From: [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:32:04 -0400 Dear Colleagues By now you've probably heard about our Pay only for Usage (PofU) initiative, which is causing quite a stir (if you haven't, see the background doc attached). The speed and scale of response has shaken me: I've never seen anything like it in over 30 years of dealing with libraries. Conversations with librarians have resulted in the idea being tweaked: there is now no upfront financial commitment from participating libraries; the cap, above which you are not charged, regardless of the number of downloads, is $5000; provisions are made for walk-ins, and for not making multiple charges for content which is multiply used in a teaching context. As far as I can see this idea is - administratively simple: one invoice a year from us; - eminently fair: you only pay for what your library patrons use; - offers a way of cost-effectively meeting researchers specialist needs; - pilots a move away from the concept of subscribing to journals, a concept rendered less relevant through technology - could become an important tool in confronting the 'scholarly communications crisis' If you would like to discuss how this idea can work for your library, or have questions, or even join the band of 'early-adopters' - (award for being first on board goes to University of North Carolina Greensboro) - don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes W Hughes Director Multi-Science Publishing ************ Over the years, as a publisher, I've heard librarians complain quite a lot about the prevalent subscription based model. They don't like it because journals are too expensive, and because of the ongoing commitment; they don't like publisher bundles because although attractively priced, usually unwanted/unneeded content is included which still has to be paid for. The costs and constraints are annoying in themselves and also soak up budget which libraries would like to use for improving the services and resources they can offer to their patrons. So, having thought about it, I've come up with a possible solution, encapsulated by the counter-intuitive (for a publisher) heading, Don't Subscribe. Don't subscribe to our specialist peer-reviewed content that might enrich the offering your library can make in engineering and applied science. Instead, adopt our Pay only for Usage model. Very simply, this is how it works. Our content and its backfile is made available in your library. If downloads are made, we charge $5 per download. If there's no usage, then no payment - you've got nothing to lose. If there's usage, then you're meeting specialist needs without the burden of a subscription. And the download costs are capped so you don't face unlimited liability. Even if the value of downloads reaches the cap value (usually $5000) you can still make more downloads at no extra cost. What could be simpler, or more fair? Please contact me for more details. best wishes W Hughes Director Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd ps - see what could be available in your library with no outlay from you: http://multi-science.metapress.com - see editorial information about us and our journals here - www.multi-science.co.uk