LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:23:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
From: "Prestamo, Anne" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:50:37 +0000

Anthony -

Yes, most of these problematic online conditions (particularly 2-4)
are publications from small learned societies and in some cases
professional associations.  One area that seems to have more than its
share of publications with oddities is in veterinary medicine.  Many
of these publications have an audience comprised largely of
practitioners and the publishers of these just don't "get" the
difference between individual and library subscriptions.

We run into the post-cancellation rights problems with some fairly
large publishers in cases where we're subscribing to individual titles
rather than getting their entire package.

Anne Prestamo
Claud D. Kniffin Professor of Library Service and Education
Associate Dean for Collection and Technology Services
Oklahoma State University Libraries
Email: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:26:09 +0100

Ann:  I do not know whether publishers on the list will agree but as
an ex-publisher I am a little surprised by your point (1) - but
horrified by points (2) through (5). It amazes me that there are still
publishers who do not have proper online arrangements in the way you
describe. May I ask a question? Are these all smaller learned
societies who self-publish?  I am referring to (2) through (5)

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: "Prestamo, Anne" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:42:05 +0000

We continue to get ~800 titles in print, and about 1/3 of those are
print+online subscriptions.  We would very much prefer to be entirely
e-only, but are frustrated by publishers that do not offer acceptable
options.  Some examples that cause us to keep print:

1)  Institutional e-only subscription is many times the cost of a
print institutional subscription.

2)  Publisher's version of "electronic" is unacceptable.  For example,
they email you a PDF of each issue.  Sorry, just don't want to go
there.

3)  No IP authentication.

4)  There is no online version offered.

5)  No post-cancellation rights for e-only.  If the cost of a
print+online sub is equal to, or no more than 10% higher, we get both.
If higher than 10% to add the online access we get print only.   When
we get both we no longer shelve nor bind the print issues.   They are
held in a processing area until we have a complete volume, boxed, and
sent to storage.

Anne Prestamo
Claud D. Kniffin Professor of Library Service and Education Associate
Dean for Collection and Technology Services Oklahoma State University
Libraries
Email: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2