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

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com>]

I apologise for making too many points. I was trying to make statements
rather than argue positions.

As for positions it seems to me that libraries can either pay, cancel or
lobby. It is not entirely their decision of course. They work for their
users. Lobbying is often proving successful which is good but lobbying
cannot always be successful.

 Learned society publishers or publishers partnering with learned
societies publish on behalf of the members. They are dependent on the
perceptions of the officers of the society in particular as well as the
membership as a whole. The officers of most societies look to the
publications to provide income. (I am not here guessing about the AAAS
because I know nothing about its inner council and their thinking but
making a general point based on 30 years experience).They do not like
losing members.

Yes I do get nothing out of the AAAS except Science and I am very pleased
with the extra services they provide with the journal online which must
cost them a lot extra. Any foreign member of the AAAS is unlikely to get
much else.

Yes I agree that libraries should serve students but in the case of
SCIENCE surely most students can afford to belong to the AAAS? I also
believe that researchers need libraries. I am only reporting. I have
argued against the position held by some academics.

Anthony Watkinson
14, Park Street,
Bladon
Woodstock
Oxfordshire
England OX20 1RW
phone +44 1993 811561 and fax +44 1993  810067


----- Original Message -----
From: Marjory Waite <waite@email.unc.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: National Online: Nature and Others... (like SCIENCE)


> Dr. Watkinson,
>
> I submit some questions regarding your submission. I would like to
> understand your position more fully. Thank you for your reply.
>
> Marjory Waite
>
> Anthony Watkinson wrote:
> >
> > I am a personal subscriber to Science as an AAAS member. I have access
to
> > three university libraries but do not "work" in any university. I very
> > rarely use the libraries concerned. You cannot tell this from my
address.
> > I would not wish AAAS to refuse me facilities which they want to give to
> > members but cannot afford to do if they have to give them to
institutions
> > also.
>
> So you think it is reasonable to disenfranchise students, graduate
> students, etc.? Were you not in their position at some point in time?
> Will they not be future contributors to the journal and isn't access to
> it now important?
>
> > When I was a publisher we wondered how to deal with the problem AAAS
has.
> > A starting point was to look at the addresses of our individual
> > subscribers and try to guess how many we would lose if we included the
> > particular journal concerned in a consortial offer. This is hopelessly
> > unscientific. In all this correspondence I have not seen any clear
> > explanation about how a publisher should handle this problem. Loss of
> > income is a problem even if it is potential loss of income. Budgets are
> > crucial for publishers as they are for libraries.
> >
> > Almost all learned societies are desparately worried about how to keep
> > their members many of whom are thought to belong mainly for the journal.
>
> Is a "free" journal subscription the only benefit for belonging to a
> learned society? I should hope not.
>
> > Commercial publishers who partner with them in their publications
> > routinely offer special extras for members only: this is what they are
> > asked to do. If they did not provide these facilities the society would
go
> > to another partner.
> >
> > These are three different points and only tangential to what David has
> > written but I wonder how they fit in with his very library-centred
scheme.
> > A system of ethics of information flow based on the library is surely
one
> > which many authors and users would be unhappy with as much as they
should
> > be with any system based upon the interests of publishers, even if they
> > are not-for-profit and representing the scholarly community. I happen to
> > agree with David about the importance of libraries but there are many
> > research groups who consider that libraries are irrelevant. They want to
> > disintermediate (at least as far as libraries are concerned) because
they
> > consider that they would get information easier that way.
>
> Again you seem to say that researchers are the only users of scientific
> information and libraries. So no one else finds a library and its
> collections useful?
>
> > If members want their publisher to provide something which the publisher
> > does not want to provide for libraries and thus for lots of non-members
I
> > cannot see that this is unethical. On the other hand I cannot see why
> > libraries should not try very hard to get this additional content or
> > earlier availability either by lobbying or (in the end) cancelling. Both
> > actions seem to me to be "ethical" and acting in self-interest.
>
> Were libraries to cancel print subscriptions to important scientific
> journals, if that is what you are suggesting, how would you anticipate
> that the scientists of the future be prepared to participate fully in
> scientific debate and development? Should they wait until they are
> "researchers" when they will be able to afford access to learned society
> journals?
>
> Marjory Waite