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)
|