My guess is that it would be extremely hard to tell, since they are bundled
together. I've often wondered about the amazing amount of redundancy or
overlap in the system.
Here, for example, are my library's holdings for ELH (chosen at random):
ELH (0013-8304)
from 1934 to 2004 in JSTOR Arts and Sciences I Collection
from Winter 1993 to present in Project MUSE - Premium Collection
from 12/01/2002 to 1 year ago in ProQuest Research Library (Legacy Platform)
from Winter 2002 to 1 year ago in Literature Online (LION)
in SDSU Print or Microform Holdings
When I've pointed this out to my librarian colleagues, they always say that
if we have these databases, we have to have everything they offer, and while
they overlap in some (many?) respects, in other ways each offers something
the other does not.
pch
On 12/5/10 1:24 PM, "Joel Davis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That's exactly right. I wonder, in fact, if humanities journals are actually
> more expensive to subscribe to as part of the JSTOR, MUSE, ProQuest, and Ebsco
> bundles than they were in print?
> Joel
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Peter Herman [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Where (o where) is the Spenser Review?
>
> My understanding is that itıs the science journals, not the humanities, that
> are eating up library budgets. Why Brain Research or Neurology Today needs to
> cost as much as my car, I have no idea.
>
> pch
>
>
> On 12/5/10 12:33 PM, "Bruce Danner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> The article that Tom references is online (link below), and extremely
> interesting. I have no wisdom to add to it, but am intrigued by the idea of a
> more open availability to journals, since they are gobbling up library budgets
> to dangerous levels.
>
> -BD
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/library-three-jeremiads/?
> page=1
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Thomas P Roche ([log in to unmask])"
> Sent: Dec 5, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Where (o where) is the Spenser Review?
>
> Dear folk, Re where is Spenser Review, etc. allof you should read Bob
> Darnton's Three Jeremiads
> in the current NYReview of Books. It will anwer a lot of questions you have
> not brought into your gripes and may even bring a possible avenue of support.
> Please read it and let us know. Tom Roche
>
>
>
>
>
> nue to bring such thoughts to AMS's
>> attention. Even some on-line essays can be hard to access if even
>> a pretty
>> rich library like Columbia's won't subscribe. We don't get the
>> website that
>> ELR is on and when I realized I had lost the volume with an essay
>> by me in
>> it and that I urgently needed a copy because I wrote it on a
>> typewriter--remember typewriters?--I had to pay thirty bloody
>> bucks just to
>> get my own article. Grrrr. But at least it's available. So: your
>> hardworkingeditorial team will continue to plead. In the meantime,
>> do keep those
>> submissions coming . . . Anne.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:12 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Further on *Spenser Studies, *for Anne, Bruce, and all --
>>>
>>> As a visiting co-editor, involved in the production of vol. 24
>> in the
>>> series, which ran to 526 pp. between its hard covers (and no
>> fewer pp. in a
>>> hypothetical softcover edition), I'd like to observe that we
>> have a problem
>>> that AMS alone can't solve. If there were fewer Spenserians and
>> they didn't
>>> write so much, the annual would cost somewhat less to produce.
>> But we have
>>> copia verborum atque rerum. If only Wikileaks were on our side!
>>>
>>> We must show understanding to David Ramm and the others in
>> charge at AMS
>>> Press. They take the essays presented to them and print them,
>> accurately,> without imposing limits on content or objecting when
>> the length exceeds
>>> estimates.
>>>
>>> I do hope that the editorial board for *Spenser Studies *will
>> work toward
>>> some arrangement whereby content will be available for download,
>> either at a
>>> cost per page or per article. The annual volume has never been
>> something I
>>> could afford to order for my own library, and many on this list
>> can't> justify the cost of a subscription for their academic home.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jon Quitslund
>>>
>>> --- On *Fri, 12/3/10, ANNE PRESCOTT <[log in to unmask]>* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: ANNE PRESCOTT <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Where (o where) is the Spenser Review?
>>>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 6:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh Bruce, on Spenser Studies--I do know. Really, really I do. A
>> painful> topic. All I can say is that AMS continues to explore
>> possibilities for
>>> posting back issues on the web (I'm not fully in the loop, so
>> I'm not being
>>> coy). Paperbacks? I feel the same way about Ashgate. All those
>> enticing> titles and four of them cost more than the airplane to
>> and from the
>>> conference where you see them. I will pass what you say along to
>> AMS,> though. I ardently understand, if that's not too mixed an
>> emotion. And I'd
>>> be willing to pay for hardcopy of Spenser Review. I like the
>> feel of paper.
>>> All best, Anne.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Danner
>> <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>> >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Spenser Review seems to be offline. Is it me, or can anyone
>> else bring
>>> it up?
>>>
>>> I have to say (apropos of recent posts) that I miss the physical
>> presence> of SR, and have not heard any options of getting an
>> annual volume via print.
>>> As others have noted, I don't read the notices, abstracts, and
>> reviews> online with the same attention to detail as I did in the
>> old print copies,
>>> mainly because the physical copies carried a real presence on the
>>> shelf/desk, and could be picked up and reread many times. A real
>> loss, it
>>> seems to me, an example of technology making us less connected
>> substantively> to each other's work. To say nothing of only having
>> $100 hardback copies of
>>> Spenser Studies available (there, I said it). Could not AMS be
>> prevailed> upon to issue softcover versions of the 2010 volume in
>> 2011 or '12? It would
>>> be different if Spenser Studies were available online, but until
>> (or if) it
>>> (ever) is, its desired market is prohibitively priced out, a
>> scholarly loss
>>> to us and a modest financial opportunity to AMS wasted, it would
>> seem to me.
>>>
>>> What gives?
>>>
>>> Bruce Danner
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "Cavanagh, Sheila T"
>> <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>> >
>>>> Sent: Oct 27, 2010 8:18 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<http://mc/compose?to=SIDNEY-
>> [log in to unmask]>> >Subject: Spenser Review
>>>>
>>>> Greetings. The new issue of Spenser Review is now available on
>> line.> Hope to see many of you at MLA.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> Sheila Cavanagh
>>>> Editor, Spenser Review
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole
>> use of
>>>> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>> privileged> >information. If the reader of this message is not
>> the intended
>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> distribution> >or copying of this message (including any
>> attachments) is strictly
>>>> prohibited.
>>>>
>>>> If you have received this message in error, please contact
>>>> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
>>>> original message (including attachments).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
|
