The emergence of e–journals brought a great change in scholarly communication and in the behavior of scholars. However, the importance of scholars’ behavior in the pricing of scientific journal has been largely ignored in the recent debate between libraries and publishers over site license practices and pricing schemes. Stanford’s survey results indicate that sharply increasing costs are the main reason for individual subscription cancellation, driving users to rely on library or other institutional subscriptions. Libraries continue to be a vital information provider in the electronic era and their bargaining power in the market and the importance of roles in scholarly communication will be increased by branding and a strong relationship with users. Publishers’ strategy for thriving in the electronic era is not to lose personal subscribers. Cooperation among the three sectors — scholars, libraries, and publishers — promises optimal results for each sector more than ever.
Perspectives of electronic journals by scientists and medical practitioners
Reconsideration of business models for e–journals
There exists a big difference between users’ willingness pay for journal access and publishers’ current price
Roles of libraries in the scholarly communication in the electronic era: Libraries face changing user needs
New strategies for libraries to cope with the budget
Conclusions and discussion
Appendix: E–journal user study survey sampling method
The emergence of e–journals has brought many changes and issues among the scholarly community, publishers, and libraries, as well as scholars themselves. When e–journals were first available to journal users, users found it hard to adapt their research habits to this new technology. After more than a decade, however, it seems that users have reached a mature stage of usage in which e–journals are recognized as essential tools in research activities, while publishers and libraries are struggling to find agreement over such issues as site licenses ownership and journal pricing.
What attracts our attention in this situation is that some for–profit publishers have evidently forgotten the primary good of scholarly publishing, namely the dissemination of scholarly work. The scholarly community, of course, has not, which is why scholars continue to give up their rights as authors for their articles, and serve as referees. This raises a moral issue: why should scholarly authors give up their rights to publishers? In September 2004 the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a proposal requiring published articles, funded by NIH, available to the public without charge (Zerhouni, 2004). It was welcomed by some journal users, while both non–profit and profit publishers responded to this proposal with caution . This suggests authors’ frustration and demand for re–examination of journal publishing policies. Publishers’ pursuing profit too aggressively promises eventually to burn the bridge between authors and publishers, which has long been the main driver of success in the scholarly publishing business.
We will discuss e–journal usage patterns, current business models and pricing schemes, and roles of libraries based on survey findings from Stanford’s e–Journal User Study (eJUSt) on e–journal usage by scientists and medical practitioners (e–Journal User Study, 2001–2002; see the Appendix for survey methods). We then conclude with suggested business strategies for publishers and discussion about permanent archival issues.
E–journals are nearing maturity as a technology among life scientists and clinicians.
E–journals are nearing a mature stage among life scientists and clinicians, most of whom use e–journals regularly to retrieve articles.
Scholars have increased their usage frequency somewhat between 2000 and 2002. During the year between the two surveys, survey respondents appear to have increased their e–journal usage frequency somewhat, with higher percentages reporting daily use during that year (2001–2002) than during the previous year (2000–2001). Higher percentages also reported having used e–journals the day of or the day before the survey. See Table 1 for a comparison of these two questions in the first and follow–up surveys. Of the follow–up respondents, 29 percent reported more frequent use over the past year than in the first survey; more than 50 percent had not changed their e–journal usage frequencies over the year.
Life scientists and medical practitioners are tech–savvy and are willing to vote with their wallets.
Libraries, publishers, and institutions all need to understand their customers and users, the end users of scientific, technological and medical (STM) e–journals increasingly well in order to meet their needs and to support the scientific enterprise in coming years.
Table 1: Comparison of e–journal usage frequency (percent). Usage questions First survey
Last time of use Yesterday or today 37 46 40 Last week 33 33 34 Last month 16 12 15 Longer than a month ago 9 8 7 Never 6 2 4 Average use last year Daily 18 21 19 Weekly 46 51 49 Monthly 20 18 19 Seldom 11 8 10 Never 5 2 4
Our surveys, specifically, the first and one–year follow–up  drew a fairly clear portrait of life scientists and medical practitioners as users of STM journals.
Overall, this group of users is very tech–savvy; most use e–journals daily or weekly. Most are finding that e–journals offer significant value through features that go well beyond full–text access. When asked to choose, they generally favor e–journals over printed editions because of their greater convenience, breadth, and speed, providing faster access to a broader literature.
E–journals have not yet displaced paper editions; the design of electronic pages should take into consideration the design of printed pages.
Some scholars have already given up printed editions for electronic ones as personal subscription prices have increased. This does not appear to reflect disenchantment with the printed page or with printed editions, however. Many still want to have printed editions delivered by post because of their portability and browsability.
eJUSt survey results showed that users generally archive printed copies of articles (p–archive) after online retrieval. In fact, most electronically accessed articles end up as printouts, and because of this, e–journal users need more print–friendly article formats. Users also p–archive (either printouts or printed editions) more than they e–archive (although frequent e–journal users more often do both). This appears to be why HTML was not as popular among respondents as PDF format for full–text retrieval online. Online journal developers are well advised to take printing format and readability of printouts into consideration.
A sharp increase in price for online access to journals results in cancellation of personal subscriptions as well as institutional subscriptions . While publishers claim that price increases are necessary because of the high cost of production and maintenance (Meaney, 2003), this strategy appears to be self–defeating. Meanwhile, their business models for institutional subscriptions, such as bundled e–journals and site licenses, to recoup profit lost from declining personal subscriptions, is also self–defeating. In the next sections, we revisit theories behind current business models and explain why academic libraries should re–examine bundled e–journals and site license practice.
Supply side: Monopoly market for information goods
The increase in library journal subscription price has been rationalized on the basis that institutional access for electronic content has reduced income from individual subscribers. However, a previous study found that sharing information goods was not necessarily harmful for sellers’ profit (Bakos, et al., 1999), and that sharing information may sometimes reduce costs, such as distribution costs. Information goods such as academic journals have a unique characteristic as a market product, almost zero marginal cost per unit. This characteristic brought certain marketing strategies of sellers such as bundling and site licenses. For sellers with a monopoly power, bundled selling at below mean price increases profits (Bakos, 2001).
However, the recent movement by librarians against bundled e–journals indicates that this seemingly perfect marketing strategy is not working in the academic journal market. What went wrong with bundled selling strategies? In the first place, institutional budgets have been severely eroded: there is no longer much flex in acquisitions allocations, and certainly not enough to ignore the fluff and padding that bundling inherently engenders in lieu of real discounting. Secondly, bundling as a strategy obviously attempts to maintain aggregators’ income against that of more independent publishers’ product. When the price of bundled subscriptions approaches the total funds available at any institution for subscriptions, either the bundle goes or most of the information desired by the community becomes unavailable. Thirdly, and most significantly for this paper, individual subscriptions (or lack of them) drive institutional decisions much more than institutional subscriptions (or cancellations) drive individual decisions. Publishers left out the fact that individual subscriptions are a key element to determine libraries’ subscriptions to academic journals and their willingness to pay.
Demand side: Two consumers, individuals and libraries
Phillips and Phillips (2002) explained the price differential of academic journals between individual and institutional subscriptions through a model with one supplier (a publisher) and two types of buyers (individuals and libraries) in academic journal market. Their model showed that academic libraries with a few individual subscribers in their institution pay higher subscription price than libraries with no personal journal buyers. They concluded that library’s subscription prices are positively correlated with the number of users according to profit maximization. Individual subscription price is higher because of libraries’ existence and vice versa.
Phillips and Phillips described pricing schemes for other possible situations. 1) No individual subscribers: if there are no buyers per institution, then library’s subscription price is same as individuals’ since publishers’ profit is solely dependent on libraries. 2) With libraries’ charge fees for access: If libraries start to charge access fees, then library subscription price will be same with individual subscriptions because library patrons become individual subscribers. Higher production cost also pushes up subscription price and forces individuals to become library patrons.
With a limited future market share, current business models may have to change.
Analyses of several different items in the surveys suggest that the future market share may be limited for publishers. This indicates that journal publishers do not have a monopoly power any more due to the increase in numbers of journals in life sciences and biomedical research. The new journals are often close substitutes for existing journals. In the past five years, publishers developed many new journals, expecting growth in the number of subscribers, numbers of science graduates, and demand for biomedical research and success with external funding. Despite increases in the population of scientists and biomedical researchers, the concurrent increase in the number of journals resulted in greater competition for subscription dollars. As bundling of e–journals assumes that publishers have real monopoly power, it is no longer a valid business model. Librarians and scholars may substitute expensive or overpriced journals with affordable and closely related journals . However, our survey found there are other strong selection factors, notably reputation and prestige , which restrains freedom of substitution. These factors also restrain the growth of ideologically based alternate forms of publication.
There exists a big difference between users’ willingness pay for journal access and publishers’ current price
Scholars spent 250 to 500 dollars for online access to journals.
The proliferation of articles makes keeping up–to–date in the life sciences increasingly difficult. E–journals appear to satisfy scholarly needs and to make keeping up–to–date easier and more efficient. Scholars who spent anything for personal online access in 2002 typically spent between 250 and 500 dollars.
However, considering users’ spending patterns over their careers and current pricing models (one flat fee for both online access and printed edition delivered), the projected amount of individual spending for personal online access will be not much different from 250 to 500 dollars per year.
…while many individuals pay nothing for online access.
Many survey respondents (more than 50 percent) answered that they do not pay at all for online access to journals out of their pocket. This is the same result with print. If libraries did not exist, publishers might hope to attract 50 percent of journal users as private buyers to maximize their profit. Since libraries do provide online access to journals, the proportion of private buyers is limited, and most potential users make use of library–provided access. This is why libraries legitimately pay higher prices than individuals. Publishers’ profit maximization strategies may have driven private buyers out of private subscriptions into becoming library patrons, while libraries pursue their traditional roles in providing access to academic journals to users (Phillips and Philips, 2002).
Users expect online subscriptions to be cheaper than subscriptions to delivered printed editions.
To explore business models that would meet the expectations of life scientists and practitioners, the eJUSt surveys asked journal users about payment model preferences.
Among those motivated by online access, 64 percent preferred to “pay a somewhat discounted price” for an online–only subscription, 18 percent preferred to receive both printed and online editions “for a price somewhat higher” than the regular printed edition price, and 10 percent preferred pay–per–view to get online access to individual articles as needed. (We asked respondents to pick only one of these three options — the one they’d most prefer when they need “personal online access to full–text scientific journal articles.”)
Among the four percent who didn’t like any of these options, the most frequent comments were these:
Payment for the printed edition should also automatically include access to the online edition (for the same price). [This was by far the most frequent comment.]
Discounted online access for the most important journals and “pay–per–view” access for the rest of journals.
Many others wanted free or substantially discounted online access, either through their institution or directly, and felt they deserved it.
Most journals charge heavily for publishing the papers (page and/or figures) and the online access to all these journals should be free to everybody.
I prefer that it be free. After all, I serve as reviewer without compensation.
I do not think one should personally pay for scientific journals. It is the duty of the academic institutions to provide access to the journals.
To pay a substantially discounted price for online only. It is not like there is printing and mailing involved.
Many expressed discomfort with both the price and the payment method (credit card online) of pay–per–view and said they would be willing to wait three to six months or longer for free (or heavily discounted) pay–per–view access. Several also said they might prefer pay–per–view over other models if costs were “reasonable” (typically under $3 per article). Others wanted online access to be free with society membership.
To pay a realistic online retrieval fee, in other words similar to the cost of photocopying that article from a library copy but minus the cost of the paper and ink, which you provide yourself if you need to print out.
While users expect cost of online access to journal full–text articles to be cheaper than having printed edition delivered to them, online access is more expensive than print because of the high cost of production, maintenance, and staff for better quality services (Meaney, 2003). This leads to increases in financial burdens for libraries. Chen, et al. (2001) found that providing online access made printed journals more expensive for libraries.
Suggested business strategy is to maintain a market share — numbers of subscribers.
Survey results indicate that individual subscribers are price–sensitive. When publishers face high fixed cost in producing e–journals, one strategy to cope with higher cost is to increase price to keep the same level of revenue. However, increasing prices may cause decreases in revenue with the loss of individual subscribers. Subsequently, the number of library subscriptions may drop since the number of individual subscribers per institution decreases. Thus, increasing prices hurts publishers’ revenue. High prices force individuals to cancel journal subscriptions and to become library patrons.
Tenopir and King (2001) showed that the size of individual subscribers affects subscription price. They noted that “A journal with 500 subscribers and typical costs must charge at least 800 dollars to recover fixed costs, but the same–size journal with 5,000 subscribers needs charge only about 110 dollars.” The larger the number of individual subscribers, the lower the subscription price, or vice versa.
This paper suggests to publishers that they need to maintain market share in terms of individual subscribers. Increasing or maintaining market share is a successful business strategy when production cost increases.
The suggested business model in this paper emphasizes the roles of personal subscribers in institutional pricing as well as for individual prices. Institutional budgets for journals limit proportionally how many journals per field provided to users. Bundled e–journals create more negative impacts than positive ones on the budgets of libraries. Bundled e–journals forces libraries to buy journals with low readership and, more critically, prevents them from purchasing journals with wider readership by absorbing acquisition funds disproportionately.
Models in this paper may be less likely applied to explain behaviors of not–for–profit publishers whose goals are different from for–profit publishers. While the goal of for–profit publishers is to maximize profit, not–for–profit publishers are supposed to pursue a balanced budget. Models used in this paper assume that publishers (i.e., for–profit publishers) maximize their profit. However, implications and suggestions in this paper may have impacts on for both for–profit and not–for–profit publishers.
Roles of libraries in the scholarly communication in the electronic era: Libraries face changing user needs
Libraries are a main source of online access to journals — and this has become among the most important services to communities as well as a growing portion of library acquisition budgets.
For most eJUSt survey respondents (more than 75 percent of both first and follow–up survey respondents), libraries are the main provider of online access to journals (through institutional online subscriptions). Users have changed their expectations of library services regarding journals from the provision of a physical place to online access.
Scholars still commonly visit libraries for article retrieval, but mostly for articles they can’t get online.
Of the respondents, 49 percent said they visit libraries for journal access “only when journals are not available online and I have no other convenient access to the printed editions.” Only 35 percent said they currently visit libraries to read, copy, or browse printed editions of any journal on a regular basis. Sixteen percent said they never visit libraries to access printed journal editions. As more journals become available online, fewer patrons actually visit libraries. According to survey data, however, substantial numbers of scholars still visit libraries, whether or not they need to leave offices for full–text retrieval.
Multi–journal search engines with full–text links are the most common search starting point — and most searches are done online.
More than three–quarters (77 percent) of respondents said they usually start their article searches from a multi–journal search Web site with links to full text, such as PubMed, Medline, Ovid, or Science Direct, some of which are licensed for their users by libraries. This is consistent with the finding that ease of searching and browsing is an important reason for using e–journals. Multi–journal Web sites have hyperlinks to full–text articles from multiple journals, facilitating browsing and searching across different titles.
Searches are conducted primarily online, and links to full–text articles seem to save time and boost search efficiency. All this adds up to changing library patron needs. Libraries need to understand and meet these needs and add value by providing and promoting access to search sites with full–text links.
Libraries face not only budget challenges but also role challenges.
While struggling with limited budgets, libraries have the challenging opportunity to take on new roles in the electronic information space. They have the potential, several librarian informants noted, to move their functions as organizers and interpreters of knowledge forward, using emerging information technologies. A few libraries are beginning to invest in developing and adapting these new technologies for use in helping their patrons and their staff with increasingly complex tasks in the areas of search, selection, intellectual access, interpretation, distribution, and archiving. Thus far, however, progress has been slow, technological obstacles have been large, and budgets have been limited. One informant noted a recent example of this type of challenge:
It’s a clear challenge to libraries now, beyond the role of purchasing agent and sort of dynamic gyroscope for balanced spending across multi–disciplines in an institution is a very important role … that of providing intellectual access to content by either acquiring or building smart agents that are exceptionally easy to use.
At the same time, libraries are purchasing agents for site licenses and e–journals. Whether libraries are equipped for this role or not, purchasing access to journals for users has been and will be a continuing role of libraries as information providers.
Collaboration with users
Users are severely dependent upon libraries for online access to most journals they read, eJUSt project supports that libraries will continue to play a key role in scholarly work dissemination according to journal readers and users. Many new journals have emerged in the journal market and the competition to attract high–quality articles are still a key element to success to journals.
One way to increase the bargaining power of libraries as purchasers of site licenses is to collaborate with users. By informing users about journal pricing and policies, libraries could obtain more support from users who have more direct influence to journal editors and publishers. Since success in journal publishing depends on attracting high quality articles, collaboration may be the only way to cope with budgetary issues. Many are concerned that budget cuts in higher education will not be reversed even if the economy, and funding for higher education, recovers.
Branding for both libraries and publishers
Users care greatly about the quality and prestige of journals to which they submit their articles. The brands of journals are main determinants for external funding and promotion. We learned from users that branding is the most important factor contributing to the success of publishing. In recent decades, publishers have envisioned new journals bringing in new income streams. This proliferation of titles increases competition for high–quality articles. The fall of profits for some publishers is partially due to too many journals competing for too few articles. Publishers respond by increasing subscription prices. Survey results indicate that scholars pay for one or two professional society memberships (securing several journals as a result); these memberships represent their main fields of research. They rely on libraries to provide access to other journals from other publishers. In the meantime, publishers develop marketing strategies to make minor journals marketable by selling them bundled with other e–journals. These marketing strategies face a serious risk, whether libraries keep all or cancel all. Publishers need to change their marketing strategies, from bundled package to more itemized choices of titles for libraries. Otherwise, the consequences will be very severe to both publishers (losing customers) and scholarly communities (not having access to journals they need). The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a prime and visible example of how scholars and policy–makers have attempted to cope with this situation to serve their needs for scholarly communication. The recent NIH proposal (Zerhouni, 2004) is another example of reaction to this situation.
Though e–journals have become a common research vehicle for scholars, scholarly communities face a huge differential between prices set by publishers and a maximum willingness to pay individually and institutionally.
If publishers continue to ignore this discrepancy and continue to lose both private and institutional subscribers, they will eventually be driven out of the market. To thrive, publishers need to attract and retain individual subscribers. These customers are a key determinant to journal revenues. Publishers should realize that libraries are aggregate consumers (for individuals) and if individuals are not willing to pay for journal access at a given price, neither are libraries. Libraries are not isolated agents securing journal access; they are representatives of communities of individuals.
It is clear that both libraries and publishers need to have scholars on their side; they need to build a strong relationship with journal users. Libraries need to inform scholars about journals and publishers’ policies and pricing. Publishers need to be aware of this price sensitivity and willingness to pay.
Can site licenses guarantee permanent archiving?
Individual subscribers share with librarians real concern about long–term persistence of access to e–journal content and about archival issues. Survey respondents expressed concern about permanent access to e–journals.
The biggest problem with online journal is that there is no guarantee that they may be available to me in the future. If the consortium agreements of our University library are cancelled or changed I may no longer be able to retrieve back issues. This is why I see a need to keep certain print journals.
Here are my top two alternative–to–traditional–libraries pet peeves: 1) if you don’t get a hard copy, you have to keep paying them for the e–journal or you’ve got nothing to show for your money. Example: my institution’s recent failure to renew Annual Reviews online. This is the main reason I continue to receive hard copies of my most–often–used journals. 2) Ingenta. I have NEVER succeeded in getting an article from them. There’s always a server problem (they claim). The quality of Uncover’s fax service may have been low, but at least I could get things before Ingenta bought them and made everything inaccessible.
If you are logging concerns, the access to archival material after a E–subscription is discontinued is a major point.
E–journals have become critical tools in scholarly work patterns. A method and an agent to guarantee permanent archiving of all scholarly work are necessary to boost further e–journal usage and to secure the future of e–journals. Many libraries have made efforts to create digital institutional repositories for e–journals and other scholarly content. It is a challenge for both publishers and libraries to create permanent archives for journal articles. Meeting this challenge may require a degree of trust and respect — trust on the part of publishers that libraries can and will honor legitimate protection of intellectual property; trust on the part of scholars that the paramount needs of scholarly communication will be respected and protected by the publishers to which they supply articles; trust on the part of librarians that they can cooperatively address their common needs as well as trust that publishers will sustain licenses at reasonable prices. Such trust is currently lacking on all fronts. Recent agitation for such schemes as PLoS, BioOne, and pre–print servers (where intended as a replacement for peer–reviewed journals), and even in part institutional repositories (à la MIT’s D–Space) are evidence of this breakdown. Strong partnerships among libraries, publishers and scholars will be critical for the future of e–journals and, indeed, for the future of scholarly journal publishing as we know it.
For the first survey (in 2001), we contacted seventy scientific societies affiliated with HighWire Press to request their help in soliciting survey participation among their members or subscribers. Twenty societies, broadly representative of the life sciences — biological sciences, health sciences, and agricultural sciences — agreed to release their member information (limited to name, e–mail address, and membership status — e.g., active, student, retired) for the survey and their names and sample size are available at http://ejust.stanford.edu/findings/Appendix1-2_survey1.html#I1. We then sent 108,774 e–mail solicitations to this population, requesting members to respond via a questionnaire on the Web. Approximately 13,903 addresses came back as “undeliverable” or with “vacation” messages, resulting in a contact group of approximately 94,871. We collected survey data between 22 May and 20 June 2001. During this period, we received 12,453 Internet responses, for a final survey response rate of 13.14 percent.
The follow–up survey contact group consisted of 9,881 first–survey participants who volunteered to be contacted for a follow–up contact. We received 4,524 valid responses (a response rate among volunteers of 46 percent). The follow–up survey sample had a less heavy–tailed normal distribution (fewer extreme points) than the first survey sample.
Table A.1 shows descriptive statistics for selected demographic variables from the first and the follow–up surveys.
Table A.1: Comparison of demographics (percent). Variable First survey Second survey Gender Male 71 70 Female 29 30 Field/occupation MD 17 17 Biologist 60 60 Age Mean 47 years 47 years Median 48 years 46 years Job experience Mean 17 years 17 years Median 16 years 16 years Country of residence United States or Canada 74 75
The mean and median ages were 47 and 46, respectively (versus 47 and 48 for the first survey); 30 of respondents were female and 70 percent male (versus 29 percent female and 71 percent male for the first survey); 17 percent were medical doctors (same as the first survey); 60 percent said biology was their primary field of research (same as the first survey); and average job experience was 15 years (same as the first survey). The follow–up survey sample was thus representative of the first survey population on these basic demographic criteria.
About the authors
Haekyung Jeon–Slaughter is Senior Research Statistician in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. She held a position of Research Director at Stanford University Libraries while managing the e–Journal User Study. She conducts research in the areas of trauma research, community resilience, and scientific publishing with a focus on applied statistics. She earned her Ph.D. in consumer economics from Cornell University.
Email: hattie–jeon–slaughter [at] ouhsc [dot] edu
Andrew A. Herkovic is director of Foundation Relations and Strategic Projects at the Stanford University Libraries. A graduate of Cornell University, he held a variety of positions in both the public and private sectors, ranging from library cataloging, to sales and marketing, to editing and publishing, before coming to the Stanford Libraries, where he is responsible for proposal and grant administration, project management, and public relations.
Michael A. Keller is the Ida M. Green Librarian at Stanford University Libraries, Director of Academic Information Research, Publisher of HighWire Press, and Publisher of Stanford University Press. A graduate (and currently a trustee) of Hamilton College, Keller held positions at SUNY Buffalo, Cornell University, University of California at Berkeley, and Yale University before coming to Stanford. Keller speaks frequently on librarianship, scholarly publishing, and information technology in education, both nationally and internationally.
This paper was fully sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The authors thank the many e–Journal User Study survey and interview participants and HighWire publishers for their comments and feedback.
2. Both reports are available at http://ejust.stanford.edu/findings/survey1.pdf and http://ejust.stanford.edu/findings3/report_survey3.pdf.
3. User survey (second survey) was conducted in November and December, 2001 by Stanford University Libraries. Survey results and the questionnaire are available at http://ejust.stanford.edu/findings2/report_survey2.pdf and http://ejust.stanford.edu/usersurvey2-linked.htm.
4. Chronicle of Higher Education (20 September 2002).
5. This is discussed at length in “Reflections on Branding and E–journals,” a product of the eJUSt Project, at http://ejust.stanford.edu/findings/interview_branding.pdf.
Yannis Bakos, 2001. “The emerging landscape for retail e–commerce,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, volume 15, number 1, pp. 69–80.
Yannis Bakos, Erik Brynjolfsson, and Douglas Lichtman, 1999. “Shared information goods,” Journal of Law and Economics, volume 42, number 1, pp. 117–155.
F.L. Chen, P. Wrynn, F.L. Ehrman, J.L. Rieke, and H.E. French, 2001. “Electronic journal access: How does it affect print subscription price?” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, volume 89, number 4, pp. 363–371.
e–Journal User Study at http://ejust.stanford.edu, accessed on 11 January 2005.
Andrea Foster, 2002. “Second thoughts on ‘bundled’ e–journals,” Chronicle of Higher Education, volume 49, number 4 (20 September).
Jocelyn Kaiser, 2004. “NIH flooded with comments on public access proposal,” Science, volume 306 (26 November), p. 1,451.
Bridget Meaney, 2003. “Online journals make access easier, but often at a price,” Medicine On The Net, volume 9, number 5 (May), pp. 1–7.
Owen R. Phillips and Lori J. Phillips, 2002. “The market for academic journals,” Applied Economics, volume 34, number 1, pp. 39–48.
Carol Tenopir and Donald W. King, 2001. “Lessons for the future of journals,” Nature, volume 413 (18 October), pp. 672–674.
Elias A. Zerhouni, 2004. “NIH public access policy,” Science, volume 306 (10 December), p. 1,895.
Paper received 11 January 2005; accepted 20 February 2005.
Copyright © 2005, Haekyung Jeon–Slaughter, Andrew C. Herkovic, and Michael A. Keller.
Economics of scientific and biomedical journals: Where do scholars stand in the debate of online journal pricing and site license ownership between libraries and publishers? by Haekyung JeonSlaughter, Andrew C. Herkovic, and Michael A. Keller.
First Monday, Volume 10, Number 3 - 7 March 2005
A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.
© First Monday, 1995-2013.