From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:52:48 +0100

It's not the acquisition costs which fall, it's the storage and management
costs - see, for example,

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/montgomery/10montgomery.html

which, as we've heard, constitute a significant slice of every library's budget.

And I'm really surprised to hear that you don't believe that the long-term
access problems are being addressed;  if so, that is very disappointing.
You can't really blame publishers for wanting to charge something - after
all, maintaining files and providing access to them, though nothing like as
costly as a print archive, is not completely cost-free - but I agree with
you that it ought not to be astronomical.

Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing
West Sussex, UK  BN13 3U
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
Dear Bill and Sally--

Speaking up from the trenches where  I deal with electronic content
publishers every day. .....

""""It has been noted repeatedly how much these costs would fall if
libraries would drop print journals entirely. Yet they don't - why not?""""""

""""""""6) fear of "loss of content" because of server problems from online
journals, coupled with lack of practical knowledge about whether disparate
journals/journal packages utilize backup services?"""""""""

Costs fall when print is dropped????  My costs to provide access to
electronic content for the same title subscriptions I have had for years,
have increased exponentially in the last 5 years, recession??? not in  the
STM publishers vocabulary!!

FEAR?? no, on the contrary,  it is   REALITY!!!!... I keep print
subscriptions because some publishers do not provide perpetual access to
PURCHASED content.  Publishers will not provide access to ALREADY PAID
content if a subscription for the next year has to be cancelled for
budgetary reasons.  When a publisher moves its content from one hosting
platform to another, the receiving platform/publisher REFUSES to honor past
subscription year payments for content.

These three horrors are REALITY.  And I could name more!!!! I am fighting
with 3 publishers right now to get online access back  to ALREADY PAID for
content.

LOCKSS  and PORTICO-- doing due diligence in auditing what actual content
publishers are """actually loading""" into LOCKSS and PORTICO,  you would
have stress attacks.

If I had the print, I would not be stressing out to provide this needed, and
already paid for content to my users!!!

I have been doing this job for 23 years, evolving the content this library
provides to users from all print to a hybrid print/electronic library,
starting with my first electronic package : IDEAL journal platform from
Academic Press.  Folks, this publisher no longer exists, this platform no
longer exists the content now is Elsevier owned and on ScienceDirect.  We
fought with them for 2 years in order to get our 2 years of paid for content
-- 1993-1994 accessible, since the standard start date for worldwide
licensed content for ScienceDirect is 1995.    Want more horror stories, I
have them.....Walk in my shoes!!

Print should remain the standard version of record, because STM publishers
are not beholden to libraries and scholars.  They are not altruistic about
archiving for the "greater good" of scholarship.  They are beholden only to
their shareholders and making profits.

Kind Regards.
Arta

Arta Dobbs
Collection Management Librarian
University of Connecticut Health Center L.M. Stowe Library
Farmington, CT  06034-4003
e-mail :  [log in to unmask]