{"id":61,"date":"2012-08-21T14:57:00","date_gmt":"2012-08-21T02:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/?p=61"},"modified":"2012-08-21T14:57:00","modified_gmt":"2012-08-21T02:57:00","slug":"links-of-interest-pricing-impact-factors-marketing-and-staplers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/2012\/08\/links-of-interest-pricing-impact-factors-marketing-and-staplers\/","title":{"rendered":"Links of interest: pricing, impact factors, marketing, and staplers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Acquisitions and budgets<\/strong><br \/><a href=\"http:\/\/allenpress.com\/system\/files\/pdfs\/library\/2012_AP_JPS.pdf\">2012 Study of Subscription Prices for Scholarly Society Journals<\/a> (pdf) is out from Allen Press.  &#8220;[T]he average increase in 2012 dropped, more than a full percentage point below the average, to less than 6%.&#8221; (The Consumer Price Index, according to the same figure, was less than 4%.) Much more detail, analysis and discussion is <a href=\"http:\/\/allenpress.com\/system\/files\/pdfs\/library\/2012_AP_JPS.pdf\">at the source<\/a> (pdf).<\/p>\n<p>The Librarian in Black writes <a href=\"http:\/\/librarianinblack.net\/librarianinblack\/2012\/08\/ebookssuckitude.html\">I&#8217;m breaking up with eBooks (and you can too)<\/a> on the poor deal that current models of ebook provision are for libraries and, by extension, our customers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Marketing<\/strong><br \/>Alison Wallbutton in <a href=\"http:\/\/alisonwallbutton.wordpress.com\/2012\/08\/15\/brandlibraries\/\">#brandlibraries<\/a> ponders what branding is, how libraries are branded, and whether we want to reposition that branding.  She argues that libraries are successfully branded &#8211; as &#8220;books&#8221;; it&#8217;s in the very word.  But of course (segue to my own thoughts) we as librarians get twitchy about wanting to make sure that users know we&#8217;re not <em>just<\/em> books, so we reject that outright &#8211; often without having put any thought into what we&#8217;re going to replace that branding with. Which leaves us in a position where we can&#8217;t effectively promote ourselves because we don&#8217;t have any image to put out there.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Impact factors<\/strong><br \/>Nixon, J.M. (2012). <a href=\"http:\/\/crl.acrl.org\/content\/early\/2012\/07\/23\/crl12-387.short\">Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals<\/a>. <em>C&#038;RL<\/em>. Advance online publication.<br \/>&#8211;Outlines a methodology and resulting list of three tiers into which they&#8217;ve divided LIS journals according to &#8220;influence&#8221;. Uses a mix of expert opinions, impact factors, circulation rate, and acceptance rate and, unsurprisingly, comes up with a similar list as those derived from expert opinions or from impact factors.<\/p>\n<p>Probably a good measure of <em>influence<\/em>; it doesn&#8217;t claim that quality follows.  Which is good because <a href=\"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2012\/08\/13\/sick-of-impact-factors\/\">Sick of Impact Factors<\/a> which concludes that &#8220;if you use impact factors you are statistically illiterate&#8221; and has been so widely retweeted and commented on that the author has <a href=\"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2012\/08\/19\/sick-of-impact-factors-coda\/\">posted a followup<\/a> summarising the long comment thread in sections: useful links; concerns about metrics; alternative metrics; and actions to take.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Just for fun<\/strong><br \/>Library Shenanigans reports on <a href=\"http:\/\/libraryshenanigans.wordpress.com\/2012\/07\/25\/the-stapler-obituaries-a-mini-exhibition-at-tutt-library\/\">The Stapler Obituaries<\/a> &#8211; a mini-exhibition of dead staplers at an academic library.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Acquisitions and budgets2012 Study of Subscription Prices for Scholarly Society Journals (pdf) is out from Allen Press. &#8220;[T]he average increase in 2012 dropped, more than a full percentage point below the average, to less than 6%.&#8221; (The Consumer Price Index, according to the same figure, was less than 4%.) Much more detail, analysis and discussion [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[63,64,62,60,61,56,48,58],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deborahfitchett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}