 |
 |
Is your library/ies archival policy duely stated? has your country a national archival policy? Are the licenses you sign with the editors absolutely clear on this matter? Are the savings editors promise really "savings" or just a way of attrackting libraries to e-journals? Will "bundles" stay with us for some time?...or again is a way marketing e-jornals? Which is the cost of "processing" e-journals that won´t probably stay with us for long? How is ILL service treated in these editor´s licences? Those and some more thoughts could be enough to be careful in taking our decisions...At least if our budget is not so high as U.S.S.academic libraries´ surely are! Let´s convince our academics "going" to repositories! Asunción Trénor Subdirectora Biblioteca General Area Hemeroteca Universidad Politécnica de Valencia SPAIN [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laura Cox" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Elsevier > It is common to find usage stats supporting the previously 'unwanted' > titles, for example, the OhioLink library consortium found that 52% of > usage came from titles not previously subscribed to. I would be > interested in understanding a little more about libraries reluctance to > move to e-only subscriptions, particularly considering the savings > offered by some publishers. > > Laura Cox > Consultant > > -----Original Message----- > From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mieko Yamaguchi > Sent: 03 December 2002 19:59 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Elsevier > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, E.P. Goldfinch wrote: > > > Since everyone seems to have a view on this one, it would be very > > interesting to me, as a publisher, to know whether the packages being > > purchased, containing both wanted and unwanted titles, are actually > cheaper > > than buying only the wanted titles individually. If so, that would > somewhat > > weaken the cause for complaint. > > Packages such as ScienceDirect and IDEAL of course contain both wanted > and > unwanted titles for most libraries. Deciding which titles are wanted or > unwanted is not that easy, however. We compared the list of titles to > which we did not subscribe in print and the additional cost of gaining > access to those titles through cross-access and decided to subscribe to > the > Elsevier ScienceDirect package but not to the IDEAL package. We placed > instead individual new orders which we had been holding back for titles > in > the IDEAL package. So you could say we decided to buy only the "wanted" > titles individually rather than purchasing the whole package. > > I was surprised when I first saw our ScienceDirect usage statistics > because > the majority of the most popular titles (based on full-text downloads) > were > titles which we had never subscribed to or which we had cancelled in the > past. > We were still receiving current issues of certain titles in print at the > time > which might have affected the usage. > > One year later 17 out of the top 30 titles are those which we had in > print > until the end of 2001. Six had been cancelled between 1981 and 1996 > mostly > for financial reasons. The other seven were never subscribed to by this > library. In a multi-disciplinary library it is not easy to guess which > are > "wanted" or "unwanted" titles in a multi-disciplinary package. > > One thing seems clear. The titles we subscribed to in print until the > end > of last year were not necessarily the titles that were "wanted" most. > > Mieko > ----- > Mieko Yamaguchi [log in to unmask] > Technical Services Manager/System Coordinator +44 (0)1248 382970 > Main Library, University of Wales Bangor, UK +44 (0)1248 382979 (Fax)