&gt; “We are trying to best meet the needs of our community despite budget cuts in the last few years, the greediness of commercial publishers, and the weak Canadian dollar,&quot;<p>Money&#x27;s short, thus expenses have to be cut somewhere. Very understandable.<p>&gt; UdeM Libraries will renew access to 150 of the 2,266 journals included in this collection. <i></i>The price we will pay<i></i> for these individual subscriptions in 2016 <i></i>is the same we<i></i> were willing to <i></i>pay for the entire collection<i></i>.<p>So... you <i>save literally zero</i> zilch nichts, except you now hold 85% less things. In other words, this whole action is meaningless.<p>Also,<p>&gt; A survey conducted recently with the university community established that only 256 titles (or 11.6%) within the Springer collection are needed for research and teaching at UdeM.<p>That rubs me in a wrong way, you don&#x27;t know wether you can use a paper for your own research or teaching until you&#x27;ve read it, meaning until your <i>need</i> for it has been satisfied. (edit) Lucky stumbles do happen, and I generally don&#x27;t like the idea of scaling a scientific library down. Strictly speaking, UdeM&#x27;s library actually continues to grow, only at 15% of the previous rate, since old issues aren&#x27;t being thrown out. But we seem fine relying on (economic) growth as an accurate measure of well-being, so why not apply it here? Then remember the non-existant economic advantage (which should be around an 85% payment cut), and the whole thing stops making any sense.<p>Depending on which and how many branches a university has, 256 journals can mean a whole lot or ridiculously little literature about each subject. I don&#x27;t know UdeM, so I can&#x27;t judge them.<p>Add the little sentence<p>&gt; Springer’s articles end up being 225% more expensive at UdeM compared to Elsevier’s.<p>and this whole move starts stinking like there&#x27;s no tomorrow.<p>(edit) That last sentence may be a bit harsh, but I do believe this should not be taken at face value (something&#x27;s missing).<p>(rewordings)