LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  December 2014

LIBLICENSE-L December 2014

Subject:

Re: Question: Modifications to Titles in Journal Packages

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:40:52 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:38:42 -0500

Toby, appreciate as always your thoughtful reply, but let me probe
your answer a bit more.

Are you suggesting that so long as overall usage stats of a given
journals package of, say, 1000 or 2000 titles stay much the same
overall or increase, and if the customer service is acceptable,
then a library would not need further to worry about what is in
or out of the package from one year to another?  To me, that
feels like a publisher perspective (and it's what we hear from some),
but in terms of institutional "fit" with useful content, it doesn't seem
like a satisfying or institutionally savvy approach.

If you're right, I'm wondering why we librarians put such clauses
into our contracts if they really don't mean so much after all and it would
be old-fashioned to analyze and/or take action?

Ann



On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:24 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:06:39 +0000
>
> Ann,
>
> I wonder if the question is more a legacy from the past when
> everything was measured in terms of what was delivered - a hangover
> from the print world and understandable in that print was the only
> reference point when digital first arrived. In the print world, when
> usage was devilish to measure accurately and much of the cost was
> linked to manufacture and delivery, the value was understandably
> linked to the volume of content supplied.
>
> In today's digital world, I think we can do better. Surely the value
> isn't in the volume of content delivered but in the volume of usage
> (which is more valuable, 100 journals that are barely used over the
> course of a year or one journal used by hundreds daily?).
>
> I also think value lies in the combination of the volume of usage and
> the non-content elements of the package offered (e.g. MARC records,
> customer support etc). Now, if usage falls or the service element
> deteriorates, then the value of the product is clearly lower and
> there's an argument for a rebate. Framing agreements in this way would
> 'catch' the volume element too because if a publisher fails to deliver
> enough articles, for whatever reason, presumably usage will fall and
> thereby trigger a rebate clause.
>
> But as you say, I don't think there's a 'right' answer for everyone's situation.
>
> Toby Green
> Head of Publishing
> OECD
>
>
>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 02:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:15:48 -0500
>>
>> Dear liblicense-l readers.  Your listowner/moderator (me) has a
>> question for you.  I would very much welcome the views of anyone on
>> this list, whether publisher or librarian or someone in the scholarly
>> communications chain.  There's no right answer; in fact, I'm not sure
>> there is even an answer, but I was in a group that started discussing
>> this matter and we felt caught short.  And we felt we should have a
>> reasoned opinion, when we did not.  Please read on.
>>
>> Most many big deal journal packages contain language [such as that
>> below] re. modification to "portions of the Licensed Materials."  The
>> contracts say that if any of the changes make the materials less
>> useful, the institutions may seek to terminate this agreement for
>> breach.  And, there will likely be language of this sort: "If any such
>> withdrawal renders the Licensed Materials less useful to Licensee or
>> its Authorised Users, Licensor shall reimburse XX for the withdrawal
>> in an amount proportional to the total Fees owed."
>>
>> My question is this:  if my library has a "big [or medium] deal,"
>> let's pretend it's 300 or 500 or 1000 or 2000 titles, what is a
>> reasonable expectation for the numbers or percentage of content that
>> will leave the package before the library or consortium would either
>> seek reimbursement (more likely) or total termination (less likely)?
>>
>> Do libraries (or consortia) review the big-deal lists each year to look
>> for changes?  Every 3 years? If there were a loss of previous titles
>> in the amount of 5%, would it be a concern? How about 10%?
>>
>> Of if not a percentage "bright line," then what would cause a review
>> of the list and a concerned conversation with the big deal publisher?
>> Would it be the loss of a couple of absolutely key titles?  the loss
>> of a particular smaller publisher's journals list?  a disciplinary
>> impact? a dollar impact?  If "it depends," what does it depend on?
>>
>> Do libraries care very much about what's actually in these large
>> packages, or are we too busy to pay attention to their changes? What
>> would it take to get libraries' attention?
>>
>> Thank you, Ann Okerson
>>
>>
>> *******
>>
>> "Notification of Modifications of Licensed Materials. From time to
>> time, Licensor may add, change, or modify portions of the Licensed
>> Materials, or migrate the Licensed Materials to other formats. When
>> such changes, modifications, or migrations occur, the Licensor shall
>> give notice of any such changes to Authorized Institutions as soon as
>> is practicable, but in no event less than thirty (30) days in advance
>> of modification. If any of the changes, modifications, or migrations
>> renders the Licensed Materials substantially less useful to the
>> Authorized Institutions or its Authorized Users, the Authorized
>> Institutions may seek to terminate this Agreement for breach pursuant
>> to the termination provisions of this Agreement.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1