Can anybody please explain to me why this drop in downloads of IOPP articles
has only just happened given that Arxiv has been in existence for ten years?
And is the cause and effect proved? Could there be another explanation for
the drop in downloads?
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <sally.morris_at_ALPSP.ORG>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 4 Oct 2005 to 5
Oct 2005 (#2005-182)
> Interesting that Stevan chooses to ignore key points in my message: IOP
> didn't say 'the opposite' at all - they said subs hadn't been affected
> 'yet'; as Ken Lillywhite's message makes clear, they fully expect subs to
> suffer as the logical consequence of the fall in downloads - and Bob
> Michaelson's message shows that their fear is justified
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> To: "Recipients of AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM digests"
> <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:00 AM
> Subject: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 4 Oct 2005 to 5 Oct
> 2005 (#2005-182)
>
>
>> There are 3 messages totalling 492 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. Further precisions on the Finnish situation
>> 2. Self-archiving, journal usage and cancellations (2)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:42:05 +0300
>> From: Kimmo Kuusela <kimku_at_WELHO.COM>
>> Subject: Re: Further precisions on the Finnish situation
>>
>>>Can I follow up and ask out of interest (a) are all these journals in th=
>> e
>>>romeo/sherpa database? (b) How many of them are grey/green/gold journals
>>>respectively?
>>>
>>> =20
>>>
>> I just found, via DOAJ, a new Finnish open access journal, Human=20
>> Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT
>> Environments.=20
>> To my knowledge, it is so far the only journal that has an explicit
>> open=20
>> access statement or self-archiving policy. However, earlier this year=20
>> the Ministry of Education recommended that all journals should allow=20
>> postprint self-archiving.
>>
>> http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/about/terms-and-conditions.html
>> http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/submission/copyright.html
>> http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/submission/agreement.pdf
>>
>> The Journal is published by the University of Jyv=E4skyl=E4, which means
>> =
>> it=20
>> is 100% subsidized.
>>
>> In addition, I would classify eight other Finnish journals as open=20
>> access journals. These include:
>>
>> Annales Academi=E6 Scientiarum Fennic=E6 Mathematica
>> http://www.math.helsinki.fi/Annales/Anna.html
>> (it's a yearbook, so is it not a journal at all?)
>>
>> Annales Botanici Fennici (printing disabled, Impact Factor 2004: 0.494)
>> http://www.sekj.org/
>>
>> Annales Zoologici Fennici (printing disabled, Impact Factor 2004: 1.078)
>> http://www.sekj.org/
>>
>> Boreal Environment Research (Impact Factor 2004: 0.989)
>> http://www.borenv.net/
>>
>> Silva Fennica (Impact Factor 2004: 1.506)
>> http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/index.htm
>>
>>
>> -- Kimmo Kuusela
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:03:11 +0100
>> From: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)" <sally.morris_at_ALPSP.ORG>
>> Subject: Self-archiving, journal usage and cancellations
>>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_044A_01C5C9B5.854A74C0
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> On 16 September Stevan Harnad said on this listserv:
>>
>> "[Research Fortnight] The Institute of Physics has already seen =
>> article downloads from its site diminish for journals whose content is =
>> substantially replicated in a repository, says ALPSP.
>>
>> [SH rejoinder] This statement is false, and is the exact opposite of =
>> what the Institute of Physics has said (Swan & Brown 2005)"
>>
>>
>> I was correctly paraphrased by the Research Fortnight journalist; my =
>> statement (in our letter to RCUK), which he claims was false, was =
>> actually as follows:
>>
>> "Increasingly, librarians are making use of COUNTER-compliant (and =
>> therefore comparable) usage statistics to guide their decisions to renew
>> =
>> or cancel journals. The Institute of Physics Publishing is therefore =
>> concerned to see that article downloads from its site are significantly =
>> lower for those journals whose content is substantially replicated in =
>> the arXiv repository than for those which are not." =20
>>
>> The IOP evidence to which I referred was publicised by them on 5th =
>> September in a posting from Ken Lillywhite to various listservs, of =
>> which I assume Stevan was aware. For completeness I will repeat it =
>> here:
>>
>> "Recent claims made by some of those who advocate the mandatory deposit =
>> of published articles in institutional and subject repositories prompt =
>> us to correct and clarify the relationship between physics journals and =
>> the physics e-print archive (arXiv).
>> =
>> =20
>> =
>> =20
>> It has been claimed that because physics publishers have co-existed with
>> =
>> the arXiv over the past 14 years, publishers have nothing to fear about =
>> the future. We take the opportunity to point out that the past is not =
>> always a good predictor of future performance.
>> =
>> =20
>> =
>> =20
>> Ever since the launch of the physics e-print archive in 1991, authors =
>> publishing in IOP Publishing journals have had the choice to post their =
>> preprints to the service. However, we do note that article downloads =
>> from our site are significantly lower for those journals whose content =
>> is substantially replicated in the arXiv repository than for those which
>> =
>> are not, after usage statistics have been normalized to take account of =
>> journal size. =20
>> =
>> =20
>> Usage statistics (e.g., ProjectCOUNTER) are now increasingly used as a =
>> 'value for money' measure in the library =20
>> community and elsewhere. Clearly, as usage statistics become more =
>> commonplace, it would be only natural for =20
>> cash-strapped librarians to conclude that subscriptions to low-use - =
>> albeit high-quality, peer-reviewed - journals=20
>> are no longer necessary. In this situation subscription-based journals =
>> published by a learned society such as =20
>> ourselves would become economically unviable."
>>
>> What's more, there is anecdotal evidence that some librarians, at least,
>> =
>> do have both the power and the inclination to cancel subscriptions to =
>> journals which are not being used. See, for example, Bob Michaelson's =
>> (Northwestern University) posting to PAMNET on 15 September:
>>
>> "Surely you know that physicists use the free depository arXiv as their =
>> primary source for physics information - to such an extent that some =
>> long-established physics journals such as Nuclear Physics now have =
>> scarcely any readers (we know this because we have the online =
>> statistics)... " Bob subsequently confirmed to me that he does, =
>> indeed, use low usage statistics as one reason for cancellation.
>>
>> I am assured that the IOP spokesperson to whom Alma Swan spoke included =
>> the all-important word 'yet' - as in 'we have not seen greater =
>> cancellations yet'. Other publishers tell me that they have also =
>> observed significantly lower usage for journals most of whose content =
>> can be found in arXiv.
>>
>> Thus my statement was not false. If Stevan had been aware of the =
>> evidence upon which it was based, as I assume he was, then he should =
>> have known that my statement was not false and should, I feel, apologise
>> =
>> publicly to ALPSP in consequence.
>>
>> Sally
>>
>> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
>> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
>> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
>> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
>> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
>> ------=_NextPart_000_044A_01C5C9B5.854A74C0
>> Content-Type: text/html;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>> <HTML xmlns:st1 =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
>> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR>
>> <STYLE></STYLE>
>> </HEAD>
>> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>On 16 September Stevan Harnad said on
>> =
>> this=20
>> listserv:</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>"[<EM>Research =
>> Fortnight</EM>] =20
>> The Institute of Physics has already seen article downloads from its =
>> site=20
>> diminish for journals whose content is substantially replicated in =
>> a=20
>> repository, says ALPSP.<BR></FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>[SH rejoinder] This =
>> statement is=20
>> false, and is the exact opposite of what the Institute of Physics =
>> has said=20
>> (Swan & Brown 2005)"<BR></FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>I was correctly paraphrased by the =
>> <EM>Research=20
>> Fortnight</EM> journalist; my statement (in our letter to RCUK), =
>> which he=20
>> claims was false, was actually as follows:</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>"Increasingly, librarians are making =
>> use of=20
>> COUNTER-compliant (and therefore comparable) usage statistics to guide =
>> their=20
>> decisions to renew or cancel journals.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
>> yes"> =20
>> </SPAN>The <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType=20
>> w:st=3D"on">Institute</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName =
>> w:st=3D"on">Physics=20
>> Publishing</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> is therefore concerned to see =
>> that=20
>> article downloads from its site are significantly lower for those =
>> journals whose=20
>> content is substantially replicated in the arXiv repository than for =
>> those which=20
>> are not." </FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
>> size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>The IOP evidence to which I referred =
>> was=20
>> publicised by them on 5th September in a posting from Ken =
>> Lillywhite to=20
>> various listservs, of which I assume Stevan was aware. For =
>> completeness I=20
>> will repeat it here:</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>"</FONT><FONT face=3DVerdana =
>> size=3D2>Recent claims=20
>> made by some of those who advocate the mandatory deposit of published =
>> articles=20
>> in institutional and subject repositories prompt us to correct and =
>> clarify=20
>> the relationship between physics journals and the physics e-print =
>> archive=20
>> (arXiv).  =
>> ; =
>> &=
>> nbsp; &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; <BR> &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; =
>> &=
>> nbsp; &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p; <BR>It=20
>> has been claimed that because physics publishers have co-existed with =
>> the arXiv=20
>> over the past 14 years, publishers have nothing to fear about the =
>> future.=20
>> We take the opportunity to point out that the past is not always a
>> good=20
>> predictor of future=20
>> performance. &=
>> nbsp; &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; =
>> <BR> &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; =
>> &=
>> nbsp; &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; =20
>> <BR>Ever since the launch of the physics e-print archive in 1991, =
>> authors=20
>> publishing in IOP Publishing journals have had the choice to post =
>> their=20
>> preprints to the service. However, we do note that article =
>> downloads from=20
>> our site are significantly lower for those journals whose content is=20
>> substantially replicated in the arXiv repository than for those =
>> which are=20
>> not, after usage statistics have been normalized to take account of =
>> journal=20
>> size. &n=
>> bsp; <BR>  =
>> ; =
>> &=
>> nbsp; &n=
>> bsp; &nb=
>> sp; &nbs=
>> p;  =
>> ; =
>> &=
>> nbsp; =20
>> <BR>Usage statistics (e.g., ProjectCOUNTER) are now increasingly used as
>> =
>> a=20
>> 'value for money' measure in the library <BR>community
>> =
>> and=20
>> elsewhere. Clearly, as usage statistics become more commonplace, =
>> it would=20
>> be only natural for =
>> <BR>cash-strapped=20
>> librarians to conclude that subscriptions to low-use =96 albeit =
>> high-quality,=20
>> peer-reviewed =96 journals <BR>are no longer necessary. In this =
>> situation=20
>> subscription-based journals published by a learned society such=20
>> as <BR>ourselves would become economically=20
>> unviable."</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><FONT =
>> face=3DVerdana size=3D2>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>What's more, there is anecdotal =
>> evidence that=20
>> some librarians, at least, do have both the power and the inclination to
>> =
>> cancel=20
>> subscriptions to journals which are not being used. See, for =
>> example, Bob=20
>> Michaelson's (Northwestern University) posting to PAMNET on 15=20
>> September:</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>"Surely you know that physicists use =
>> the free=20
>> depository arXiv as their primary source for physics information - =
>> to such=20
>> an extent that some long-established physics journals such as Nuclear =
>> Physics=20
>> now have scarcely any readers (we know this because we have the online=20
>> statistics)... " </FONT><FONT face=3DVerdana =
>> size=3D2>Bob=20
>> subsequently confirmed to me that he does, indeed, use low usage =
>> statistics as=20
>> one reason for cancellation.</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV> </DIV>
>> <DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>I am assured that the IOP =
>> spokesperson to=20
>> whom Alma Swan spoke included the all-important word 'yet' - as in 'we =
>> have not=20
>> seen greater cancellations yet'. Other publishers tell me =
>> that they=20
>> have also observed significantly lower usage for journals most
>> =
>> of=20
>> whose content can be found in arXiv.</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana></FONT> </DIV>
>> <DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Thus my statement was not =
>> false. If Stevan=20
>> had been aware of the evidence upon which it was based, as I assume he =
>> was, then=20
>> he should have known that my statement was not false and =
>> should, I=20
>> feel, apologise publicly to ALPSP in consequence.</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Sally</FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></DIV>
>> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sally Morris, Chief =
>> Executive<BR>Association of=20
>> Learned and Professional Society Publishers<BR>South House, The Street, =
>> Clapham,=20
>> Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK<BR>Tel: +44 (0)1903 871=20
>> 686<BR>Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457<BR>Email: <A=20
>> href=3D"mailto:sally.morris_at_alpsp.org">sally.morris_at_alpsp.org</A></FONT><=
>> /DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_044A_01C5C9B5.854A74C0--
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:29:00 +0100
>> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
>> Subject: Re: Self-archiving, journal usage and cancellations
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Sally Morris wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 September Stevan Harnad said on this listserv:
>>>
>>> "[Research Fortnight] The Institute of Physics has already seen
>>> article downloads from its site diminish for journals whose content is
>>> substantially replicated in a repository, says ALPSP.
>>>
>>> [SH rejoinder] This statement is false, and is the exact opposite of
>>> what the Institute of Physics has said (Swan & Brown 2005)"
>>
>> Sally is quite right. What I should have said was that the diminished
>> article downloads do not equal, nor do they imply, diminished
>> subscriptions, and that IOP had said exactly the opposite: That
>> despite replication in a repository (ArXiv) IOP had found no diminished
>> subscriptions, does not consider self-archiving a threat, cooperates
>> with Arxiv, and indeed will soon be hosting a mirror of Arxiv.
>>
>>> on 5th September in a posting from Ken Lillywhite [IOP]:
>>>
>>> "Recent claims made by some of those who advocate the mandatory
>>> deposit of published articles in institutional and subject
>>> repositories prompt us to correct and clarify the relationship
>>> between physics journals and the physics e-print archive (arXiv).
>>>
>>> "It has been claimed that because physics publishers have
>>> co-existed with the arXiv over the past 14 years, publishers
>>> have nothing to fear about the future. We take the opportunity
>>> to point out that the past is not always a good predictor of
>>> future performance.
>>
>> No, but as David Hume would remind us, the past is still the best
>> predictor
>> of the future, not the opposite. But let me quickly agree that anything
>> is
>> possible: That the 14-year peaceful co-existence between self-archiving
>> and
>> subscription sales continues, or that it does not. If self-archiving
>> should
>> reduce subscriptions, there will be ways for journals to adapt.
>> Renouncing
>> the maximised access and impact -- and their benefits to research and
>> researchers -- by *not* self-archiving is not an option, regardless of
>> which
>> course the future takes.
>>
>>> "Ever since the launch of the physics e-print archive in 1991,
>>> authors publishing in IOP Publishing journals have had the choice
>>> to post their preprints to the service. However, we do note
>>> that article downloads from our site are significantly lower
>>> for those journals whose content is substantially replicated in
>>> the arXiv repository than for those which are not, after usage
>>> statistics have been normalized to take account of journal size.
>>>
>>> "Usage statistics (e.g., ProjectCOUNTER) are now increasingly
>>> used as a 'value for money' measure in the library community and
>>> elsewhere. Clearly, as usage statistics become more commonplace,
>>> it would be only natural for cash-strapped librarians to
>>> conclude that subscriptions to low-use - albeit high-quality,
>>> peer-reviewed - journals are no longer necessary. In this
>>> situation subscription-based journals published by a learned
>>> society such as ourselves would become economically unviable."
>>
>> And if that so-far-counterfactual speculation should happen to prove
>> true,
>> there are many speculations available as to how journals and learned
>> societies
>> can and will adapt.
>>
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
>>
>> What is fact, and not speculation, is that self-archiving enhances
>> citation counts by 50%-250%, and that only 15% of researchers are
>> self-archiving spontaneously today. It follows that a self-archiving
>> mandate will remedy this needless impact loss, and should hence be
>> adopted as soon as possible.
>>
>>> What's more, there is anecdotal evidence that some librarians, at least,
>>> do have both the power and the inclination to cancel subscriptions to
>>> journals which are not being used. See, for example, Bob Michaelson's
>>> (Northwestern University) posting to PAMNET on 15 September:
>>>
>>> "Surely you know that physicists use the free depository arXiv as their
>>> primary source for physics information - to such an extent that some
>>> long-established physics journals such as Nuclear Physics now have
>>> scarcely any readers (we know this because we have the online
>>> statistics)... " Bob subsequently confirmed to me that he does,
>>> indeed, use low usage statistics as one reason for cancellation.
>>
>> The fact is unchanged that neither APS nor IOP have detected any
>> cancellations
>> associated with self-archiving -- nor are they attempting (as Sally and
>> the
>> ALPSP are) to try to persuade RCUK not to mandate self-archiving.
>> Librarian
>> anecdotes there will always be, but it is the actual data on
>> self-archiving
>> and subscriptions, across journals and institutions, that tell the true
>> tale.
>>
>>> I am assured that the IOP spokesperson to whom Alma Swan spoke included
>>> the all-important word 'yet' - as in 'we have not seen greater
>>> cancellations yet'. Other publishers tell me that they have also
>>> observed significantly lower usage for journals most of whose content
>>> can be found in arXiv.
>>
>> "Yet" can quite safely and reasonably be appended to everything I have
>> seen and
>> heard, and it makes not a whit of difference. (One could, after all, even
>> add "yet" to Newton's observation about apples not falling up but down:
>> All
>> empirical data are merely data to-date, not proofs about the course of
>> the
>> future.)
>>
>>> Thus my statement was not false. If Stevan had been aware of the
>>> evidence upon which it was based, as I assume he was, then he should
>>> have known that my statement was not false and should, I feel, apologise
>>> publicly to ALPSP in consequence.
>>
>> I apologise to ALPSP publicly: I should have said:
>>
>> "This statement [that IOP finds diminished downloads for self-archived
>> articles] is perfectly true but in no way implies what ALPSP cites
>> it to imply (i.e., that diminished downloads are evidence that
>> self-archiving causes cancellations), for that is the exact opposite
>> of what the Institute of Physics has said (Swan & Brown 2005)."
>>
>> Now that Sally has been so focussed and scholarly on this one point,
>> which has no implications whatsoever for the substantive matters at
>> issue, it would be very gratifying to hear her replies to the many,
>> many other substantive points I and others have made about the absence
>> of evidence in support of her claim "that RCUK's proposed policy will
>> inevitably lead to the destruction of journals."
>>
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 4 Oct 2005 to 5 Oct
>> 2005 (#2005-182)
>> *****************************************************************************************
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Received on Thu Oct 06 2005 - 17:22:52 BST