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