tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post4850659421365312940..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: Book people v. article peopleKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-49880799987554020742013-02-13T14:02:18.096-08:002013-02-13T14:02:18.096-08:00Re the pay-per-view model, there are folks who bel...Re the pay-per-view model, there are folks who believe, based upon the usage statistics for an institution, that they can better afford the per-view cost than the sometimes 10's of thousands they pay for access to a lengthy list of journals no one ever accesses. Ah, the big package! It is under consideration at my institution - if implemented we will see what comes out in the wash!Jennifer in Kansashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11479787106697836528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-63799331863428613462013-02-08T13:56:40.231-08:002013-02-08T13:56:40.231-08:00Geoffrey, some public libraries do subscribe to JS...Geoffrey, some public libraries do subscribe to JSTOR. Mine, unfortunately, does not. I would be interested to see stats on how many public libraries have particular journal databases and from that determine the overall publication coverage for this data. Has anyone this already?<br /><br />Ben, your observation about libraries going to "pay per view" is an interesting one. In my experience libraries try to avoid the PPV model because they have fixed budgets and have to allocate a specific amount to the database access. If they exceed that 6 months into their budget year, they are SOL. We went through this when DIALOG was a dial-up database (and very expensive): some libraries offered "free" access, which only lasted a short while because they reached their funding limit. However, if the charges are very small, and if the library doesn't advertise this offer too widely, you may be on to something.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-88669180096792881292013-02-08T12:54:33.359-08:002013-02-08T12:54:33.359-08:00A few years back I was able to access JSTOR articl...A few years back I was able to access JSTOR articles on my laptop with wireless internet at my public library. That might not be enough to get all of the articles you want, but it will be more than nothing, or for less than $40 a shot.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06423410130579518677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-73591185014684441262013-02-07T12:10:21.781-08:002013-02-07T12:10:21.781-08:00For some reason, I find find myself reading Ithaka...For some reason, I find find myself reading Ithaka's 990 every few months. All sorts of fun facts in there.<br /><br />Given that the revenue from pay-per-view is so small, I think the revenues from it are probably unimportant compared to the other incentives keeping it place. Would Mellon (or someone else) be willing to pay 165K a year to let JStor simply give away content to non-university researchers? I bet they would. But then libraries would unsubscribe.<br /><br />The current price seems to be set where it is to ensure no library will ever think of using pay-per-view instead of bulk subscribing; it's there so they can say anyone can access, but not to actually maximize use.<br /><br />A better system would probably be one where a few universities with <i>did</i> opt to go pay-per-view instead of subscription package. But JStor seems to really want to keep the subscription model going. <br /><br />The only advantage I can think of to the current system is that probably the only people paying $30 for an article work at law firms. And it's good to be able to gouge them. But when the revenues are _this_ low, clearly that's not working.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04856020368342677253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-17510244927674161412013-02-07T06:46:31.763-08:002013-02-07T06:46:31.763-08:00I don't know what you mean by "like this ...I don't know what you mean by "like this one", but in terms of contacting the author -- in nearly all cases, the journal, not the author, holds the copyright. In fact, there are articles that I have written that I myself do not have access to and therefore couldn't send to someone. Authors used to get some number (10 or 20) printed off-prints, but that practice has ended. <br /><br />A search in Google Scholar often will turn up a pre-print or even a pirated version of the article, at least for recent publications. The hardest ones to find are the pre-Internet articles, which will only exist digitally if they have been scanned, such as by JSTOR.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-79616829184645209422013-02-07T06:38:45.370-08:002013-02-07T06:38:45.370-08:00This is a case study in why open access needs to b...This is a case study in why open access needs to be more widespread. So how are you accessing articles like this one? Did you try contacting the author?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-73113944628347699292013-02-07T05:42:47.041-08:002013-02-07T05:42:47.041-08:00Thanks, Ben. I had forgotten that JSTOR, as a non-...Thanks, Ben. I had forgotten that JSTOR, as a non-profit, would have a 990. <br /><br />The question then becomes: would there be a cost to JSTOR if they sold 80 thousand articles a year with a revenue of $165K? or would it be a wash? If the latter, then reducing the price on articles is a gain for humanity. Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-89281358140906135442013-02-06T19:20:30.280-08:002013-02-06T19:20:30.280-08:00We actually know just how much Jstor makes from ar...We actually know just how much Jstor makes from articles sales from their tax forms: $165,000 in 2010, which works out to 0.3% of the parent corporations revenue, or about 8.6 thousand articles a year. So it's really not a major part of their business model.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04856020368342677253noreply@blogger.com