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

[Robert Terrio <tsbnet@rci.rutgers.edu>]

Kent, 

Is it possible to have NEJM monitor the concurrent usage the same way many
other electronic resources do, rather than limit to specific workstations?
I think the objection here at Rutgers is less about 5 users per print
subscription and more about convenience of access from remote locations
which, for researchers, staff, and students, is a necessity. As with other
electronic resources, it would be perfectly workable to allow IP filtering
via a set of IP ranges, and if the concurrent user limit is reached, have
a message displayed instructing the user the "access limit has been
reached. Please try again later."
	
This seems equitable in terms of enabling access to all authorized users
from any location, while at the same time adhering to the limited user
model NEJM has imposed.

Robert Terrio, Networked Resources Administrator
Rutgers University Libraries
Technical and Automated Services
47 Davidson Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854-5603
--------------------
Voice: 732.445.5910
Fax:   732.445.5888
Email: tsbnet@rci.rutgers.edu

>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