FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W900071568> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W900071568 startingPage "5" @default.
• W900071568 abstract "Overview Abstract Big Deals and other serials bundles did slow the rate of increase of serials spending--but that rate continues to be much higher than inflation. It also appears to be unsustainable for many libraries. Chapter 1 of Library Technology Reports (vol. 50, no. 4) shows overall trends since 1996 and for comparable libraries since 2002. In the 1990s, the serials crisis in academic libraries was becoming acute. Prices for refereed scholarly journals were increasing at such a pace that more and more libraries were finding it impossible to keep up, much less add needed new journals. Publishers began offering Big Deals: bundling electronic access to many or all of their journals at a price that, on a per-journal basis, was considerably lower than piecemeal institutional access. At the time, it must have seemed like a win-win-win situation: publishers could remain profitable, libraries could slow the rate of increase for serials spending, and users could gain access to many more journals. Many academic libraries and groups of libraries signed up for a variety of Big Deals and other bundles during the last years of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first. It's fair to note that some observers--specifically, Kenneth Frazier in Librarians' Dilemma: Contemplating the Costs of the 'Big Deal'--saw the dangers of Big Deals. (1) But most academic librarians either ignored those dangers or didn't feel they could turn down the Big Deals. It seems clear that changes in access to serials--Big Deals, smaller bundles, and a general shift to electronic-only access--did, in fact, slow the rate of increase in serials spending. Figure 1.1 shows the changes in spending for US academic libraries as a whole from 1996 through 2012, adjusted for inflation, in three parts: current serials, (all acquisitions except current serials), and the remainder (all library spending except acquisitions). There's a distinct change from 2000 on, with the rate of increase for serials much lower than it was before that. Note that for figure 1.1, as for all figures, tables, and numbers throughout this report, everything prior to 2012 is adjusted for inflation: if spending just kept up with inflation, it would show as 0% change and as a flat line on a graph. Figure 1.1 seems to show complete flattening of serials spending from 2000 to 2002--but that's not quite right. Between 1996 and 2000, serials spending increased by an astonishing 33% more than inflation in just four years. While current serials spending was 36% higher in 2002 than in 1996 (that is, 3% more than in 2000), that's a much smaller increase. After 2002, serials spending started to pick up more rapidly, but still not at the hectic pre-2000 pace. Short-Term Win, Long-Term Problem? Many publishers and librarians continue to tout the Big Deal as a wonderful thing. Some commentators have gone so far as to declare that the serials crisis was over by 2004, thanks to the Big Deal. Looking at the reality of library spending on serials since 2002, it's tempting to use the analogy of a person who's been gut shot and is bleeding at the rate of one pint of blood per hour. If doctors patch things up so that the patient is now losing one pint of blood per day, that's a substantial improvement--but only a fool would say the problem has been solved and send the patient home. [FIGURE 1.1 OMITTED] Academic libraries are still bleeding, although at a slower rate. The long-term effects of bundled serials pricing include less flexibility to do responsible collection development for serials, less money available for books and other acquisitions--and less money available for everything else libraries spend money on, including librarians, staff, preservation, technical processing, computers, new initiatives, and keeping the doors open. This report won't address the flexibility issue; it will look at the dollars. …" @default.
• W900071568 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W900071568 creator A5066339280 @default.
• W900071568 date "2014-05-01" @default.
• W900071568 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W900071568 title "Chapter 1: Tracking the Damage" @default.
• W900071568 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W900071568 type Work @default.
• W900071568 sameAs 900071568 @default.
• W900071568 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W900071568 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W900071568 hasAuthorship W900071568A5066339280 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C13280743 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C2777526511 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W900071568 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C111472728 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C13280743 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C136197465 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C138885662 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C144133560 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C154945302 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C17744445 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C205649164 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C2777526511 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C2778496695 @default.
• W900071568 hasConceptScore W900071568C41008148 @default.
• W900071568 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W900071568 hasLocation W9000715681 @default.
• W900071568 hasOpenAccess W900071568 @default.
• W900071568 hasPrimaryLocation W9000715681 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W155467968 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W1592034160 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2020584888 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2092181920 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W217753967 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2319568055 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2325517719 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2772349984 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2786153489 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W302045797 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W341441261 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W63327781 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W783823080 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W836834930 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W90570626 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W208318240 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2188115488 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2264936772 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2527363819 @default.
• W900071568 hasRelatedWork W2588513778 @default.
• W900071568 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W900071568 isParatext "false" @default.
• W900071568 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W900071568 magId "900071568" @default.
• W900071568 workType "article" @default.