RE: National Online: Nature and Others... (like SCIENCE)

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

> Rick, suppose Science provided individual subscribers the articles now,
> and the library the articles in 6 months. Suppose 12 months. Suppose 5
> years. What is the fundamental difference between these and 3 weeks?

David, I think you're making a fundamental mistake in your depiction of
what Science is doing with its dual-tiered service.  Institutional
subscribers aren't getting delayed information.  They still get the cake
as soon as it comes out of the oven -- it's just that individual
subscribers, in return for paying a much higher price, get to taste the
batter before it goes in. (Whereas with Nature, individual subscribers got
the cake when it came out of the oven, while institutional subscribers
didn't get to eat any until it was old and stale.)  The question
institutional subscribers need to ask themselves isn't whether someone
else got to taste the batter, but whether the cake they're getting is
worth the price they're paying.  (Bear in mind that institutions get to
feed the cake in unlimited quantities to their patrons, despite paying a
fraction of what individual subscribers pay per person.)


> In any case the journal publishes information to make it available, and
the
> authors publish in it to make it available.  This works, and people access
> it, because their institutions can afford it.

Exactly.  And my institution can afford campus-wide access to Science
because Science is willing to sell it to us at a cost of about 27 cents
per user.  The fact that this level of service doesn't include extras
(like pre-publication article access) is fine with us, as long as it
includes the basics (like access to articles as soon as they're
published).  Problem arise when institutional access doesn't include the
basics.  In a case like that, even a low price may not be enough to make
the service acceptable (e.g. the old Nature license).

> We cannot say
> that a university library is responsible for providing a minimal service
> only and that good service must be paid for extra.

Well, actually we can say something very much like that: the library
provides as much as it can within the constraints of its budget, and if
you as an individual want more than that you're going to have to buy it
yourself.  What's the alternative?  Buying more than we have money for?

> Within a research
> university, prompt information provision is a basic necessity, not a
> luxury.

That's a nice slogan, but like most slogans, it's more emotionally
satisfying than useful.  Here's the hard truth: Just because something is
a basic necessity doesn't mean that we can ignore the economics of
producing and providing it.  Same goes for food and health care.  When
something costs money, those who are willing and able to pay more will get
more of it.  That fact is ugly but it's still a fact, and at some point
we're going to have to get over it.  With all due respect, it would be
asinine to demand that publishers (or bakers, or airlines, or auto makers)
refrain from offering extra services at higher prices.


-------------
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