly when faced with permanent budget cuts….

For the first time in a decade, libraries can anticipate subscription price increases of less than 6 percent: 3-4 percent is predicted for 2022. If a local serial portfolio skews toward large publishers, then the increase will be toward the 4 percent level. But with most institutions preparing for further collection cuts, even such a modest increase is not sustainable. Supported by faculty and emboldened by seeing the goals of Plan S and OA2020 start to come to fruition, libraries will be likely more prepared than ever to walk away from the table. Publishers will need to sharpen their pencils….

Although there were increases in the metrics for Impact Factor and Eigenfactor, the increases were not comparable to the increase in price. The average price ($6,637) for the most expensive journals was 18 times higher than the least expensive ($338), while the Impact Factor slightly more than doubled. The price increases for the more moderately priced titles were also lower than the more expensive titles, which showed close to a 4 percent increase. This analysis continues to show that higher priced titles do have higher Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, but the increase in the metrics is small when compared with the huge increase in costs….”

Repurposing Subscription Dollars for Open Access Investments: OACIP Pilot Opportunities

“If you are like many libraries, consortia, and academic units, you are interested in supporting open access publishing. You may be looking for ways to repurpose your subscription publishing dollars, but struggling with the administrative burden of evaluating how and where to reinvest precious funds.

 

In December 2020, we launched the Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP), a community-funded open access publishing project. OACIP’s goal is to help match libraries, consortia, and other prospective scholarly publishing funders with non-profit publishers and journal editorial boards that are seeking financial investments to sustain or transition to open access publishing of journals or books.

Do you want to get started in evaluating OA investment opportunities? The OACIP pilot phase has launched with crowd-sourced investment opportunities for two journals. We invite you to learn more about OACIP’s criteria-driven funding approach and determine if investing in these two journals is right for you. We are hosting a webinar about the OACIP pilot premised on engaging discussion with the editorial boards and publishers of the participating journals….”

Repurposing Subscription Dollars for Open Access Investments: OACIP Pilot Opportunities

“If you are like many libraries, consortia, and academic units, you are interested in supporting open access publishing. You may be looking for ways to repurpose your subscription publishing dollars, but struggling with the administrative burden of evaluating how and where to reinvest precious funds.

 

In December 2020, we launched the Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP), a community-funded open access publishing project. OACIP’s goal is to help match libraries, consortia, and other prospective scholarly publishing funders with non-profit publishers and journal editorial boards that are seeking financial investments to sustain or transition to open access publishing of journals or books.

Do you want to get started in evaluating OA investment opportunities? The OACIP pilot phase has launched with crowd-sourced investment opportunities for two journals. We invite you to learn more about OACIP’s criteria-driven funding approach and determine if investing in these two journals is right for you. We are hosting a webinar about the OACIP pilot premised on engaging discussion with the editorial boards and publishers of the participating journals….”

Reporting back on our ACRL 2021 conference panel: Open access investment at the local level – UC Berkeley Library Update

“Last year the UC Berkeley Library’s Collection Services Council charged a working group to develop local best practices to guide investment in open access (OA) products and services. Advancing open access to scholarship is one of the Library’s key goals, and addressing how and when UCB invests in OA resources and materials is one path to supporting this priority. In May 2020 the working group completed its report, recommending key criteria and a workflow for evaluating open access investment opportunities. 

Even though the Library is in the early stages of implementing the proposed criteria and review process, we submitted a proposal for the 2021 ACRL Conference to share our work with the broader academic library community and to receive feedback as we develop the process. We also wanted to hear how related projects address open access investments, and understand the challenges (and hopefully, solutions) others have encountered along the way. 

Our panel was titled Open access investment at the local level: Sharing diverse tactics to improve access & affordability. We know that many decisions about open access investments take place at administrative or consortial levels, but librarians frequently field requests for access, resources, or partnerships at the local level through their relationships with students, researchers, and faculty. The panel aimed to share real-world examples of where and how academic libraries decide to invest in open access resources, and discuss commonalities and differences in strategies and give attendees examples they can apply in their own roles….”

With 50% Cut, Virginia Research Libraries Recalibrate Relationship with Elsevier – SPARC

“Equity, affordability, and accessibility were at the center of the recent decision by the Virginia Research Libraries (VRL) consortium to cut their spend with Elsevier nearly in half while maintaining access to their most frequently used materials.

The decision by six members of VRL (William & Mary, the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, George Mason University, Old Dominion University, and James Madison University) was grounded in a values-driven negotiation process that relied on data to make the case to move away from Elsevier’s “Big Deal” Freedom Collection. The new one-year agreement with Elsevier for 2021 significantly reduced the overall spend for each campus and allowed for a collection tailored to include each institution’s most used materials….”

Gold Open Access Mandates May Be Associated with Publisher Revenue Losses and Library Cost Increases | Open Research Community

A recent analysis outlining alternative scenarios for the publishing market development in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests a strong likelihood of lose-lose outcomes for publishers and universities for mandate-driven transitions to Open Access.

Universities pressure Elsevier for cheaper journal fees | Financial Times

“Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

https://www.ft.com/content/9525bbfc-87b7-44d8-bb58-fdc4eef19b11

British universities are demanding that Elsevier, the world’s largest academic publisher, cuts the cost of its journals and increases the share of articles made available for free online. The 160 higher education institutions which negotiate through the Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc), a non-profit technology provider for the sector, warn that their annual £50m bill is unacceptable at a time of intensifying financial pressure and demand for openly accessible science. The call comes as criticism grows of the traditional model of academic publishing, with increasing government and philanthropic funders including Wellcome insisting that the research they support is made available for free through “open access” online journals. The tensions have been accentuated with the surge in scientific articles including on Covid-19 topics published in recent months, against a backdrop of falling income to universities….”

Universities pressure Elsevier for cheaper journal fees | Financial Times

“Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

https://www.ft.com/content/9525bbfc-87b7-44d8-bb58-fdc4eef19b11

British universities are demanding that Elsevier, the world’s largest academic publisher, cuts the cost of its journals and increases the share of articles made available for free online. The 160 higher education institutions which negotiate through the Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc), a non-profit technology provider for the sector, warn that their annual £50m bill is unacceptable at a time of intensifying financial pressure and demand for openly accessible science. The call comes as criticism grows of the traditional model of academic publishing, with increasing government and philanthropic funders including Wellcome insisting that the research they support is made available for free through “open access” online journals. The tensions have been accentuated with the surge in scientific articles including on Covid-19 topics published in recent months, against a backdrop of falling income to universities….”

Libby is stuck between libraries and e-book publishers – Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech

“On the surface, there couldn’t be a more wholesome story than the meteoric rise of the Libby app. A user-friendly reading app becomes popular during the pandemic, making books cool again for young readers, multiplying e-book circulation and saving public libraries from sudden obsolescence.

But the Libby story is also a parable for how the best-intentioned people can build a beloved technological tool and accidentally create a financial crisis for those who need the tech most. Public librarians depend on Libby, but they also worry that its newfound popularity could seriously strain their budgets….”