Librarian Rachel Caldwell, in a [Scholarly Kitchen post]( from January:

> Many vendors supplying academic libraries with collections and other resources engage in practices that are not only markedly out of step with the values of libraries but also misaligned with the broader values of many public institutions of higher education (HE). […] Publishers and citation index providers are important examples of vendors often out of sync with such values, not least because of the tremendous amounts of money institutions of HE pay them.

Caldwell, in the [post]( and an accompanying [journal article](, proposes to score publishers for their good citizenship. She awards points, basically, to publishers—not just their titles, but as full-fledged organizations—according to whether they match the academic community's values. So a publisher like Elsevier, for example, might get dinged for a history of lobbying against broader access, or for steep APCs. Indeed, in Caldwell's [sample chart](, California's eScholarship Publishing edges out Elsevier by a two-to-one margin.

It's a good idea, though I doubt a single-score metric is the best route to take. It's Caldwell's [core idea](—to make mission alignment a key criterion in library spending—that's worth emulating.