For the library outrage industry this week, business is booming.
From my academic librarian peers, there’s a bit of a hubbub about the proposed increases for scholarly journals (in particular ones from the American Chemical Society and SAGE.) I have a feeling that this is going to only grow bigger in the next couple of weeks.
Try this on for sticker shock in this pull quote from Barbara Fister.
Here’s my version of an Occupy Wall Street cardboard sign. At my library, we’ve been seeing big price increases in two big journal packages that we really need. Again. This is what we’re paying for American Chemical Society journals
- 2010 – $29,705
- 2011 – $34,337
- 2012 – $41,741
This is what we’re paying for SAGE journals
- 2010 – $39,105
- 2011 – $41,442
- 2012 – $52,500
Steve Lawson describes a 7.4% and 9% yearly increase respectively at his institution. From other casual online conversations I’ve seen, it’s not something isolated to their respective institutions. I have a feeling that if more people start comparing numbers (on sites like LISVendor.info or in the comments of this blog or the other two blogs or other social media outlets like Facebook or Twitter), there will be a greater picture emerging as how library vendors approach their clients and the pricing schemes they attach to them. Not only for academic institutions, but for every kind of library that is out there.
Occupy Scholarly Communications (#OccupyScholComm) is an idea that originated from John Dupuis. It’s an idea of shifting scholarly discourse from traditional journals to online platforms like blogs. To me it presents an interesting thought: that the scholarly process can take advantage of current platforms to move research further, faster, and be more dynamic in responses to changes in the real world than any current academic journal can move at. While I concede that there is value in research refereeing and peer review, scholarly communication is overdue for a revolution. This is not a new idea by a long shot, but it is something that librarians can seek to nurture and/or lead.
Since we are at it, is there anything else we should be looking to “occupy” as librarians?