• Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Previous

Next

JSTOR Tests Free, Read-Only Access to Some Articles

January 13, 2012, 10:32 am

It’s about to get a little easier—emphasis on “a little”—for users without subscriptions to tap JSTOR’s enormous digital archive of journal articles. In the coming weeks, JSTOR will make available the beta version of a new program, Register & Read, which will give researchers read-only access to some journal articles, no payment required. All users have to do is to sign up for a free “MyJSTOR” account, which will create a virtual shelf on which to store the desired articles.

But there are limits. Users won’t be able to download the articles; they will be able to access only three at a time, and there will be a minimum viewing time frame of 14 days per article, which means that a user can’t consume lots of content in a short period. Depending on the journal and the publisher, users may have an option to pay for and download an article if they choose.

To start, the program will feature articles from 70 journals. Included in the beta phase are American Anthropologist, the American Historical Review, Ecology, Modern Language Review, PMLA, College English, the Journal of Geology, the Journal of Political Economy, Film Quarterly, Representations, and the American Journal of Psychology .

The 7o journals chosen “represent approximately 18 percent of the annual turn-away traffic on JSTOR,” the organization said in an announcement previewing Register & Read. “Once we evaluate how the beta is going, including any impact on publishers’ sales of single articles, and make any needed initial adjustments to the approach, we expect to release hundreds more journals into the program.”

Every year, JSTOR said, it turns away almost 150 million individual attempts to gain access to articles. “We are committed to expanding access to scholarly content to all those who need it,” the group said. Register & Read is one attempt to do that.

In September 2011, JSTOR also opened up global access to its Early Journal Content. According to Heidi McGregor, a spokeswoman for the Ithaka group, JSTOR’s parent organization, there have been 2.35 million accesses of the Early Journal Content from September 2011 through December 2011. “About 50% of this usage is coming from users we know are at institutions that participate in JSTOR (e.g. we recognize their IP address), and the other 50% is not,” she said in an e-mail. ”We absolutely consider this to be a success. In the first four months after launch, we are seeing over 1 million accesses to this content by people who would not have had access previously. This is at the core of our mission, and we’re thrilled with this result.  The Register & Read beta is an exciting next step that we are taking, working closely with our publisher partners who own this content.”

Ms. McGregor said that JSTOR would consider expanding the three-article, 14-day restrictions, depending on how the beta test goes. “We are testing whether we can provide more free access in ways that help people around the world but that also balance the need to sustain, preserve, and invest in services to support the use of this content going forward,” she said.

This entry was posted in Open Access, Publishing, Research. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • wmartin46

    If JSTOR is going to go this far, why not create personal “for fee” accounts (say $25-$50 per year) and let folks download the articles in which they are interested?

  • prof_cj

    Hey, this is pretty cool news. I will say though that hopefully over time the pool of articles available for free might expand.

  • http://www.mattbernius.com/ Matt Bernius

    This, plus the opening up of pre-1923 material that has left copyright is a good thing (though ~50% of it still needs to be released). However, there’s a lot of work to be done.

    I fooled around a bit with JSTOR’s search engine and came up with some pretty amazing numbers as to how many articles are behind their paywall over 3.5 million!

    If you’re interested in a high level breakout of the data, it’s available via google docs here -
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoaJlglr9nu6dG1nYTdwb3llcUpEc3QwY1pjUnIxbHc

    Some more thoughts on it is available here –
    http://www.mattbernius.com/2012/01/data-and-thoughts-on-the-stakes-of-jstor-copyright-and-open-access/

  • http://www.facebook.com/donna.halper Donna Halper

    While I commend JSTOR (a wonderful resource) for taking these steps, there’s a bigger problem here, and it’s the same old “digital divide,” the gap between the haves and the have nots when it comes to access to research.  I have taught at community colleges that mainly served poor and working class students, and there were very few databases, due to limited budgets.  I have also worked with public libraries in poorer neighborhoods where the same problem existed– kids wanted to do research, but the library couldn’t offer them the databases due to lack of money.  And yes, I have certainly seen the other side, having taught at several private colleges which had every database imaginable and no problem ordering the newest resources. The students fortunate enough to be at those schools benefited from amazing access to thousands of journals and references; as for the other group, who could also have benefited if given the chance, they were relegated to having little if anything. 

    And it’s not just lack of access to JSTOR.  There are a multitude of wonderful databases that are so expensive that only elite universities can afford them, while the people who desperately need them in order to advance academically have no chance to use them.  I understand that JSTOR and Proquest and Ebsco and others are in business to make money, and who can blame them?  But we are still not addressing the large number of students who are excluded just because they can’t afford the fee or can’t afford to attend an elite university with full access.  As a child of working class parents who used my education to move up in life, somehow, this current system seems really unfair, and I am not hearing any good solutions being offered.

    Donna L. Halper, PhD
    Asst. Professor of Communication
    Lesley University, Cambridge MA

  • mbelvadi

    Remember that JSTOR doesn’t own the material – it has licenses with the various publishers. Every time it does something like what’s in this article, it has had to engage in negotiations with all of the involved publishers first to get the rights to do that.  I’d expect a lot of people spent a lot of time (and a lot of current subscribers’ money by the way, since that’s their current source of income) just to offer this new free service for those 70 titles.

  • mbelvadi

    If you’re not hearing any good solutions, then you aren’t paying attention. You raise two different issues, and there are good people working hard on both of them. 

    Issue 1: free access to full text journal articles. Take a good look at the progress the Open Access movement has made in the last 10 years. And then take a look at what your own scholarly association’s publications are doing, and get involved to make sure your own field is a part of that movement.  And of course, there are a great many of the “elite” universities that will send articles via Interlibrary Loan for free (ask your ILL librarians about the LVIS network). With current ILL digital technology, ILL can often deliver articles within one or two business days.

    Issue 2: free access to the indexing databases. There are many research databases that are already free, including PubMed, ERIC (education), NCJRS (criminal justice), Agricola, and many others. Google Scholar, which is free, has become a serious powerhouse of a research tool for all disciplines.  

    And there is a new project recently started, Knowledge For All, http://www.k4all.ca/  which has the intent to create a completely free multidisciplinary comprehensive research database that can compete with one of the most expensive indexes, the ISI Web of Science (which despite its name includes the humanities and social sciences too).  Take a look, and consider getting your own institution involved in partnering in this collaborative effort.

  • wmartin46

    While your points are doubtless true, making money from these publications has to be a key issue here.  The current JSTOR model restricts access to these publications. Why?  If it can make a profit for itself, and the copyright holders, why would JSTOR, or the copyright holders, not be interested in increasing access to the information?

  • mbelvadi

    [sorry repeated post due to disqus error]

  • johnlaudun

    This sounds a lot like the way the Safari Online Books model, to which I subscribe. Depending upon your level of subscription you get access to so many books, which have to remain on your virtual shelf for a certain period of time. For me, it’s five books each of which must remain on my shelf for at least a month. For better funded subscribers, more books (and perhaps less time). It works well enough for me, if I choose my books carefully, but, oh, the pain of choosing the wrong book. Safari has worked this out by giving readers a pretty amazing Preview option. Does MyJSTOR offer something similar?

    And speaking of Safari, why not join with them? Just yesterday a group of faculty were meeting at my university and while we appreciated the collections that JSTOR and other databases presented, we also lamented the fragmentation they also presented, and that did not include the number of journals sitting in their own silos, or the various handfuls of journals sitting in publisher silos.

    I know there are efforts underway, like Project Bamboo, to build a common infrastructure to at least humanities researchers. And I know that JSTOR has been a part of those conversations. I hope they will continue to work with scholars to make it possible to research and access the contents of their databases. (My own experience has been quite positive in this regard.)

  • johnlaudun

    Same problem as mbelvadi: disqus is doing some odd things.

  • mbelvadi

    Feel free to do the business math that would prove to them that $25-50 flat fee per year for unlimited article downloads (what you seem to have suggested) would in any way result in profit for them! Be sure to take into account the lost revenue from the customers who would have paid far more under their current pricing. And the legal/administrative costs of signing all those new license agreements with those hundreds of publishers.

  • wmartin46

    > Feel free to do the business math that would prove
    > to them that $25-50 flat fee per year for unlimited
    > article downloads (what you seem to have suggested)
    > would in any way result in profit for them!

    That would not be hard to do. Server hardware is not all that expensive these days. Bandwidth is a little more so. But the underlying business question is how many people are interested in this material to begin with.

    > unlimited downloads.

    Most of the papers on JSTOR are pretty small. They download within a few seconds, at best. And how many papers would the average personal account holder download per month? Who knows, but it’s unlikely to be very many. A least one competitive service (Proquest, perhaps), has offered personal accounts for $5/month.

    > Be sure to take into account the lost revenue from the customers who
    > would have paid far more under their current pricing

    If most of JSTOR’S customers are institutional, adding personal accounts to attract new customers would not seem to be a threat to their traditional customer base.

    To be fair, there would be some software and customer support expenditures that would have to be added to the operational costs for determining the actual cost to offer personal accounts.

  • csgirl

    I use Safari Online too, and think it is great. It isn’t so useful for pure research, but for getting access to lots of practical content in my field, it can’t be beat. Also, the main publisher in my field (ACM) has individual subscriptions that give full access to all of their research content. The IEEE does this too, although their subscription is not as extensive and can be rather flaky in its behavior. What irks me is that I have to pay for these subscriptions myself in order to get research done, and it isn’t that cheap! I think I have to spend about $600/year on the ACM and IEEE subscriptions.

  • johnlaudun

    In response to a comment below:

    “Server hardware is not all that expensive these days. Bandwidth is a little more so.”

    But good people are not inexpensive, and that is what really makes up a great deal of JSTOR.

  • wmartin46

    > But good people are not inexpensive, and that is what really makes up a great deal of JSTOR. 

    If you say so .. 

    The Wikipage on JSTOR does not provide any insight into the JSTOR organizational structure (or head-count):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR 

    But it does say–

    On September 7, JSTOR announced that they are releasing the public domain content of their archives to the public. According to JSTOR, they have been working on making those archives public for some time, and the recent controversy made them “press ahead” with this initiative.

    So .. the original suggestion is that there might be a market for inexpensive personal accounts — that’s all  

  • joneseagle

    COOL!

  • Ludo Totem

    JSTOR isn’t in business to make money; unlike Proquest (I think) and Ebsco, it’s a non-profit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lennox.odiemomunara Lennox Odiemo-Munara

    A great idea. Keep up JSTOR!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lennox.odiemomunara Lennox Odiemo-Munara

    A great idea. Keep up JSTOR!