From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:22:57 -0600
Sure, if you got a very low response rate, but I'm guessing enough
faculty would find this a very important survey to respond to. And it
would reveal a lot more than usage counts, which presumably include
uses by everyone, not just faculty. (I'm not sure what access logs
are, but do they reveal who is doing the accessing? And how does
"self-perception bias," whatever that is, enter into the equation?) If
faculty regularly use a journal instead of just very occasionally
using an article from it, isn't that a very important piece of
information? It seems like a pretty straightforward question to ask,
particularly if you define what "regularly" means.
> From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:10:38 +0000
> A survey seems mis-matched to this. Response rates, self-perception
> bias, etc. Why not just use the access logs?
> On the original question - I would question why libraries would have
> to review/compare listings themselves? Seems like a pretty standard
> thing to expect in making a purchase would be "here's a list of what
> you are buying and here's how it differs from your last list"? Doesn't
> seem like something libraries should have to devote staff time to
> compiling? Now, as to whether such lists get reviewed ... well, I hope
> so and annually!
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
> Professor; Coordinator for Strategic Planning;
> Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
> University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> [log in to unmask]
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:56:58 -0600
> Would it be all that difficult to do a survey of faculty and ask them
> which of the journals in a package they use regularly, or not at all?
> Does any library now do this?
> Sandy Thatcher
>> From: Karin Wikoff <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:35:58 -0500
>> For us, we'd only be likely to notice if something our users use
>> regularly disappears. 20 journals no one uses could disappear, and we
>> probably wouldn't notice. But if the one journal some faculty member
>> uses all the time disappeared, then there'd be a big problem. It's a
>> good question, and not one I'd given a lot of thought. I'll be
>> interested to read other folks' replies.
>> Karin Wikoff
>> Electronic and Technical Services Librarian
>> Ithaca College Library
>> 953 Danby Rd
>> Ithaca, NY 14850
>> Phone: 1-607-274-1364
>> Fax: 1-607-274-1539
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> On 12/16/2014 8:17 PM, LIBLICENSE 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