Like everyone else, we can't afford to subscribe to as many journals as we
would like. We do subscribe to some aggregated databases which are valuable
as additional resources - additional to our subscribed titles.
We wouldn't consider cancelling any title simply because of its inclusion by
an aggregator. The only way to be sure of continuing access, and to current
issues, is to have a contract with the publisher. So, if a title is
important, that means having a subscription to the title. If it isn't
important, or if the pricing is punitive, we wouldn't subscribe whether an
aggregator has it or not.
In fact, inclusion in an aggregation service can provide a good shop window
for a publisher. We do check the detailed usage statistics to see whether
there are titles which are becoming essential, and which we might wish to
subscribe to individually so as to ensure access.
I suppose, too, that authors might consider whether inclusion in an
aggregation service might boost the impact of their articles, by making them
available to a non-traditional readership.
John Medforth
Systems Librarian
University of Brighton
|