Business Models, Society for Scholarly Publishing

In Search of Sustainability: Business Models in Publishing

Chinese takeout menu
“Chinese takeout menu” by helixblue via Flickr

While library budgets have remained flat, article output is increasing at 3% per year.

This doesn’t sound like the seeds of a sustainable business model, began Brett Rubinstein, Library Sales Director from Springer, on a panel presentation on Subscription & Access Models at the 2010 SSP conference.

“The Big Deal provides little flexibility for libraries,” Rubinstein declared.  On the other hand, the pay-to-publish Open Access model has not demonstrated a viable alternative.

Uptake for Springer’s Open Choice program is between 1 to 2%, reported Rubinstein.  “There is a disparity between scientists who advocate the Open Access model that those willing to pay for it.”

Given Springer’s investment in Open Access, author pays experiments have not panned out the way they expected.  Rubinstein doesn’t believe there is enough flexibility in library budgets to sufficiently support author payments.  He outlined a few other experimental models of access, cautious not to advocate one option over another.  Springer’s approach is clearly experimental, throwing lots of options against the wall and “seeing which one’s stick.”

Matt Hudson, Managing Editor of publications of the Geological Society of America described their token access model, selling an institution a fixed number of article downloads for a fixed number of dollars.  While librarians like to be able to predict their budget for the next year, they are not fond of running out of tokens mid-year, or knowing that the same article may be downloaded several times by the same individual.  Yet, the token access model has provided access to small institutions who have traditionally not subscribed to GSA journals.

Vida Damijonaitis, director of Worldwide Sales at the American Medical Association described their journal backfiles program.  Providing backfiles for AMA journals, completely integrated with their current online content,  has created revenue for her association while allowing librarians to rid their shelves of old print issues.

“If your journal is print-only, its dead,” declared Grace Baysinger, librarian at Stanford University.  Presenting a long list of experiences and advice, Baysinger was not excited about patron-initiated collection purchasing.  Having user-driven collection creates an uneven and erratic collection, she concluded.  Baysinger reported that many user requests were for content the library already owns.  This experience was echoed by Nancy Gibbs, librarian at Duke University.  Her talk, “Don’t let the Pigeon drive the bus, or, Don’t let the patrons buy the books,” was presented by Mark Johnson.

Publishers should have multiple options for libraries, Baysinger concluded.  Having a “Chinese menu of options” for customers is key.  Her general advice to publishers:  Conveying the value of publishing to authors.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

About Phil Davis

I am an independent researcher and consultant, a former postdoc in science communication and science librarian.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Side Dishes by Stewart Wills

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

June 2010
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

SSP_LOGO
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
......................................
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 354 other followers