[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[PADG:1968] Re: Fwd: [OAI-general] Publishers Removing "Content" from Aggregators




This 
issue does point out the value of printed materials and the value of 
inter-library loan.   It is hard to remove it once it has been 
printed. Digital databases we have no control over and the vendor can remove 
them at will.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2> 
Bob 
Schnare

  <FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Patricia P. Selinger 
  [mailto:pepalmer@xxxxxxx]Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:27 
  PMTo: padg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: [PADG:1966] Re: Fwd: 
  [OAI-general] Publishers Removing "Content" from 
  AggregatorsI struggle with the same issues, Tyra.  I 
  found David Gracy's chapter, "Don't Swat the Skunk: The Preservation 
  Imperative", in Advances in Preservation and Access (v.2) valuable to 
  my way of understanding preservation in the digital world.  See 
  Advances in Preservation and Access, volume 2, edited by Barbra Buckner 
  Higginbotham,  Learned Information, <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
  href="">Inc:  Medford, NJ, 1995, p.24.   CLIR's 
  publications at <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
  href="">http://www.clir.org also help my understanding 
  of this complex issue.  I became aware of scholarly communication in 
  general through my work with Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD).  
  The Networked Digital Library for Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) has posted 
  some papers and talks on technological changes in scholarly communication at 
  <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
  href="">http://www.ndltd.org/help.html that 
  may provide additional insight."Not preserved for that user at that 
  time of access" is a nice way to say that paid information is not 
  available.  It is a bone of contention between libraries and 
  publishers.  We do not own aggregated databases and they are not 
  preserved locally.  Publishers own copyright to the material and until 
  authors refuse to turn over copyright to them, this will be the way it 
  is.  This model sets up the publisher as archivist.  It also 
  challenges the publish/perish syndrome prevalent at most universities.   
  JSTOR is the only company I know actively involved in preserving electronic 
  journals.Managing this issue involves the entire university 
  infrastructure and will take some time to change traditional ways of thinking 
  about scholarship and research.  At this time, librarians can apply 
  economic pressure by way of consortial agreements for pricing and 
  access.   Librarians can also help educate teaching faculty about 
  how commercial publishers work these days.  Many faculty do not 
  understand why libraries have budget problems when the digital environment was 
  supposed to take care of all that.  They will continue to see the library 
  as a black hole for funds unless they understand that libraries are charged 
  different subscription rates than individuals, that price increases far exceed 
  inflation, that publishers apply absurd foreign exchange rates, and are in 
  fact a capitalistic enterprise, not an altruistic provider for our nation's 
  intellectuals.Teaching faculty are becoming more aware of this issue 
  as their libraries are affected by budget cuts and hard decisions must be made 
  as to which aggregate databases to cut.  Once they see how aggreggate 
  databases dilute the quality of journals and drive up prices and once they see 
  how much they are both producer and consumer of this farce, they can be an 
  effective voice for change.  PatriciaS. Tyra Grant 
  wrote:
  <BLOCKQUOTE 
  cite="" 
  type="cite">This issue concerns me---has it been discussed here or 
    elsewhere in a preservation context?   If it hasn't been 
    discussed, I'd be interested in hearing whatever perspectives my 
    preservation colleagues might be willing to share.  I've seen similar 
    messages before but this series is particularly troubling, e.g., the message 
    from Malcolm Hayward, Editor of Studies in the Humanities. When a 
    library user searches for information that was created and presumably 
    published but (whether the user realizes it or not) it's not there to be 
    found, I conclude that information has not been preserved for that user at 
    that time of access.  And what about our ability to preserve access for 
    future users?  How do we define preservation nowadays---especially as 
    it relates to this, and similar, issues?   How are people managing 
    this topic within their libraries?  Am I missing critical discussions 
    about this among preservation colleagues or are these discussions not 
    happening? Tyra Grant Head, Preservation Department Northwestern 
    University Library 
    (Forwarded from ALA/ACRL Scholarly Communications 
      list) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Publishers 
      removing material from aggregators? Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:40:40 
      -0500 From: "Susan K. Martin" <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
      To: "ACRL Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> 
      Your help with information regarding your experience is 
      sought: I've received a question from an ACRL section, concerned 
      about the increasingly common occurrence experienced by some libraries 
      of aggregators losing full-text  content when publishers attempt 
      to sell their own journals' full-text directly to libraries, and 
      therefore pull that content out of the aggregators' package.  
      Apparently  CSA/Sage is an example of this. As described 
      by section members, they are worried that this trend creates pricing 
      inequities and limits access to materials,  just at a time when many 
      if not most  academic libraries are facing budget cuts. I 
      tried gaining additional information by doing some searching on the Web, 
      but wasn't terribly successful.  Do any of you have experiences 
      with this kind of shift  away from aggregators to individual 
      publishers, together with its ramifications for access and budgets? 
      Thanks! Sue Martin Visiting Program Officer for 
      Scholarly Communication ACRL -------- Original Message 
      -------- Subject: Re: Publishers removing material from aggregators? 
      Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:12:47 -0800 From: "Aline Soules" <A 
      class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><asoules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
      To: "ACRL Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> 
      This has been going on for some time.  It's not 
      new.  The trick is to  build into your contract some 
      reimbursement or credit on a pro-rated  basis if some information 
      is removed (regardless of whether that  decision is the 
      publisher's or the aggregator's).  Beyond that, I'm not  
      sure what we can do.  Complain to the publisher?  Certainly, 
      but will it  make a difference? Only if we do it "in bulk." 
      The trouble, in this case, is that the aggregator suffers, 
      although you could argue that the aggregator is like the library in 
      this case--taking the blame for something that happens up the line. 
      Eventually, however, librarians are going to have to take a 
      stand.  If  we pay for it, we should get it.  If it can 
      no longer be provided, we  should get a rebate.  If the 
      publisher does something we don't like, we  need to talk to them 
      about it and, ultimately, agree not to buy their  product until 
      they provide the kind of security and service we want. I know 
      it sounds much simpler than it is, but I can't see how else we  can 
      make progress. Aline Aline Soules Associate 
      University Librarian California State University, Hayward 25800 
      Carlos Bee Blvd. Hayward, CA  94542 tel. 510-885-4596 
      fax  510-885-2049 <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
      href="">e-mail:  <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
      href="">asoules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: 
      Publishers removing material from aggregators? Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 
      09:11:55 -0600 From: "David Wright" <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><Wright@xxxxxx> To: "ACRL 
      Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> 
      The vendors may suffer (I doubt it!), but those who ultimately 
      suffer are the students who will not have access to the  
      material.  This will happen for at least two reasons: 1) 
      Students will not aggressively pursue alternate databases with different 
      (and sometimes clunky) interfaces when they are  used to the 
      aggregators' interface.  They want what they want fast. 
      2) Financial.  Many libraries have no new money to tap into 
      to subscribe to yet another database that may have limited use  
      by students.  We are a small university and I have a difficult 
      time convincing myself that the amount we are paying for some  of 
      our specialized databases is worth it for the limited use they receive 
      overall. I have a hard time being gracious to the vendors (esp. 
      Sage) who have pulled their content  from an aggregator (in our 
      case  EBSCOhost).  I will not be able to subscribe to their 
      content.  I have no new money. Many publishers do NOT 
      understand how the information they publish is used by the end 
      user.  I have a brother-in-law who  is a specialty publisher of 
      books and journals and I had to explain to him why libraries needed to 
      have unlimited campus use  licenses for his online 
      journals.  He couldn't imagine why students wouldn't come to the 
      physical library building to use the online journals, just as they 
      have used print.  Go figure! With the fiscal climate in many 
      libraries, maybe the publishers who pull their data from the 
      aggregators will find out that  libraries really aren't able to 
      just pay for everything that comes down the pike. --David Wright 
      David A. Wright Library Director Leland Speed 
      Library/Mississippi College P.O. Box 4047 Clinton  MS  
      39058 Voice 601.925.3438  Fax 601.925.3435 <A 
      class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="">E-mail:  <A 
      class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
      href="">wright@xxxxxx "Consider the 
      lilies." -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 
      RE: Publishers removing material from aggregators? Date: Wed, 19 Mar 
      2003 09:41:32 -0600 From: "Fyffe, Richard" <A 
      class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><rfyffe@xxxxxx> To: "ACRL 
      Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> 
        There have been several cases of content disappearing. 
      In addition to the Sage titles, I believe that Harvard Business  
      Review moved from having a relationship with multiple aggregators to 
      an exclusive relationship with Ebsco (is that still in  effect?), 
      and the content changes in Academic Universe have been dizzying. 
        I think David and Aline make good points -- particularly 
      the reminder that libraries should include a clause in their  
      contracts with aggregators that loss of content above a certain 
      threshold should trigger a rebate, and the observation that  
      publishers often don't understand how their products are used or the 
      consequences of choosing one or another distribution  channel. We 
      need to work with publishers to help them understand these things better. 
        But as Aline notes, we need to remember that the 
      aggregators are in a position similar to that of libraries: they 
      are  mediators with little control over the first-party 
      publishers whose content they distribute. Libraries can't control the 
      content  interruption when a publisher's server goes down, and 
      it's important for our users (faculty, especially) to better 
      understand  the risks inherent in our network structure. 
      Similarly, aggregators can't fully control the business decisions made 
      by their suppliers. As long as scholarly information is treated as a 
      market commodity we will face these vagaries and need to  
      understand them as risks. Another argument for open-access models in 
      which the revenue stream is independent of  subscription ... 
        -- Richard 
      --------------------------------------------------------------- 
      Richard Fyffe Assistant Dean of Libraries for Scholarly 
      Communication University of Kansas 502 Watson Library 1425 
      Jayhawk Blvd. Lawrence, KS 66045 Voice: (785) 864-4611 Fax: 
      (785) 864-5311 Email: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
      href="">rfyffe@xxxxxx -------- 
      Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Publishers removing material 
      from aggregators? Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:00:30 -0500 From: 
      "Malcolm Hayward" <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><mhayward@xxxxxxx> To: "ACRL 
      Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> If a 
      journal editor/publisher can add something (a small but I think  
      pretty good scholarly journal, Studies in the Humanities), from 
      our  end the whole issue is filled with unknowns. If we sign with 
      Ebsco, or  Gale, or anyone, how much do we charge? If we are 
      online with one of  these aggregators, will that spell the end of 
      our subscriptions for  printed copies of the journal? (I would 
      REALLY like some feedback on  THAT one.) Should we go entirely 
      online? Such are the questions often  raised on EDITOR-L, and as 
      far as I can tell, no one has come close to  a definitive answer. 
      And the fear of giving over our publication  operations, to some 
      extent, to an aggregator is in no small part a  thinking about 
      the future. Say Ebsco or some other major provider goes  
      bankrupt. Can't happen? Bet it can. Then what happens to the 
      distribution system for scholarly communication? I will keep printing 
      copies on actual paper for as long as I can, but what's coming? ... 
      Malcolm Hayward, Editor Studies in the Humanities 
      -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Publishers 
      removing material from aggregators?]] Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:17:10 
      -0800 From: Julia Gelfand <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><jgelfand@xxxxxxx> To: "ACRL 
      Scholarly Communication T.F." <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E 
      href=""><SCHOLCOMM@xxxxxxx> My 
      experience in recent years mirrors exactly what has been described - the 
      newspapers were the first to do this, originally contributing content 
      to packages and now moreorless requiring individual subscriptions to 
      each newspaper archive.  Lexis-Nexis is infamous for changing 
      content and extent of backfiles; the Gale Group is also notorious for 
      not offering full coverage of many issues that they index.  Thus, 
      the story about selective content is not a new one.  Monitoring 
      the shifts is labor intensive at times of severe shortages where staff 
      is already performing a range of duties. Information providers 
      are becoming far more multifunctional than just serving as a mount for 
      databases, or as a serials vendor.  Serving as an aggregator 
      suggests that they provide a range of services confusing customers 
      about what they do best. I think that previous commentators are 
      totally correct when they suggest libraries may want to educate their 
      user populations about the network structure of how we get information 
      and the different models of syndication and aggregation. The 
      Sage effort to offer packages of up to 20 year revolving backfiles of 
      their journal collections in specified fields, where a subscriber does 
      not have perpetual access is problematic to me.  Libraries want 
      online access for a variety of reasons - searching, linking from 
      databases, user preferences, space planning, etc.  However, 
      annual payments for backfiles seems redundant.   Taylor 
      & Francis is also changing its course for fulltext access to its 
      extended family of publications.  From offering several options, 
      via Ingenta, etc, now T&F and its entire list is moving to 
      MetaPress, a division of EBSCO, which has hosted some T&F content 
      for quite a while and more is migrating.  I have also just 
      learned that MetaPress is also working with Springer and will be the 
      new host of Springer Link. See <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
      href="">http://www.ebscoppf.com/metapress.asp 
      Learning to cope with even greater dosages of ambiguity appears to 
      be our natural lifestyle these days.  How successful libraries 
      will be in influencing publishers remains to be seen.  But I 
      think that there is work to be done here. To complicate things 
      further, we are seeing professional societies increase subscription 
      fees for online access by 75% (AAAS for Science Online in 2003) trying 
      to offset reduction in membership by raising institutional 
      subscriptions to maintain the revenue streams. This to me is a more 
      fundamental problem related to scholarly communication and one I would 
      like to see addressed. Julia Gelfand UCI -- 
      DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers 
      for Fair Use <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
      href="">http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] 
      Counter-copyright: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
      href="">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html 
      I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or 
      distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.  
      Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far 
      as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary 
      social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. 
      _______________________________________________ OAI-general 
      mailing list <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
      href="">OAI-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
      href="">http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oai-general 
      



[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]