Shaking Up the Norm: Journal Pricing and Valua_on

Shaking Up the Norm: Journal Pricing and Valua9on ARL-­‐CNI 21st Century Collec9ons Forum October 13-­‐14, 2011 Ivy Anderson California Digital Library ivy.anderson@ucop.edu Bergstrom: Hell’s Grocery Aspesi: A ShiB of Power •  Big Deals reinforce publisher monopolies •  Strategy: license more selec;vely, bargain hard, or walk away •  Library budget crises and usage-­‐driven value assessment will undermine big deals •  This will adversely affect the fortunes (and profits) of large commercial publishers Common theme: Analyze journal value and act on this informa9on UC Approaches: UC Value-­‐Based Pricing CDL Weighted Value Algorithm UC Value-­‐Based Pricing Strategy: 2007-­‐ 1)  Alterna9ve base price that accounts for scholarly value and impact “How can we establish, validate and communicate an explicit method for aligning the purchase or license costs of scholarly journals with the value they contribute to the academy and the costs to create and deliver them?” 2)  Value-­‐added contribu9ons from the purchasing h"p://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/cdc/valuebasedprices.pdf ins9tu9on 3)  Consor9al transac9on efficiencies 4)  Annual price increase transparency Value Based Pricing Strategy: Bergstrom-­‐McAfee Rela9ve Cost Index •  Data from journalprices.com –  Composite Price Index (CPI): •  List price per ar9cle * list price per cita9on –  Rela9ve Cost Index (RCI): •  Compares CPI to non-­‐profit journals in same discipline •  UC methodology –  Journals with poor RCI are progressively discounted –  Addi9onal discounts applied for UC authorship and consor9al efficiency Value Categories Elsevier Journals Poor Value 594 ;tles (54%) Medium Value 363 ;tles (32%) Good Value 153 ;tles (14%) Problems we encountered •  Relies on impact factor – not available for all journals •  Data were not being consistently updated (more current now) •  Value assignments based on list prices don’t reflect actual UC costs •  Wanted a tool to help with evalua9on of journals and packages •  Need to facilitate consor9al decision-­‐
making for journal cancella9on and reten9on –  more informed decisions –  less subjec9vity –  eliminate labor-­‐intensive 9tle vo9ng New Approach: CDL Weighted Value Algorithm •  Assesses the value of individual journals according to 3 vectors of value •  Ideas we borrowed from Bergstrom-­‐McAfee –  Numerical score with simple value designa9ons •  High, medium, low, ‘lowest’ –  No9on of ‘rela9ve value’ –  Recognize disciplinary differences –  Cita9on as well as impact data *
* Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) -­‐ developed at University of Leiden and maintained by Scopus. hcp://info.scopus.com/journalmetrics/snip.html Disciplinary differences macer Using Australian and New Zealand Standard Research ClassificaEon (ANZSRC), 2008 Weighted Value Methodology: Publisher A Publisher A Title Value: High, Medium, Low, Lowest Value distribu9on: Sage Psychology Journals SAGE Psychology Titles Value Distribu;on Lowest 9 20% high 14 31% Low 7 16% Medium 15 33% All Psychology Journals Psychology Titles Value Comparison by Publisher 100% 90% Wiley 80% TF 70% Springer 60% OUP LWW Karger Wiley Wiley Wiley TF TF UC Press TF 50% 40% Springer Elsevier OUP Karger Springer 30% Elsevier 20% Cambridge Elsevier SAGE SAGE SAGE high Medium Low 10% Cambridge Project Muse MAL Springer MAL Elsevier Cambridge SAGE 0% Lowest Next steps •  Weighted algorithm currently being re-­‐factored with new subject data •  Launching major bibliographer review across UC to validate rankings and ‘trust the metrics’ –  Bibliographer input may result in further modifica9ons to the algorithm –  Current trial run is encouraging •  U9lize results for major renewals in 2013 –  For 9tle reduc9ons –  For nego9a9on purposes Challenges •  Will publishers work with us to restructure and re-­‐base our agreements? •  Recent UC example: –  License fee reduc9on: 8.5% –  Title cancella9ons: 32% •  Publisher methodology would have cancelled 43% •  Will this change the scholarly communicaEon system??