Dataset Information

Evaluating big deal journal bundles.

ABSTRACT: Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing, librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that they publish.

SUBMITTER: Bergstrom TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4084480 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating big deal journal bundles.

Bergstrom Theodore C TC Courant Paul N PN McAfee R Preston RP Williams Michael A MA

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20140616 26

Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal pub ...[more]

PMID: 24979785

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe success of biobanking is directly linked to the willingness of people to donate their biological materials for research and storage. Ethical issues related to patient consent are an essential component of the current biobanking agenda. The majority of data available are focused on population-based biobanks in USA, Canada and Western Europe. The donation decision process and its ethical applications in clinical populations and populations in countries with other cultural contexts are very limited. This study aimed to evaluate the decision-making experience of the clinical biobank donors, as well as psychological and social motivators and deterrents of this decision and associated ethical risks.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in two medical institutions, in St Petersburg (Russia), in 2016-2017, among 13 donors of a clinical biobank (pregnant women, cardiac patients, and patients with multiple sclerosis) and three donation organisers-medical specialists involved in recruiting donors for a clinical biobank. Analysis of interview data was based on qualitative content analysis.ResultsDonors of a clinical biobank express beliefs in the absence of risks associated with the donation. The primary motivators for donating to the biobank were: prosocial, indirect reciprocity (response to or anticipation of an act in kind by a third party), intrinsic motivation (to enhance their self-esteem and satisfying their curiosity about the donation process), and comparability with personal values. A high level of trust in biomedical research and the particular physician can contribute to a favourable decision. The overall decision-making process regarding the biobank donation could be described as quick and not based on a careful reading of informed consent documents. The integration of biobank donation decision-making in the process of medical care might prompt patient to donate to biobank without proper consideration. The specific type of therapeutic misconception-the presence of unrealistic hope that donation could provide a direct benefit for a third person in need was discovered.ConclusionsPatients recruited to a clinical biobank in Russia have virtually no concerns as to the storage of their biomaterials. The donation decision is mainly motivated by prosocial attitudes and other factors that are similar to the motivating factors of blood donation. The fact of going through inpatient treatment and poor differentiation between donation for other people's benefit and for research purposes can make the process of obtaining consent more ethically problematic.

Project description:BackgroundMajor short-notice or sudden impact incidents, which result in a large number of casualties, are rare events. However health services must be prepared to respond to such events appropriately. In the United Kingdom (UK), a mass casualties incident is when the normal response of several National Health Service organizations to a major incident, has to be supported with extraordinary measures. Having the right type and quantity of clinical equipment is essential, but planning for such emergencies is challenging. To date, the equipment stored for such events has been selected on the basis of local clinical judgment and has evolved without an explicit evidence-base. This has resulted in considerable variations in the types and quantities of clinical equipment being stored in different locations. This study aimed to develop an expert consensus opinion of the essential items and minimum quantities of clinical equipment that is required to treat 100 people at the scene of a big bang mass casualties event.MethodsA three round modified Delphi study was conducted with 32 experts using a specifically developed web-based platform. Individuals were invited to participate if they had personal clinical experience of providing a pre-hospital emergency medical response to a mass casualties incident, or had responsibility in health emergency planning for mass casualties incidents and were in a position of authority within the sphere of emergency health planning. Each item's importance was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The quantity of items required was measured numerically. Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistics.ResultsExperts achieved consensus on a total of 134 items (54%) on completion of the study. Experts did not reach consensus on 114 (46%) items. Median quantities and interquartile ranges of the items, and their recommended quantities were identified and are presented.ConclusionsThis study is the first to produce an expert consensus on the items and quantities of clinical equipment that are required to treat 100 people at the scene of a big bang mass casualties event. The findings can be used, both in the UK and internationally, to support decision makers in the planning of equipment for such incidents.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether two specific criteria in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) created by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)--namely, including the trial ID registration within manuscripts and timely registration of trials, are being followed.Materials and methodsObservational study using computerized analysis of publicly available Medline article data and clinical trial registry data. We analyzed a purposive set of five ICMJE founding journals looking at all trial articles published in those journals during 2010-2011, and data from the ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) trial registry. We measured adherence to trial ID inclusion policy as the percentage of trial journal articles that contained a valid trial ID within the article (journal-based sample). Adherence to timely registration was measured as the percentage of trials that registered the trial before enrolling the first participant within a 60-day grace period. We also examined timely registration rates by year of all phase II and higher interventional trials in CTG (registry-based sample).ResultsTo determine trial ID inclusion, we analyzed 698 clinical trial articles in five journals. A total of 95.8% (661/690) of trial journal articles included the trial ID. In 88.3% the trial-article link is stored within a structured Medline field. To evaluate timely registration, we analyzed trials referenced by 451 articles from the selected five journals. A total of 60% (272/451) of articles were registered in a timely manner with an improving trend for trials initiated in later years (eg, 89% of trials that began in 2008 were registered in a timely manner). In the registry-based sample, the timely registration rates ranged from 56% for trials registered in 2006 to 72% for trials registered in 2011.DiscussionAdherence to URM requirements for registration and trial ID inclusion increases the utility of PubMed and links it in an important way to clinical trial repositories. This new integrated knowledge source can facilitate research prioritization, clinical guidelines creation, and precision medicine.ConclusionsThe five selected journals adhere well to the policy of mandatory trial registration and also outperform the registry in adherence to timely registration. ICMJE's URM policy represents a unique international mandate that may be providing a powerful incentive for sponsors and investigators to document clinical trials and trial result publications and thus fulfill important obligations to trial participants and society.

Project description:BackgroundThe Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.MethodsWe describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.DiscussionThe TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/ .

Dataset Information

Evaluating big deal journal bundles.

Publications

Evaluating big deal journal bundles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure