Hi Joanne,

I am in agreement with Lesley. I've just had a student ask why access is denied to content from 1997 from a Human Kinetics journal. Upon checking I find that the licence term should be 5-years rolling access. However, Ebscohost EJS has our access incorrectly displayed as 1997 to present for this title, hence the confusion. I'm now having to check all our other Human Kinetics titles. If only perpetual access (with or without access fee) was the norm...

Best wishes,

Dominic Benson
--
[log in to unmask]
Electronic Resources Librarian, Systems Office, 
Brunel University Library, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK.
Tel: +44(0)1895 266143, Fax: +44(0)1895 269742



-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group on behalf of Lesley Crawshaw
Sent: Fri 12/01/2007 11:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publisher policies and rolling archives
 
Hi Joanne,

Our problem is with the moving wall for the current content. We don't want
to be forced to purchase the archive in order to avoid the problems with the
moving wall. If you had a fixed wall it wouldn't be so much of a problem as
we could consider the purchasing of the archive as a separate issue. Of
course the simplest option for us would be a single subscription that gave
us access to the whole archive as is the case with some societies that have
digitized their backfiles or even better a freely available archive which is
what many other societies have done. Anything but a moving wall!

I did raise this with you directly when we were trying to clarify your
policy back in May 2006 and said that I thought that librarians preferred
fixed walls for current subscriptions. I also said I would canvas this list
to try and gauge whether my views were a true reflection of other
librarians' views in order to assist you with your policy. I also tried to
explain the problems that we might face if we didn't purchase the archive
and the workload issues that these moving walls cause us.  

Although the purchase of your archives looks a good deal, you also fail to
realise that there is a workload issue as well as a funding issue for us in
purchasing archives. My institution doesn't yet have a policy re: which
archives we will and won't purchase. We would prefer to make the decision on
whether or not to purchase you archive in our own time, rather than be
forced to purchase the archive in order to avoid having to lose content year
on year as it is moved into the archive.


Cheers
Lesley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lesley Crawshaw, Faculty Information Consultant, 
Learning and Information Services 
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 01707 284662 fax: 01707 284666
list owner: [log in to unmask]
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joanne Jessen
Sent: 11 January 2007 21:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publisher policies and rolling archives

We at ASHA have been discussing your comments re our moving wall policy and
frankly we're a bit puzzled. Can you clarify why you might prefer to pay
year after year to have an archive included with your subscription rather
than pay one time for an archive with a moving wall and perpetual access?
Thanks a lot.

Joanne Jessen
Director of Publications
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 

-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lesley Crawshaw
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publisher policies and rolling archives

Hi Louise,

Well it's obviously going to be another wonderful year for electronic
journal problems!

I found out about this back in October 2006 and did raise the issue with the
publisher who told me that the current subscription had always been a
rolling wall but that they had never enforced it because "they didn't have
an archive to substitute for it". Because of this we changed our mind about
going online only from 2007 and reverted back to print/online. 

They did inform me that the other alternative was to only allow access to
the current year and have a separate subscription for the archive. They also
informed me that in discussion with many libraries (just who are these
libraries?) they were "guided towards keeping our 1+4 policy, and offering
the archives with a one-time fee for each archives. The 1st archive (-5 back
to 1990) covers at least eight years that was not previously available to
libraries from us, and includes recently re-keyed metadata to enhance the
search capabilities. This archive will have a modest annual maintenance fee
to cover the admin costs with HighWire. The 2nd archive (1989 - 1952) will
be offered for a very modest one-time fee (no annual fee) to cover some of
the archiving costs, and again will present materials previously not
available electronically. In short, a library would be able to clear its
shelves of the old issues knowing that they have secured the content online.
Between these two archives, the full run of back content will be available".

I was asked not to raise this on this list as they promised to send me
another "press" release with this information firmed up. However I never
received any further information from them.

I agree that this is a real headache for all of us and it looks to be an
increasing trend by some society publishers to have moving walls associated
with the purchase of a separate archive product as the only means for
avoiding the problems you describe with moving walls. 

We have a similar problem with the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association where the online archive has to be purchased separately. Both
myself and Anna Sansome at UCL were in correspondence with them earlier last
year trying to clarify just what their policy is as the information on their
web site is contradictory (or it was when we last looked at it). They
informed us that "we do have a moving wall policy. With your 2007
subscription, you will get 2005, 2006, and 2007. If you have purchased the
archive, it will automatically be extended through 2004. If you were to not
subscribe in 2008 (which of course we hope will not be the case), you would
continue to have the archive through 2007. We will continue to give you
access to whatever you have purchased in the past. This is what we were told
librarians wanted, and we are keeping our fingers crossed that they respond
well to it, and that we can make this clear to them on our site". The more
questions we asked the more confused it all got! I am afraid in the end I
just had to move onto other more pressing problems. I understand UCL has
purchased the archive. 

I do wonder who these librarians are that publishers keep quoting in support
of their moving wall policies. Are there any on this list that want to stand
up for these moving walls?

I don't understand why rather than sell the archive or license it separately
there isn't an option to just include the archive as part of the normal
subscription by possibly raising the cost by a small additional charge.
Surely the most important things for all journals is that they get used not
that their access is more and more restricted. Simple is best.

I'd better stop now!

Cheers
Lesley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lesley Crawshaw, Faculty Information Consultant, 
Learning and Information Services 
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 01707 284662 fax: 01707 284666
list owner: [log in to unmask]
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by the UK Serials Group
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Louise Cole
Sent: 10 January 2007 08:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Publisher policies and rolling archives

Hi all,

You may remember some publishers introducing rolling archives on their
e-journals, then abandoning the policy when it proved to be unpopular.

Another publisher has told us about its rolling archive policy.
INFORMS, on its recent move to Highwire, has now blocked access to 2001
issues and informed us 'they always had a 4 year archive policy, but
were unable to enforce it'.

Did anyone know about it?

My worry now is that the move to Highwire will mean subscribers lose two
years worth of archives as soon as the first 2007 issues appear on site
- 2002 articles are currently available.  It might make sense to INFORMS
- but since they never let their subscribers know about the policy they
may find some complaints as the regular customers at various
institutions wonder where the 2001/2 content has gone.

The rolling archive is difficult to maintain and difficult to explain to
our customers.

INFORMS tell me they are putting together an archive product to sell to
the market ... Is this a trend we are going to start seeing from
publishers?  I for one think this is a step backwards in e-access
provision.

Louise

Louise Cole
Electronic Resources Team Leader
Health Sciences Library
Level 7 Worsley Building
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
 
Tel: 0113 34 35502
Fax: 0113 34 34381
 
E-mail: [log in to unmask]