ReadAndPublishAgreementsUnethical – Google Docs

“The new ‘Read and Publish’ / ‘transformative’ agreements are just another version of hybrid because subscriptions are combined with APCs (Figures 1 and 2). They are also another version of a ‘Big Deal’ because universities are locked into a contract with a publisher that involves a bundle of journals at prices that are divorced from actual costs….”

ReadAndPublishAgreementsUnethical – Google Docs

“The new ‘Read and Publish’ / ‘transformative’ agreements are just another version of hybrid because subscriptions are combined with APCs (Figures 1 and 2). They are also another version of a ‘Big Deal’ because universities are locked into a contract with a publisher that involves a bundle of journals at prices that are divorced from actual costs….”

2020 Charleston Library Conference: Virtual Meeting Details

“Academic libraries in the U.S. have seemingly diverged into two camps as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: those who see the current environment as an uncomfortable bump in the road, and those who see the pandemic as the impetus to radically change business as usual. Our approaches to open access in relation to traditional scholarly publishing and Big Deals must take the latter route, particularly when it comes to an overall collections strategy that combines the library collections budget with outreach efforts and digital initiatives infrastructure. Many libraries have made great progress (or big headlines) in their support of OA initiatives, agreements, and contracts over the last several years. Transformative agreements, library/publisher divorces, and OA funding models categorize some of the most visible. These didn’t appear overnight; rather, the libraries engaging with them took strategic, multifaceted steps to achieve their progress to date. Examples include targeted faculty and central administration conversations, strategic Big Deal cancellations/reductions, open research and research data curation initiatives, and library-as-publisher investments. This session will explore these building blocks and others identified in a national survey on OA perceptions and activities, as well as a live-session survey of 2020 Charleston conference participants to marry pre and post-COVID attitudes and approaches. The results of the live survey will be shared with the session attendees in a collaborative dialog framed by the overarching question, “Where do we go from here”? The authors will end the session with a call for libraries and their stakeholders to recognize that while there is no one-size-fits-all approach, we will need to utilize the best technology and tools available to rapidly prototype our next steps. An introductory framework for OA rapid prototyping will be shared, and explored in more detail through the “Prototyping for Progress Workshop”.”

Virginia’s research libraries host virtual forum in advance of Elsevier negotiations | Virginia Tech Daily | Virginia Tech

“Representatives from seven Virginia universities will soon be in contract negotiations with Elsevier, the largest science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) scholarly publisher.

Working as a group, the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, George Mason University, Old Dominion University, William and Mary, and James Madison University will be discussing the unsustainable cost of accessing Elsevier’s academic journals and options to make their public universities’ research more accessible to the public that paid for it….”

Unsub Gives Libraries Powerful Evidence to Walk Away from Big Deals – SPARC

“Heather Piwowar and Jason Priem are working non-stop to accelerate the pace of the open science revolution.

The pair co-founded the non-profit organization Our Research, which recently developed and debuted Unsub, a data dashboard and forecasting tool that helps academic libraries cut their subscriptions to expensive bundles of toll-access journals….

Unsub (formerly known as Unpaywall Journals) has widely been hailed as a game changer in the scholarly communications market, providing institutions with the leverage they need when negotiating with publishers over journal subscription packages.  The tool forecasts the value and costs of individual journals to specific institutions, leveling the playing field for the first time for libraries when conducting negotiations with publishers….”

LA Referencia – Big Deals survey shows that Latin America spends a little over USD $100 million per year on information resources

11 Latin American countries participated in the survey

82% of the surveyed countries say their expectations of Big Deals negotiations have been transformed by the importance of the Open Access movement.

79% of the expenditures (a little more than USD $81 million) are directed to 5 large publishers….”

Universities will cancel deals with publishers if they don’t respond to current financial pressures – warn major sector bodies | Jisc

“Research Libraries UK (RLUK), SCONUL, the professional association for academic and research libraries and Jisc say that immediate reductions are necessary if institutions are to retain access to content.

Universities are under heavy pressure to reduce all expenditure and divert financial resources to areas of immediate concern including online teaching and implementing measures to limit the spread of COVID-19….”

Survey of Academic Library Use of Cost per Download Data for Journals Subscriptions

“This study looks at how academic libraries, especially research oriented institutions, develop and use cost per download data in collection decision-making.  The study is based on data from 52 institutions, predominantly from the USA but also from Canada, the UK , continental Europe and elsewhere. 

Data in the report is broken out by type of institution (i.e. research university, doctoral-level, etc.) and by overall student enrollment, tuition, for public and private institutions and for those located in the USA and all other countries.  Data is also presented separately for collections oriented towards healthcare and medicine, and for multidisciplinary collections.

The 54-page study helps its readers to answer questions such as: How precise an idea do libraries have about the cost per download of their subscribed journals?  How many libraries feel that they measure this cost well?  What tools, applications or programs do they use to obtain or develop this data?  What makes it easier or harder to obtain such data?  How much confidence do they have in the accuracy of the data often made available by journals publishers? Do some of these publishers produce more reliable data than others? If so , which ones? Does the library use benchmarking data from other libraries or consortia when developing or using their in-hour cost per download data?  Exactly what is the cost per download for the library’s most and least expensive journals subscription packages? Is the library making any special efforts to obtain or obtain better cost per download data as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing pressure on library budgets?

Just a few of the study’s many findings are that:

Approximately half of the institutions surveyed said that they had a very or extremely precise idea of the cost per download of journal articles from their university collections.
Public college libraries were much more likely than private college libraries to use benchmarking data from other institutions.

Cost per download was generally higher in the USA than abroad and private colleges and universities tended to pay considerably higher costs per download than their public sector counterparts.

The median cost per download for the highest cost “Big Deal” from the libraries sampled was $15.00.”

Open and Shut?: Unbundling the Big Deal: An interview with SUNY’s Shannon Pritting

“Nevertheless, many libraries did sign big deals. And many later regretted it, not least because, having done so, they felt they had no choice but to keep renewing the contract, even as the cost kept going up and devoured more and more of their budget. 

Libraries felt trapped, conscious that if they did not renew they would have to go back to subscribing to individual journals at list price, which would mean being able to afford access to fewer journals, and fearful that when they discovered that journals they wanted were no longer available, faculty would revolt.

Over time, however, a greater willingness to think the unthinkable emerged, and some libraries began to cancel their big deals. And when they did so the sky did not fall in – which allowed other libraries to take heart.

The list maintained here suggests that libraries began cancelling their big deals as long ago as 2008, but the number doing so has been accelerating in the last few years. What has really focussed minds are the recent decisions by both the University of California and MIT to walk away from their negotiations with Elsevier rather than renew their big deals.

But it is not necessary to walk away completely in the way UC and MIT have done. Instead, libraries can “unbundle” their Big Deal by replacing the large package of several thousand journals they are subscribed to with a small à la carte bundle of a few hundred journals, and in the process save themselves a great deal of money.

What is helping libraries to make the decision to unbundle is the knowledge that more and more research is becoming available on an open access basis. In addition, new tools like Unsub are available to advise them on which journals they can cancel without too great an impact, and which journals are essential and so should be retained….

So how is a decision to unbundle made, and what are the issues and implications of making the decision? To get a clearer picture I spoke recently by email with Shannon Pritting, Shared Library Services Platform Project Director at SUNY. In April, SUNY replaced its Big Deal of 2,200 journals with Elsevier with a “little deal” of just 248 journals. By doing so, it says, it has saved about $7 million….”