The purpose of this article is to introduce a theoretical framework and approach for studying the evaluation and decision-making practices through which academic librarians attempt to reduce the cost of electronic journal subscriptions – an organizational practice known as the unbundling of big deal journal packages.,The article presents a literature-based conceptual analysis of several fields to delineate the elements of the practice of unbundling of big deal journal packages. Beyond analysing the prior literature, the discussion is supported by empirical findings from a pilot study on the topic conducted by two of the article's authors.,The main finding of the article is that the unbundling of big deal packages is a case of what sociologist refers to as decision-making in a social context. By reviewing previous studies, the article identifies the social and material elements constitutive of this practice. This, in turn, allows to develop questions and concepts for future research on the topic and to position it as an area of inquiry within the field of information behaviour/practices.,The article is the first attempt to conceptualize the unbundling of big deal journal packages by highlighting its phenomenological status as a type of information practice. In addition, the article proposes a research approach for studying this type of information practice by drawing on insights from the information behaviour/practice literature and enriching them through practice theory contributions in organizational studies and sociology.

/pdf/unbundling-practice-the-unbundling-of-big-deal-journal-3rr6d01bal.pdf

Unbundling practice: the unbundling of big deal journal packages as an information practice

Zero-based serials review: An objective, comprehensive method of selecting full-text journal resources in response to local needs

GUDER, CHRISTOPHER S., Ph.D., December 2012, Instructional Technology Exploring the Relationship between Patron Type, Carnegie Classification, and Satisfaction with Library Services: An Analysis of LibQUAL+® Results Director ofDissertation: Teresa J. Franklin The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty and students responded to the Information Control section of the LibQUAL+® survey at two libraries with different Carnegie Classifications. As one of the institutions being studied was considering a shift from a research institution to one more focused on teaching and learning, this study used two schools with different Carnegie Classifications, one with a RU_H and the other with a Master’s M classification, to determine if faculty and students had different minimum, perceived, and desired scores related to Information Control. A three way between-within subjects ANOVA was used as a method of analysis, with two between-subjects variables and one within-subjects variable. The first betweensubjects variable was patron type, and consisted of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members. The second between-within subjects variable was Carnegie Classification and consisted of RU_H or Master’s M classification. The withinsubjects variable has three levels that serve as three dependent variables. Each dependent variable is a composite or the mean score for the combined eight questions that make up the Information Control component of LibQUAL+®. The Information Control component deals with collections and the access provided to those collections. Because 4 each question in the survey has a corresponding 9 point Likert scale for minimum, perceived, and desired service quality, three separate means were created for each respondent. The results of the analysis indicate that Carnegie Classification has no significant effect on how students and faculty respond to minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service with regard to Information Control. There were significant differences with regard to patron level responses.

Exploring the Relationship between Patron Type, Carnegie Classification, and Satisfaction with Library Services: An Analysis of LibQUAL+® Results

Bundled Database Subscriptions: Challenges, Opportunities, and Assessment

INTRODUCTION This study will explore the issue of pricing opacity associated with prices paid by academic libraries that have recently unbundled from the Elsevier Big Deal journal package. Additionally, this study will provide metrics for assessing the fair market value (FMV) of unbundled journal packages. The pricing metrics will assist academic libraries in negotiations of subscription and open access agreements. METHODS Pricing information was gathered from five academic libraries. The data was analyzed to arrive at two key metrics (adjustment from list price and the average cost per journal) for establishing comparables, i.e., prices paid by similarly sized institutions, to assess the collective FMVs for unbundled Elsevier journal packages. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The study results show that significant variations existed in the way institutions were charged for content. Additionally, the comparables show wide variations among institutions when measured by the overall adjustment from list price and the average cost per journal. CONCLUSION The pricing metrics developed in this study, adjustment from list price (ALP) and average cost per journal (ACJ), will help libraries assess their final net prices for individual journal subscriptions. The results will be useful to administrators, collection development personnel, and negotiating teams in understanding the prices paid by other institutions for unbundled journal packages to determine FMVs.

https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/12899/galley/12576/download/

Elsevier Title Level Pricing: Dissecting the Bowl of Spaghetti

There is a perceived lack of transparency in publisher pricing models for databases and journal bundles, creating a sense of secrecy around important collection development decisions for online resources. This article traces some of the historical developments of this lack of transparency in the library marketplace and reports on a survey conducted exploring the amount of publicly available information on websites of database and journal bundle publishers. A discussion on how a lack of transparency can affect consortia, and perceived reasons why transparency in pricing can be seen as both beneficial and detrimental by librarians, will follow. It concludes with a short summary of what libraries can do to increase transparency for their libraries.

Lori Duggan Presenters

Papers

Transparency and Publisher Pricing Models