And in this case the publisher has a pretty good "lawful excuse" - they
can't find a print copy of the issue to digitise and add to their online
backfiles.
ScienceDirect do have a spreadsheet, listing of the issues missing from
their backfiles:
http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/backfiles/collections/a_consolidated_missing_source_list.xls
and they say that "Elsevier is doing all that is possible to trace these
sources at Editorial Offices and University Libraries."
So I suggest we all root through our dusty dead-runs, see how many of the
missing issues we have, and then haggle with Elsevier over price! ;-)
Terry Bucknell
Electronic Resources Manager
Harold Cohen Library
University of Liverpool
PO Box 123 Liverpool L69 3DA
Tel: +44 (0)151 794 5408 Fax: +44 (0)151 794 5417
Email: [log in to unmask]
--On 11 February 2005 09:54 +0000 Laurence Bebbington
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The publisher is unlikely to be in breach. Most e-content contracts have
> disclaimers or exclusions relating to uninterrupted service, temporary
> withdrawal or unavailability of content etc. These are widely drawn.
> They often only state that access to content itself or to a system is not
> likely to be uninterrupted for various reasons. They might include
> specific exclusions for error-correction, completeness etc. and routine
> maintenance for systems. It seems to me that one of these or something
> similar will cover the temporary unavailability of content which is
> damaged or unuseable in some way particularly if it is for that very
> essential purpose of restoring the content to a useable form. If the
> content has been hacked or damaged in some way making it difficult to
> restore or replace then perhaps that possibly may take some time. The
> exclusions are likely to cover the provider.
>
> A contract is only breached when one party fails to perform under the
> contract "without lawful excuse" (Treitel, Law of Contract) and that, in
> my view anyway, is probably not the case here - but one would need to
> know the precise reason for the temporary withdrawal.
>
> In my view the problem (if people felt it was a significant issue) could
> be addressed by different means - possibly by model service level
> provisions in e-content contracts. They could increasingly address the
> issue of withdrawal/replacement/unavailability and other issues. For
> example:
>
> - frequently libraries only discover that content has become unavailable
> when someone reports it (as in this case). All contracts should have
> provisions *requiring* publishers to advise of reasons for withdrawal in
> every case - the notification shoud give an indication of the reason for
> withdrawal and how long it is likely to be unavailable - alternatives
> might be offered or the supply of a paper copy at the publisher's expense
> for the user concerned - libraries should be notified when the content
> is restored
>
> However, the view might be taken that if only 0.1% of content is
> unavailable at any one time that that level of performance is decidedly
> high.
>
> Laurence
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 10/02/05 16:08:49 >>>
> It seems to me that the publisher in question is in breach of its contract
> with the University; check the terms of the contract and in particular,
> what remedies there are for breach of contract. If there isn't a clause
> allowing the University to withhold part of the payment for such a
> breach, it should make sure thart in the next version of the contract
> there is such a clause!
>
> Charles
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509-223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alison McNab" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:22 PM
> Subject: missing issues in e-journal collections
>
>
> [Please note this enquiry does not relate to current or recently published
> issues or to loss of access due to non-gracing of subscriptions in
> January...]
>
> One of our academic staff at the University of Nottingham has just
> forwarded correspondence he has had with a major journal publisher
> concerning a missing issue of a title we subscribe to in electronic
> format. The volume is from 1990 and the publisher's response was to
> send our researcher information about the company's "repair and
> replacement procedures" for e-content. The publisher rtegretted that
> "the repair or replacement of content can, in some cases, take a
> considerable amount of time" and, interestingly, noted that "we currently
> have around 0.1% of missing content".
>
> Our academic, well aware of the fact that about 40% of our serial budget
> is spent with this particular publisher, feels that the expression of
> regret isn't good enough, and we should expect compensation from the
> publisher. I'm not sure how often users experience missing (non-current)
> issues of e-journals - I suspect that only the motivated bother to
> inform either the publisher or library staff. However, I'd be
> interested in any anecdotal experience list members may have, especially
> if you have received compensation.
>
> Alison
> --
> Alison McNab
> Head of Academic Services
> Research & Learning Resources Division
> Information Services
> The University of Nottingham
> University Park
> NOTTINGHAM NG7 2RD
> Tel: 0115 846 7622
> Fax: 0115 951 4558
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your
> computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your
> computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
|