Economics and Usage of Digital Libraries: Byting the BulletSkip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for more information. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
1. See MacKie-Mason and Riveros (2000) for a discussion of the economics of electronic publishing.
2. Odlyzko (1995) estimates that it costs between $900-$8700 to produce a single math article. 70% of the cost is editorial and production, 30% is reproduction and distribution.
3. This assertion and others concerning user preferences are based on our analysis of the ethnographic records compiled during the marketing process by Ann Zimmerman, and the results from a series of user surveys we administered during the project.
4. One pragmatic and unresolved issue for applying bundling models is the treatment of journal content other than articles. Many notices and reviews, as well as editorial content integral to a journal's identity, cannot be categorized as articles. How and when these items are indexed (thus becoming searchable) as well as how they should be priced are still open questions in electronic journal delivery and pricing.
5. See MacKie-Mason and Riveros (2000) for a more complete discussion of the economic design space.
6. All older materials (i.e., pre-1998) were freely available to all project participants, as were bibliographic and full-text searches, with no charges levied for viewing citations, abstracts or non-article material such as reviews and notices. The remaining content (essentially, full-length articles published after 1997) could be purchased through one of the product types.
7. If the scholarly publishing market is competitive, then we expect long-run prices to reflect incremental component costs. Whether this market is competitive is a contentious issue; see McCabe (this volume) for one view on this question.
8. Due to delays in starting the project, the first revenue period covered content from both 1997-98, although access was available only during 1998. For this period, prices for traditional subscriptions were set to equal $6/issue, or 1.5 times the annual price of $4/issue, to adjust for the greater content availability.
9. The University of Michigan production service retained IPL annual participation fees. The publisher received the content charges, minus a modest service fee for the credit card service provided by the University of Michigan Press.
10. Through an onscreen message we encouraged all users to obtain a password and use it every time in order to provide better data for the researchers. From the data, we concluded that only a small fraction apparently chose to obtain passwords based solely on our urging; most who did apparently obtained passwords because they were necessary to access a specific article.
11. We limited our scope to what we call "unique accesses," counting multiple accesses to a given article by a single individual during a PEAK session as only one access. For anonymous access (i.e., access by users not enetering a password), we define a "unique" access as any number of accesses to an article within 30 minutes from a particular IP address. For authenticated users, we define a "unique" access as any number of accesses to an article by an authenticated user within 30 minutes of the first access.
12. See the definition of unmetered material in the text above.
13. Individual article purchase was available to both; Green institutions could also purchase generalized subscriptions, and Blue could purchase traditional subscriptions.
14. In another preliminary test of the impact of user cost on usage, we compared the usage of the Red and Blue groups. Red institutions had both generalized and traditional subscriptions available; Blue had only traditional. We calculated the number of paid articles accessed (paid by generalized tokens or per-article) for each group, after normalizing by the number of traditional subscriptions, and the number of potential users at the institutions. We found that when generalized subscriptions were available, which have a much lower user cost since the library pays for the tokens, three times as many articles were accessed as at institutions which had to pay for each of these articles on a per-article basis. See Gazzale and MacKie-Mason (this volume).