Librarians are likely to cancel journal subscriptions in favour of free access to peer-reviewed research via open access repositories, according to a study backed by the Publishing Research Consortium.
More than 400 librarians worldwide were questioned on their attitudes to OA . Conjoint analysis identified the importance of decision-making factors such as price, embargo period, article version and reliability of access.
The study found that librarians are sensitive to the embargo period: with a 24-month embargo, just over 50% prefer the paid-for version of a journal article. The peer-review process is also seen as crucial, although the post peer-review process is not seen as adding significant value.
Chris Beckett, director of Scholarly Information Strategies and author of the report, Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions, said: “I read reports claiming librarians would not cancel their subscriptions, but I find this unlikely. The sooner publishers develop alternatives to enable OA, the better. It is risky to proceed on the presumption that there is no threat.
It is likely that big publishers will come up with a publishing model that works. Society and smaller publishers will need to come up with a response.”
One major journals publisher would not comment on the report, saying “more data is needed before we’re able to draw any conclusions about the long-term effects of institutional repositories on subscriptions”.
Jim Pringle, VP of development at Thomson Scientific, said: “This study represents an attempt to understand the likely motivations of the library community. It is speculative, but at the same time based on a rigorous methodology. While it is not surprising that quality, timeliness and cost all drive decisions, it will be interesting to see how these factors play out.”
Mayur Amin, director of research and academic relations at Elsevier, said: “All parties, not just publishers, must consider the consequences on the long-term sustainability of journals.”
All Science