We appreciate the comments from our library customers on the rolling
policy set by the INFORMS board and our archive plans -- the best
feedback we have received from the library community. We hear you and
are giving serious reconsideration to this policy and how we could
balance the increased online costs of changing our business model with
our efforts as a small society to keep subscription prices low.
We expect to announce any changes in time for the ACRL conference in
Baltimore, where we encourage our library customers to stop by our booth
to discuss their concerns with us. Unfortunately we will not be at the
UKSG conference this year, but we will keep this list informed as well.
With kind regards,
Patricia S. Shaffer
Director of Publications
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
[log in to unmask] <http://www.informs.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anna Sansome
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rolling Archive Policy
Dear all,
Further to the comments about the ACS, remember that Sage also announced
a move away from it's rolling archives policy in 2005, stating that
"SAGE is committed to serving the needs of our markets and we believe
that this change in our backfile policy illustrates our willingness to
listen and act on the ongoing feedback provided by the SAGE Library
Advisory Boards".
I would also agree that rolling years are totally undesirable - they are
difficult to administer and difficult to explain to users. As Louise
says, the majority of publishers don't use this policy and we have two
recent examples of publishers actively moving away from it.
I really think that INFORMS should reconsider it's policy.
Anna
At 14:44 12/03/2007, you wrote:
>Louise et al,
>
>Yes, I completely agree that 'rolling years' online subscriptions are
>utterly undesirable. We don't throw away our print copies of INFORMS
>journals once they are more than four years old, so why do INFORMS
>imagine that we want to do that with the online version?
>
>It is intersting to note that when ACS changed from their "current year
>plus four additional years" policy to "content from 1996 onwards" they
>said that this was "a direct outgrowth of our ongoing commitment to
>listen to our customers, enhance their satisfaction and expand access
>to our content".
>
>So ACS say librarians want access back to a fixed year and INFORMS say
>we want rolling years!
>
>My preferred model is that current subscribers should be granted online
>access to all available years (or to a fixed year where the publisher
>also has an archive product), but upon cancellation would only retain
>access to the years that they subscribed.
>
>For archive products I prefer the choice of a purchase or subscription.
>I am happy for the archive to expand annually by adding one year's
>content, but only if that leads to an overlap with the 'current
>subscription' product. A subscription to, or purchase of, an archive
>product should NEVER be required just to hold on to content that you
>have already paid for through a current subscription.
>
>
>Terry Bucknell
>Electronic Resources Manager
>Sydney Jones Library
>University of Liverpool
>Chatham St, PO Box 123
>Liverpool, L69 3DA, UK
>Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2692
>Fax: +44 (0)151 794 2681
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Louise Cole
>Sent: 12 March 2007 14:18
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Rolling Archive Policy
>
>Dear Patricia (copied to the list as your message was sent out on it to
>all members)
>
>I have read your message, posted to the list a few weeks ago, with
>increasing disappointment and concern, and after some consideration
>would like to comment on several points.
>
>1. You quote that there is an 'established publishers' standard' that
>allows access to online material for the current year plus four archive
>years. Not so. The vast majority of publishers include an online
>archive back to years in the late 1990s; some are even more generous.
>Few have adopted rolling archives, such as the one introduced by
>INFORMS, and those who have are more than aware that it is not a
>practice welcomed by the library or academic community.
>
>2. You imply that the rolling archive policy was always made
>transparent by INFORMS in its online terms and conditions. Not true -
>if this was the case it would have been generally known. The fact
>that, as a previous message by Randy Kiefer states, INFORMS was unable
>to enforce this policy due to technical restrictions, means little if
>we never knew about it in the first place! I was also more than a
>little dismayed to read that the rolling archive policy had been
>adopted as 'that is what librarians want'. Ask any librarian and I
>really do not think the consensus will be that the loss of a year's
>online content each year is what we want. Your comments on the
>technical problems previous to the Highwire move being 'a challenge'
hardly help.
>
>3. You state below that 'The rolling access meshes with access to
>embargoed content through aggregators such as EBSCO, ProQuest and
>JSTOR.'
>Irrelevant, surely? We are talking about subscribers to your journals,
>not subscribers of these databases. Embargo arrangements with
>databases are quite different.
>
>4. Now to your third paragraph, and the crux of the matter. You state
>that 'INFORMS will indeed be introducing an archival product in the
>near future that will cover all issues back to volume 1, issue 1 for
>all our journals ... Archive I will include issues from 1985 to the end
>of the coverage of a current subscription. Every year, the oldest year
>in the current subscription will become part of Archive I. This product
>will have a one-time purchase price and a modest annual maintenance
fee.'
>Let me get this straight in my mind. Each current subscription
>includes four (or this year, five) years of back access. At the end of
>that subscription the earliest year included in a current subscription
>moves into a large archive which has to be purchased as a whole. Call
>me a bit cynical but isn't this effectively removing the content from
>view unless an institution has the funds to purchase a whole archive?
>
>5. Back to that rolling archive policy. I quote from your message
>below: 'Once the archives are available for purchase, our subscription
>policy will revert to our current year plus four years access format.
>This policy was developed by our board, whose members were primarily
>academics, when INFORMS went online in 1999.' Now things become a
>little clearer.
>The policy was developed largely by academics, but not made public to
>subscribers. Institutions who subscribe do so to support learning,
>teaching and research: i.e. to support the work of academics. I
>question whether the INFORMS board clearly understood the implications
>of their policy; or was it thought to be of little importance until the
>access COULD be technically restricted? Sort of 'what they don't know
>can't hurt them?' I can assure you that academics who use the content
>often think it appears by magic and feel extremely short-changed if any
>part of a subscription is suddenly removed; as they should, as
>publications are only purchased and maintained to support their key
>areas of study.
>
>I'd like to ask if others feel as strongly as I do about this matter.
>I have already raised the rolling archive policy change with my senior
>colleagues at Leeds and they are considering a discussion at a higher
>level at SCONUL on this and other e-access issues which affect the
>provision of a high quality, reliable service to our customers.
>
>With best wishes
>Louise
>
>Louise Cole
>Electronic Resources Team Leader
>University of Leeds
>Leeds
>LS2 9JT
>
>tel: 0113 34 35502
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>co-owner lis-e-journals
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>---
>
>Patricia S. Shaffer writes:
>
>On January 10, Louise Cole of the University of Leeds expressed her
>concern abut INFORMS' rolling archive policy. Her concerns are serious
>and deserve an explanation, as well as appropriate action on our part.
>INFORMS current subscriptions, following an established publishers'
>standard, cover access for the current year plus four archive years
>(2007- 2003). Our online terms and conditions have always stated that
>INFORMS provides online service with a service period from January 1st
>to December 31st of the subscription year. Annual renewals are required
>for continued access to the current plus four years. The rolling access
>meshes with access to embargoed content through aggregators such as
>EBSCO, ProQuest and JSTOR. INFORMS has never restricted participation
>to specific aggregators, to ensure the broadest possible access to our
>archival content prior to the period covered in current subscriptions.
>The challenge has been to maintain those rules of access in place with
>our journal hosts; unfortunately, we were largely unsuccessful until we
>moved to HighWire.
>
>INFORMS faced a new challenge this year. The recent transition to
>HighWire as the host for INFORMS, where these rules are now actually in
>effect, would have discontinued access to the 2002 journal year to all
>2006 subscribers after our grace period of February 15th. 2007-only
>subscribers are limited to issues beginning in 2003. Given the change
>in hosts and the inconsistent enforcement of the rules before moving to
>HighWire, we are setting a special policy for this year. INFORMS will
>extend access to current plus five years for 2007 subscriptions
>(2007-2002). There will be no loss of access to 2002 issues for 2007
>renewals and new subscribers.
>
>As Ms. Cole points out, INFORMS will indeed be introducing an archival
>product in the near future that will cover all issues back to volume 1,
>issue 1 for all our journals. This archive will offer hundreds of
>issues never before available electronically directly through INFORMS
>to libraries. The metadata is being rekeyed and organized to allow more
>in- depth searches at the keyword and abstract level. INFORMS plans to
>introduce the archives in two parts. Archive I will include issues from
>1985 to the end of the coverage of a current subscription. Every year,
>the oldest year in the current subscription will become part of Archive
>I.
>This product will have a one-time purchase price and a modest annual
>maintenance fee. Archive II will cover issues from 1984-1952, and will
>offer the balance of issues from the six oldest INFORMS journals.
>Archive II will have a modest one-time fee to cover the administrative
>costs. Both archives will be hosted at HighWire and tracked in the
>usage reports, and will be available for abstract/keyword searches.
>Pricing and release dates are not yet finalized. INFORMS will publish
>this information when it is available.
>
>Once the archives are available for purchase, our subscription policy
>will revert to our current year plus four years access format. This
>policy was developed by our board, whose members were primarily
>academics, when INFORMS went online in 1999. The business rules are
>based on the observation that our most valuable research material is
>found in the current five years of journal articles. As noted above,
>the backfile articles are also available from several aggregators.
>
>Feel free to contact us with your concerns. If you have strong opinions
>about INFORMS journals, we'll even welcome you to an INFORMS library
>panel. Direct your comments to
>
>Patricia S. Shaffer
>Director of Publications
>Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
>(443) 757-3500 ext. 570
>[log in to unmask] <http://www.informs.org>
Anna Sansome
E-Journals Administrator
UCL Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7679 7380
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Have you tried MetaLib yet? http://metalib.ucl.ac.uk The new electronic
resource gateway from UCL Library Services.
|
