From - Thu Nov 19 09:38:04 1998 Received: from efe.ulakbim.gov.tr ([193.140.0.210]) by lidya.cc.hun.edu.tr (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA32804 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:07:34 GMT Received: from gr.its.yale.edu (gr.its.yale.edu [130.132.21.78]) by efe.ulakbim.gov.tr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA08588 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:10:48 +0200 (EET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gr.its.yale.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA01754; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:19:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811162119.QAA01754@gr.its.yale.edu> From: David Goodman To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: Licensing terms encountered: one librarian's resposes Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-edited-by: aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:19:12 EST Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 2001 The Biology library at Princeton has encountered the following terms for e-journals when renewing this years' subscriptions: First group (site licenses available) 1. Electronic version provided free with print, no increase in subscription price. (Some professional societies, some University presses, and, surprisingly, some of the most expensive Elsevier titles) My response, of course, has been to gladly accept. 2. Electronic version provided free with print, but substantial increase in subscription price (10 to 25%), presumably to cover the cost. (Springer, Wiley) My response, in general, is to consider for each title whether we would do better to drop the subscription altogether. (I did, in fact, discontinue a substantial number of titles from each of these two publishers. A list of our cancellations is available at http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/serials.canc.html) 3. Electronic version provided at a surcharge. (ACS, Many smaller publishers) My response, in each case, has been to determine if the additional access was worth the cost. When the print cost was already high in terms of the use the journal gets at this library, I generally said no. When the print cost was reasonable in terms of the use, I generally said yes. 4. A choice between electronic access at a slightly reduced price, print at the usual price, and the combination at a slightly higher price. (Blackwell, some smaller publishers.) My response is that this is what I like to see. Depending on use and cost, I picked the appropriate one of the three options -- generally either electronic only, or electronic plus print; the savings on one pay for the added costs of the other. 4a. There was also a variation on this, where the cost for the electronic only was the same as that for print only, but with a surcharge for both. I have so far chosen print only. If the surcharge for getting both were low enough and the journal valuable enough, I would consider getting both. Getting electronic only is still an experiment here, and I would prefer to experiment where I can find some cost savings. Like most academic librarians, I remain convinced that publication in electronic format is or should be less expensive than in print. 5. Electronic access available only under a contract encompassing all the journals from that publisher to which the university subscribes. (Most Elsevier journals and almost all Academic Press journals). This requires not just my decision, but a library-wide consensus. As I understand it, we are not willing to sign such a contract until the terms are much more financially equitable to us than what we have seen so far. Second group, (Only limited licenses available) 1. Free access, but limited to one or a few workstations. My response is to arrange the access, primarily to get articles when the printed copy is at the binders, but usually not to publicize it, because I don't think this restricted access is worth publicizing. The main point of electronic versions of journals is their wider availability on campus. 2. Extra cost, for access to one or a few workstations. My response is to say no, and to try to explain to the publisher why this is inappropriate. (The only time I have said yes so far has been Science Online, where the cost was minimal.) 3. Extra cost, for access to one building or class c internet address. My response is to say no, and to try to explain to the publisher why this is inappropriate. Princeton is a relatively small and compact campus for a research university, but even so the biologists are located in at least 8 different buildings, with a similarly wide range of internet addresses. 4. No library or institutional license available at all, or available only at a prohibitive cost of several times the institutional print price. (Cell Press, Current Biology, Nature) The only thing I need to decide here is how to protest, and how best to involve the faculty; I have probably not done enough in this regard. Although all of this reflects my personal view, not necessarily the official position of this University, the other subject selectors here seem to have been making their independent decisions along very similar lines. -- David Goodman Biology Librarian Princeton University Library dgoodman@princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/ phone: 609-258-3235 fax: 609-258-2627