FW: Nature Questions

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

> And I wonder why, if they think that libraries are just acting as an
> archive, they aren't PAYING US instead of CHARGING US so very much? (Ok,
> that may be a wee bit unrealistic. But if we are only getting part of the
> thing, shouldn't we pay less?)

The answer to that, I'll bet, is that if you were to subscribe under the
current arrangement, you WOULD be paying less than you will once Nature
figures out a pricing solution for fully current online access.  As I
understand it, the folks at Nature are scared that if they provide access
to full current content under the institutional pricing model currently in
place, the individual subscriptions they lose will result in a net revenue
loss.  They're probably right -- wouldn't you cancel your personal
subscription if you had full online access at work?  (Maybe not, but
Nature is probably right in thinking that lots of individuals would.)  
What Nature needs to do is try to forecast what those losses would be
like, and adjust its institutional pricing accordingly.  That will result
in a more expensive institutional license, but maybe it should be more
expensive than it is; I don't know.  (I bet we'd complain less about a
price hike than we do about the 3-month embargo.)

Another thought: maybe Nature should go to a simultaneous-users model.  
Then the price could be driven by actual use, and a humanities-oriented
school (which would presumably get less use from the product) wouldn't
have to pay the same price as a sciences-oriented school.


-------------
Rick Anderson
Electronic Resources/Serials Coordinator
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno
1664 No. Virginia St.
Reno, NV  89557
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu