Big Deal — good deal? Or is there a better deal?

The purchase ‘en bloc’ by library consortia of all journals published by one publisher – the so‐called ‘Big Deal’ – is bad for small publishers and for large libraries even if – in the short term – good for large publishers and for small libraries. The publishing and library communities need to find alternative purchasing models that provide better deals for those disadvantaged by the prevalence of the ‘Big Deal’ while retaining the benefit of scale in negotiation and supply.     

TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: sustainability through innovation

How can a new publisher and new publication survive in today's climate, where ‘Big Deal’ bundling arrangements and cuts in library budgets are squeezing out smaller publishers and publications? That is a key question for TheScientificWorldJOURNAL. The Journal's innovative editorial approaches together with a new business model combine to present part of the answer, and enable a new journal to make a significant difference.     

Between a rock and a hard place: the big squeeze for small publishers

The combination of decreased income as a result of the RoweCom collapse, cuts in library budgets internationally, and the success of ‘Big Deal’ bundling arrangements has serious repercussions for smaller and society publishers. This paper argues that the scholarly communications environment is going to become increasingly hostile for these publishers and that their best chance of survival may be to adapt to new business models, in particular open access.     

The “Big Deal”: A Survey of How Libraries Are Responding and What the Alternatives Are

The library's mission is to support the information and educational needs of its users. E-journal “Big Deals” offer libraries one method of maximizing the resources available to their users, but, with libraries now experiencing flat or decreasing budgets, these Big Deals present budgetary difficulties for libraries. They also remove collection development decisions from the control of the libraries themselves. Some libraries have canceled their Big Deals, resulting in problems. This article presents the results of an online survey of libraries regarding these bundled journal packages.     

The Big Deal — ten years on

This paper describes the highlights of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project. OhioLINK, the original ‘Big Deal’, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full‐text journals for more than 600,000 people in Ohio and the investigation aimed to assess it after approximately 10 years. The data was generated from an SPSS analysis of the raw (unprocessed) server logs for June 2004 to December 2004. Approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. There are a number of usage analyses including: demand and activity; number and name of journal; date of publication; subject/discipline of journal and method of searching/navigating.     

Authors and open access publishing

Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of ‘self‐archiving’ was less. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self‐archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to.