The problem I'm having is justifying $10,000 for 52 issues. Even if the
journal was replete with graphics in color, there is no way 52 issues
should run in the $10,000 range. If the publisher has costs so high that
they need to charge that much for 52 issues to still make a profit, I
think they should go to electronic only editions. When we first ordered
these titles, they were seen as "essential" by the faculty, but I doubt
any of the professors noticed it at all when these 3 titles were
cancelled (judging by usage statistics).

Debra Ham
Library Specialist, Serials
Reinert Alumni Memorial Library
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178

dldham@creighton.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:48 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Elsevier 'associated' subscriptions -John Lucas

You're missing the point.  It isn't that the journal only costs $500 so
why are institutions being charged $10,000.  It's that *because* the
institution pays the $10,000, Elsevier feels they can then charge just
$500 for personal subscriptions.  They describe the associated personal
price fee as follows:

"As a service to your scientific community, we are able to offer those
associated with institutions where a regular rate subscription is
currently in place, the opportunity to subscribe at a low price.
Associated Personal Subscriptions are sold at a price which covers our
print run-on, despatch and handling costs only. Now you can receive your
own copy, delivered to you personally, without waiting for your turn on
the circulation list."

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Elsevier's pricing structure at all.
I think there are a myriad other ways they could develop a pricing model
that would work better for all different kinds of institutions.
However, librarians seem to think we're all in this scholarly
communication thing together, and that everyone should play fairly and
in the best interests of scholarship. I'm not sure I still believe
that's true.

Kim Maxwell

At 09:02 AM 4/20/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Tetrahedron Letters, Tetrahedron and Tetrahedron are all very expensive

>titles -- even for institutions. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense
>to me, that the publisher can give a professor an individual rate of
>less than $500 (which if you read their website, it says it covers
>costs
>only) and then charge over $10,000 for an institution to receive the
>same journal. Seems to me that if it is only costing the publisher less

>than $500, that having the institutional price over $10,000 is one heck

>of a markup. We used to subscribe to all three of these and had to cut
>them one by one when budgets were not keeping up with the increases in
>serials pricing. I realize that these journals are considered cutting
>edge research, but I don't think the pricing structure is reasonable at

>all.
>
>
>Debra Ham