To:
Faculty Members in all Schools, Faculties, and Units
From:
The Faculty Advisory
Council
Date: April 17, 2012
RE:
Periodical Subscriptions
We
write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard
Library. Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly
communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically
restrictive. This situation is exacerbated by efforts of certain
publishers (called “providers”) to acquire, bundle, and increase
the pricing on journals.
Harvard’s
annual cost for journals from these providers now approaches
$3.75M. In 2010, the comparable amount accounted for more than 20%
of all periodical subscription costs and just under 10% of
all collection costs for everything the Library acquires.
Some journals cost as much as $40,000 per year, others in the tens
of thousands. Prices for online content from two providers have
increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far
exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher
education and the library price indices. These journals therefore
claim an ever-increasing share of our overall collection budget.
Even though scholarly output continues to grow and publishing can
be expensive, profit margins of 35% and more suggest that the
prices we must pay do not solely result from an increasing supply
of new articles.
The
Library has never received anything close to full reimbursement for
these expenditures from overhead collected by the University on
grant and research funds.
The Faculty Advisory Council to
the Library, representing university faculty in all schools and in
consultation with the Harvard Library leadership, reached
this conclusion: major periodical subscriptions, especially to
electronic journals published by historically key providers,
cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their
current footing is financially untenable. Doing so would seriously
erode collection efforts in many other areas, already
compromised.
It
is untenable for contracts with at least two major providers to
continue on the basis identical with past agreements. Costs are now
prohibitive. Moreover, some providers bundle many journals as one
subscription, with major, high-use journals bundled in with
journals consulted far less frequently. Since the Library now must
change its subscriptions and since faculty and graduate students
are chief users, please consider the following options open to
faculty and students (F) and the Library (L), state other options
you think viable, and communicate your
views:
1.
Make sure that all of your own papers are accessible by submitting
them to DASH in accordance with the faculty-initiated open-access
policies (F).
2.
Consider submitting articles to open-access journals, or to ones
that have reasonable, sustainable subscription costs; move prestige
to open access (F).
3.
If on the editorial board of a journal involved, determine if it
can be published as open access material, or independently from
publishers that practice pricing described above. If not, consider
resigning (F).
4.
Contact professional organizations to raise these issues (F).
5.
Encourage professional associations to take control of scholarly
literature in their field or shift the management of their
e-journals to library-friendly organizations (F).
6.
Encourage colleagues to consider and to discuss these or other
options (F).
7.
Sign contracts that unbundle subscriptions and concentrate on
higher-use journals (L).
8.
Move journals to a sustainable pay per use system, (L).
9.
Insist on subscription contracts in which the terms can be made
public (L).
See coverage:
Chronicle of Higher Education
Inside Higher Education
The Atlantic