Louise, Terry et al
The points made by Louise and Terry are very pertinent and well put.
It is very irksome to find one is purchasing an amorphous and transient
product.
Michael Roberts
Head of Acquisitions Division
Andersonian Library
University of Strathclyde
101 St James' Road, Glasgow G4 0NS
Tel: +44 (0)141 548 4602
Email: [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 Bucknell, Terry
> Sent: 12 March 2007 14:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rolling Archive Policy
>
> Louise et al,
>
> Yes, I completely agree that 'rolling years' online
> subscriptions are utterly undesirable. We don't throw away
> our print copies of INFORMS journals once they are more than
> four years old, so why do INFORMS imagine that we want to do
> that with the online version?
>
> It is intersting to note that when ACS changed from their
> "current year plus four additional years" policy to "content
> from 1996 onwards" they said that this was "a direct
> outgrowth of our ongoing commitment to listen to our
> customers, enhance their satisfaction and expand access to
> our content".
>
> So ACS say librarians want access back to a fixed year and
> INFORMS say we want rolling years!
>
> My preferred model is that current subscribers should be
> granted online access to all available years (or to a fixed
> year where the publisher also has an archive product), but
> upon cancellation would only retain access to the years that
> they subscribed.
>
> For archive products I prefer the choice of a purchase or
> subscription.
> I am happy for the archive to expand annually by adding one
> year's content, but only if that leads to an overlap with the
> 'current subscription' product. A subscription to, or
> purchase of, an archive product should NEVER be required just
> to hold on to content that you have already paid for through
> a current subscription.
>
>
> Terry Bucknell
> Electronic Resources Manager
> Sydney Jones Library
> University of Liverpool
> Chatham St, PO Box 123
> Liverpool, L69 3DA, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2692
> Fax: +44 (0)151 794 2681
>
>
> -----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: 12 March 2007 14:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rolling Archive Policy
>
> Dear Patricia (copied to the list as your message was sent
> out on it to all members)
>
> I have read your message, posted to the list a few weeks ago,
> with increasing disappointment and concern, and after some
> consideration would like to comment on several points.
>
> 1. You quote that there is an 'established publishers'
> standard' that allows access to online material for the
> current year plus four archive years. Not so. The vast
> majority of publishers include an online archive back to
> years in the late 1990s; some are even more generous.
> Few have adopted rolling archives, such as the one introduced
> by INFORMS, and those who have are more than aware that it is
> not a practice welcomed by the library or academic community.
>
> 2. You imply that the rolling archive policy was always made
> transparent by INFORMS in its online terms and conditions.
> Not true - if this was the case it would have been generally
> known. The fact that, as a previous message by Randy Kiefer
> states, INFORMS was unable to enforce this policy due to
> technical restrictions, means little if we never knew about
> it in the first place! I was also more than a little
> dismayed to read that the rolling archive policy had been
> adopted as 'that is what librarians want'. Ask any librarian
> and I really do not think the consensus will be that the loss
> of a year's online content each year is what we want. Your
> comments on the technical problems previous to the Highwire
> move being 'a challenge' hardly help.
>
> 3. You state below that 'The rolling access meshes with
> access to embargoed content through aggregators such as
> EBSCO, ProQuest and JSTOR.'
> Irrelevant, surely? We are talking about subscribers to your
> journals, not subscribers of these databases. Embargo
> arrangements with databases are quite different.
>
> 4. Now to your third paragraph, and the crux of the matter.
> You state that 'INFORMS will indeed be introducing an
> archival product in the near future that will cover all
> issues back to volume 1, issue 1 for all our journals ...
> Archive I will include issues from 1985 to the end of the
> coverage of a current subscription. Every year, the oldest
> year in the current subscription will become part of Archive
> I. This product will have a one-time purchase price and a
> modest annual maintenance fee.'
> Let me get this straight in my mind. Each current
> subscription includes four (or this year, five) years of back
> access. At the end of that subscription the earliest year
> included in a current subscription moves into a large archive
> which has to be purchased as a whole. Call me a bit cynical
> but isn't this effectively removing the content from view
> unless an institution has the funds to purchase a whole archive?
>
> 5. Back to that rolling archive policy. I quote from your message
> below: 'Once the archives are available for purchase, our
> subscription policy will revert to our current year plus four
> years access format.
> This policy was developed by our board, whose members were
> primarily academics, when INFORMS went online in 1999.' Now
> things become a little clearer.
> The policy was developed largely by academics, but not made
> public to subscribers. Institutions who subscribe do so to
> support learning, teaching and research: i.e. to support the
> work of academics. I question whether the INFORMS board
> clearly understood the implications of their policy; or was
> it thought to be of little importance until the access COULD
> be technically restricted? Sort of 'what they don't know
> can't hurt them?' I can assure you that academics who use
> the content often think it appears by magic and feel
> extremely short-changed if any part of a subscription is
> suddenly removed; as they should, as publications are only
> purchased and maintained to support their key areas of study.
>
> I'd like to ask if others feel as strongly as I do about this
> matter. I have already raised the rolling archive policy
> change with my senior colleagues at Leeds and they are
> considering a discussion at a higher level at SCONUL on this
> and other e-access issues which affect the provision of a
> high quality, reliable service to our customers.
>
> With best wishes
> Louise
>
> Louise Cole
> Electronic Resources Team Leader
> University of Leeds
> Leeds
> LS2 9JT
>
> tel: 0113 34 35502
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> co-owner lis-e-journals
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ---
>
> Patricia S. Shaffer writes:
>
> On January 10, Louise Cole of the University of Leeds
> expressed her concern abut INFORMS' rolling archive policy.
> Her concerns are serious and deserve an explanation, as well
> as appropriate action on our part.
> INFORMS current subscriptions, following an established publishers'
> standard, cover access for the current year plus four archive years
> (2007- 2003). Our online terms and conditions have always
> stated that INFORMS provides online service with a service
> period from January 1st to December 31st of the subscription
> year. Annual renewals are required for continued access to
> the current plus four years. The rolling access meshes with
> access to embargoed content through aggregators such as
> EBSCO, ProQuest and JSTOR. INFORMS has never restricted
> participation to specific aggregators, to ensure the broadest
> possible access to our archival content prior to the period
> covered in current subscriptions.
> The challenge has been to maintain those rules of access in
> place with our journal hosts; unfortunately, we were largely
> unsuccessful until we moved to HighWire.
>
> INFORMS faced a new challenge this year. The recent
> transition to HighWire as the host for INFORMS, where these
> rules are now actually in effect, would have discontinued
> access to the 2002 journal year to all
> 2006 subscribers after our grace period of February 15th.
> 2007-only subscribers are limited to issues beginning in
> 2003. Given the change in hosts and the inconsistent
> enforcement of the rules before moving to HighWire, we are
> setting a special policy for this year. INFORMS will extend
> access to current plus five years for 2007 subscriptions
> (2007-2002). There will be no loss of access to 2002 issues
> for 2007 renewals and new subscribers.
>
> As Ms. Cole points out, INFORMS will indeed be introducing an
> archival product in the near future that will cover all
> issues back to volume 1, issue 1 for all our journals. This
> archive will offer hundreds of issues never before available
> electronically directly through INFORMS to libraries. The
> metadata is being rekeyed and organized to allow more in-
> depth searches at the keyword and abstract level. INFORMS
> plans to introduce the archives in two parts. Archive I will
> include issues from
> 1985 to the end of the coverage of a current subscription.
> Every year, the oldest year in the current subscription will
> become part of Archive I.
> This product will have a one-time purchase price and a modest
> annual maintenance fee. Archive II will cover issues from
> 1984-1952, and will offer the balance of issues from the six
> oldest INFORMS journals.
> Archive II will have a modest one-time fee to cover the
> administrative costs. Both archives will be hosted at
> HighWire and tracked in the usage reports, and will be
> available for abstract/keyword searches. Pricing and release
> dates are not yet finalized. INFORMS will publish this
> information when it is available.
>
> Once the archives are available for purchase, our
> subscription policy will revert to our current year plus four
> years access format. This policy was developed by our board,
> whose members were primarily academics, when INFORMS went
> online in 1999. The business rules are based on the
> observation that our most valuable research material is found
> in the current five years of journal articles. As noted
> above, the backfile articles are also available from several
> aggregators.
>
> Feel free to contact us with your concerns. If you have
> strong opinions about INFORMS journals, we'll even welcome
> you to an INFORMS library panel. Direct your comments to
>
> Patricia S. Shaffer
> Director of Publications
> Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences
> (INFORMS)
> (443) 757-3500 ext. 570
> [log in to unmask] <http://www.informs.org>
>
|
