RE: Aggregator Embargoes and MARC records

["Tim Darlington" <T.Darlington@massey.ac.nz>]

Hi everyone

Sorry to resurrect this issue.  I had thought David Goodman's message was an
excellent last word on the subject, until someone asked me to look at the
Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect this morning.

This is a full-text title in Proquest 5000.  The MARC record we bought from
Bell and Howell (the database publisher) lists the full text availability as
1995- , ie "to present".  When you connect however, the full text disappears
in 1999.  A check of the Proquest title list spreadsheet reveals that
although FT is described as "current" the notes field tells us "Full Text
availability delayed by 730 days due to publisher restrictions".

While taking on board David's point about the relative cost of aggregator
full text, and the expectations it's fair to make of them, I do think that
accuracy is a desirable feature of MARC records (and so do our
cataloguers!).  We will of course take this up with Bell and Howell, but I
thought others might appreciate the information.  Proquest does at least
include fewer embargoed titles as EBSCO host - I counted 19 titles with an
embargo of 365 days or longer.

Regards
Tim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Darlington
Electronic Services Librarian
Massey University Library
Palmerston North
New Zealand

Ph:  +64 6 350 5670
Fax: +64 6 350 5605
t.darlington@massey.ac.nz
http://library.massey.ac.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Goodman
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2001 8:42 PM
To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
Subject: Re: Aggregator Embargoes, and bargains too good to be true


The confusing trade names have fostered some misunderstanding.

When we buy the electronic version of a title from the publisher, it's the
full version at the full institutional price whether we pay the publisher
directly or through an agent or intermediary or a supplier selling a group
of publishers' titles like Ideal or Highwire. We pay the full institutional
price, outrageously high though it may be, often many times the individual
price, and we expect the full content without any embargo or other limit.
If we can't get that, we don't buy.

But there are also aggregators in another sense, such as Proquest, Ebsco
Academic Search , Lexis, and others, which resell the contents of a very
large number of titles at a very low price per title, typically 1% or so
of the regular institutional price per title. Paying this price, it is not
reasonable to expect the same content and guarantees. In exchange for the
low price, there is first, no guarantee of permanence, second, in some
cases ascii text only , and third, sometimes time limits or embargos.

I do not see how any realistic purchaser can expect anything more for the
price. Therefore, these journal aggregates can not serve as part of the
journal collection of a research library. They can supplement the regular
journal collection, adding temporary access to a wide range of titles that
may be of some use. We buy several on that basis, and we plan to list
them, with appropriate notes about their limitations.

In a non-research collection, such as a school library or small public
library, they can be a very useful way of acquiring titles. Such libraries
do not generally need to keep permanent journal collections, and this may
meet much of their need. If a patron of such a library requires an
embargoed article, there's ILL.

Part of the confusion is possibly because some suppliers, such as Ebsco,
sell both sorts of packages: they have many versions of these
supplementary collections, but they also sell the full publishers'
product, accessible either through their interface or the publishers', at
of course the full publishers' price. The names of these packages do not
make it clear what's in them, and to me the advertising also does not
sufficiently clarify it. Recent postings make it obvious that the
difference was not clear to many purchasers. It is the sellers duty to
make it unambiguously clear what he is selling, but it is also the
purchaser's duty to know unambiguously what he is buying.


David Goodman, Princeton
University
Biology Library				 dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235

On Mon, 21 May 2001, Tom Williams wrote:

> That's all well and good, Mr. .com guys, but whether you have 2 or 2000
> embargoed titles it makes littles difference, there should be NO embargoed
> titles.  It serves no useful purpose for anyone except a possible minimal
> extra profit for the publishers/aggregators - IF ANY.  This policy is a
> huge disservice to libraries and their users.  As more and more libraries
> learn about this practice, I wouldn't be surprised if they began to balk
> at signing for this reason.  We wouldn't sign.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Thomas L. Williams, AHIP
> Director, Biomedical Libraries and
>  Media Production Services
> University of South Alabama
> College of Medicine
> Mobile, Al 36688-0002
> tel. (334)460-6885
> fax. (334)460-7638
> twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu