From: "Bhatt, Anjana" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:12:53 +0000

Here at FGCU, for several years, we maintained subscriptions in
multiple format for the top 25 journals in each discipline because no
one really  was sure about the completeness of electronic access.  Our
patrons specifically wanted print copies for mathematics and arts
journals where various formulas and pictures have to be seen in either
color or exact specifications.  Also, if the PDF version was not
available, we did not cancel because citations becomes problems if
exact paginations details are not available.

Now our faculty and students are used to electronic access and we have
PDF availability for most of the aggregators.  So,  for the past five
years or so, we have undertaken a journal review project every year
and identified journals in multiple formats.  If a specific journal is
available in an aggregator, we make a case for dropping it by checking
the usage and ILL data etc.  And if the librarian and the concerned
faculty member are comfortable cancelling, we go ahead.  Our budget,
over the years, has remain constant and this year we are facing a
budget cut, so there is no option but to save money by subscribing to
journals in just one format, either print or online.

I agree that aggregators are not dependable and drop and add journals
all the time but now we have learned to live with it.  Nothing is
perfect, so if the coverage changes or the publisher introduces an
embargo, we can always go back and re-subscribe.  It is a practical
solution that works for us. It is interesting to note that other
libraries think otherwise.


Thank you.

Anjana  H. Bhatt
University Librarian (Electronic Resources)
Florida Gulf Coast University
Fort Myers, FL: 33965-6565
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://library.fgcu.edu/FAC/abhatt/bhatt.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:04:41 -0400

While I agree completely with the previous posters, unfortunately I
have been part of groups that have made the opposite decision. Yes:

* aggregator access is very unreliable (no notice changes to coverage, mid-year)

* some publisher interfaces have very sophisticated tools included
that make them very attractive (I had a blog post about this some time
ago and spoke to an SSP meeting about what's worth paying for)

* embargoes are a bad thing and, depending on the field, immediate
access is important

But... in extremis, and many libraries are in extremis, if all of the
peripheral and less used and poorer quality journals have already been
cut and you are down to cutting the core. .. If you are not only
cutting the core, but cutting those journals that your best
customers/patrons/users and your squeaky wheels use? Yes,
unfortunately, libraries will cut subscriptions and rely on access
through an aggregator.

A local university cut the most central journals for aggregator access
because the owning department was maintaining a local copy (and other
departments doing interdisciplinary work could use the embargoed
database access).

This is just my opinion and does not reflect any official policy of
any institution I have a relationship with.

Christina K Pikas
Librarian
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: "Renison, Neil" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:28:31 +0000

Hello Bill,

Answers to your questions will relate to circumstances of specific
institutions; whether there is a "general view" might emerge from the
responses.

A local view (Research Uni. 14,000 FTE) is that we don't check what is
in a database and cancel subscriptions.  In our prime research areas
we subscribe to the publisher's online journal because it is generally
a superior service and not likely to be dropped as can happen with
aggregations.  One benefit of the aggregations is that these provide
cheap access to journals that we probably would not subscribe to
directly.  At the margin, especially in areas where there are limited
funds, we may decide not to subscribe to a title that we can already
access in an aggregation.  Embargo periods will have some influence on
that decision.  To turn this argument on its head, if we were to
cancel an aggregation, I expect there would be very few individual
subscriptions taken up to compensate.

Of course if an aggregation satisfies client demands we may never get
a request to subscribe.  It is also true that aggregations compete for
the same pot of money (as do publisher collections and packages);
however our experience is that they have a modest impact on
subscriptions to individual titles.  What we do experience is
considerable duplication of titles between aggregations plus
duplication with publisher collections or individual subscriptions;
but whenever I have raised the possibility that the price of an
aggregation should be discounted to offset this duplication, the
vendor's response is always that it would be too hard to manage.

Neil

Neil Renison| Librarian, Acquisitions Services Information Resources
Library & Information Services Eddie Koiki Mabo Library James Cook
University, Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD 4811
E: [log in to unmask]
W: http://www.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/


-----Original Message-----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:48:22 +0100

If your library takes full text databases (for example, Ebscohost), is
it normal practice to check what's in the database and cancel existing
subscriptions to journals which are duplicated by being in the
database, or to not take out new subscriptions to titles which are
already in the database?

Aggregators' argument, when signing publishers up, is that
availability in the database will not affect existing or potential
subscriptions. Anecdotally that position has been supported by a
handful of librarians, generally from major research institutions. At
the same time we have a similar level of directly contradictory
evidence, librarians specifically saying they are cancelling a title
because its now in a database, or that because it is in a database
they are not going to take out a subscription.

So, what is the general view on this among the academic library
community: does full text inclusion in a database invite cancelling or
not subscribing to a particular title, or is that simply not the case?
Are there complicating factors? Or is there not a general view at all:
some librarians see inclusion in a database as sufficient reason to
cancel/not subscribe, others don't?

Thank you,

Bill Hughes
Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd