Re: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Kent, 

although you may have lost a few subscriptions, were the subscription
losses serious, and a threat to the survival of your journal? How many
cases of password abuse did you encounter? We scripted ours into a page
limited to our authorized users.

Have you ever considered a scheme allowing, say, two simultaneous users
per subscription, with the opportunity to buy more? There are many
alternatives. Anything I can imagine is better than the one you have
chosen.


> 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