RE: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding accesspolicy

[Janet Croft <jbcroft@ou.edu>]

When I worked at a 500-student college with only 12 terminals in the
library, a database with a 5-IP access model wasn't too big of a hassle.
We lived with it quite happily, for the most part, although we had the
occasional traffic jam at the specified terminals. But for a larger
institution, it could be a nightmare!  I would suggest NEJM consider a
couple of other options as well, which I have encountered from other
vendors in the past:

1. Sell additional blocks of five access points at a substantial discount.
This keeps the 5-IP model affordable for the small school, but offers the
option of more access for larger schools.

2. Go to a 5-simultaneous-user model instead, allowing access from up to
five IPs from a specified IP range at the same time. This cuts down on
traffic jams at specific terminals. And offer additional blocks of
5-simultaneous-users with this option, too.

Both options offer the security advantages you are looking for when
compared to your previous system. Flexibility in meeting the needs of
different types of libraries is the key.  Maybe a great many libraries
would find the 5-IP model satisfactory, but not all libraries are alike.

Janet Brennan Croft
Head of Access Services
University of Oklahoma
Bizzell Library NW106
Norman OK 73019
405-325-1918
fax 405-325-7618
jbcroft@ou.edu
_______________________
Kent Anderson wrote:

To the Listserv,

There has been a vocal response to our change from a 2-username access
model for institutions to a 5-IP access model. I hope this note will
explain our reasons for this change.

The 2-username model was implemented years ago, at a time when it was
unclear how Internet access would evolve, especially at institutions. Our
guidelines were loose, and this led to widespread use (both on and off
campus) of the 2 usernames and passwords per print subscription. Usernames
and passwords were emailed to entire staffs, posted on intranets, and even
posted openly on the Internet. Over time, this type of access has become
quite prevalent, and clearly beyond the scope of a standard institutional
subscription.

At the same time, both anecdotal and statistical evidence mounted showing
that subscription cancellation rates around academic institutions with
this type of access for NEJM was significantly higher than the norm.

The 5-IP model was chosen as a moderate alternative for the time being. We
wanted to give the library community as much notice as possible, and have
worked hard to notify you in a coordinated manner, and before the academic
year begins in earnest.

There is presently no option for campus-wide access (except through some
aggregators). We are evaluating our options for direct site licensing at
academic institutions. However, given our heritage as a publication
devoted to meeting the needs of individual subscribers, we are very
careful when considering changes that may separate us from our readers to
such an extent.

That's our reasoning. My hope is that we'll find a unique, innovative, and
powerful way in the coming months to strike a fair balance. In the
meantime, I invite your suggestions.

Sincerely,

Kent R. Anderson
Publishing Director, NEJM
kanderson@nejm.org