Yes, you are right that 3,000 accesses per week to 3,000
journals is one per week on average. So far this month we
have had 9099 accesses; 700 journals have not been used at
all, and 91 have been used 10 times or more (highest 244).
One of the reasons for the low response to some titles is
that we get many journals through global publisher deals
(principally Science Direct and ABI-Inform) and so they do
not necessarily correspond with our research interests. I
hope the market can develop away from this model in the
future and allow us to target those titles we really want.
Stuart
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:50:49 +0100 "E.P. Goldfinch"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My response is intended to be seen by all!
>
> I have read with interest the recent and past correspondence concerning
> access to e-journals. Much of the correspondence seems to indicate that
> access to e-journals is not so simple and popular with readers after all. I
> would be intrigued to know which publishers, small or large, actually find
> a net cost benefit from the ventures. I was very sceptical at the time of
> writing my articles that appeared in the recent issue of 'Learned
> Publishing' but I am even more convinced now that it is very unlikely that
> small publishers would gain by going on-line. I was most intrigued by the
> figures provided by Stuart Rawson from Belfast, namely 3000 accesses per
> week for 3000 journals available. My simple arithmetic tells me that that
> is one access per journal per week, on average, and if any journal gets 10
> accesses 9 other get none (on average). Perhaps I misunderstood.
>
> E.P. Goldfinch
> Nuclear Technology Publishing
> P.O. Box No 7, Ashford, Kent TN23 1YW, England
> File reference:
> Telephone: (+44) (0) 1233 641683
> Fax: (+44) (0) 1233 610021
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Web site: http://www.ntp.org.uk
Stuart Rawson [log in to unmask]
Queen's University of Belfast Library Belfast BT7 1LS
028 90273831 fax 028 90323340
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|