Is the “Big Deal” Dead?

Best, Rickey

doi:10.1080/03615260903203702

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taylor-Roe (2009) also found that smaller institutions with low original print spends were generally happier than larger universities with the return on investment of their Big Deals. In a similar vein, Best (2009) argues that in the case of consortia licenses, the small and medium-sized libraries are the "major beneficiaries" of Big Deal packages (p. 360). The academic offerings of an institution can also affect whether or not a Big Deal is a good Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 00:55 14 October 2014 value.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 95%

Judging Big Deals: Challenges, Outcomes, and Advice

Glasser¹

2013

Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 95%

Judging Big Deals: Challenges, Outcomes, and Advice

Glasser¹

2013

Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Just as the long tail of little-used titles in a big deal are used as a reason to cancel, this long tail can also be used to bring the percentage of closed access material down. 83 Schöpfel and Leduc cite the Pareto 80:20 distribution to explain this. 84 If 20 percent of the titles in the big deal represent 80 percent of usage, it stands to reason that the long tail representing 20 percent of the usage is very unlikely to be in demand after the big deal is cancelled.…”

Section: Analyzing Usage Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Techniques for Electronic Resource Management: TERMS and the Transition to Open

Emery¹,

Stone²,

McCracken³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We then moved on from TERMs and created a new framework around open access resource management in libraries, which we called Open Access Workflows for Academic Librarians (OAWAL). 3 We explored ways in which open access management could be folded into traditional library practices, and this was the subject of a presentation at a SPARC conference in 2014. 4 As OAWAL developed, we began to recognize overlaps between electronic resource management and open access workflows. Our work with Chris Awre and Paul Stainthorp on the HHuLOA project (Hull, Huddersfield and Lincoln Open Access) led to efforts to map OAWAL onto TERMs (see figure 1.3). 5 From the collective continued work in this area and with feedback from others on the initial TERMs project, we determined the timing was right for a revised framework that reflected the changes to the lifecycle that have devel-Open access workflows can often be seen as entirely separate workflows or a set of add-on processes. However, this view fails to recognize some important points. Firstly, open access content is a critical set of content, in the same way as paid-for content. As such, it should be exposed to the same level of scrutiny as any other part of the library's collection, management, and development policy. Secondly, open access resources also need to be implemented, embedded, monitored, and ultimately withdrawn just as would any set of resources. Finally, subscription and open access content is intrinsically linked in offsetting or read and publish agreements. These transformative agreements are increasingly becoming the norm as noted above regarding the launch of cOAlition S. 35

show abstract

“…Moreover, these bundles are negotiated under nondisclosure agreements, which reinforces the tendency to oligopolistic pricing (Van Noorden, 2013). Of course, the economics of zero marginal cost dissemination also allows publishers to add new journals to the bulk electronic collections sold to each additional customer, ensuring that small and large research libraries alike can subscribe to virtually all of the titles provided in a publisher’s portfolio (Best, 2009; Odlyzko, 2013). Big Deal packages are typically priced according to a usage based formula scaled to each institution (Walkiers, 2008).…”

Section: The Journal the Market And The Academic Commonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs

Wellen

2013

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of “open” academic content has been strongly embraced and promoted by many advocates, analysts, stakeholders, and reformers in the sector of higher education and academic publishing. The two most well-known developments are open access scholarly publishing and Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), each of which are connected to disruptive innovations enabled by new technologies. Support for these new modes of exchanging knowledge is linked to the expectation that they will promote a number of public interest benefits, including widening the impact, productivity, and format of academic work; reforming higher education and scholarly publishing markets; and relieving some of the cost pressures in academia. This article examines the rapid emergence of policy initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States to promote open content and to bring about a new relationship between the market and the academic commons. In doing so, I examine controversial forms of academic unbundling such as open access megajournals and MOOCs and place each in the context of the heightened emphasis on productivity and impact in new regulatory regimes in the area of higher education.

show abstract

Is the “Big Deal” Dead?

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Judging Big Deals: Challenges, Outcomes, and Advice

Judging Big Deals: Challenges, Outcomes, and Advice

Techniques for Electronic Resource Management: TERMS and the Transition to Open

Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About