RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: Question regarding ILL

["D Anderson" <dh-anderson@corhealth.com>]

As a publisher, we have no problem with occasional ILLs involving our
content. We understand that libraries exist to serve the information needs
of those who seek services.

The problem is that as electronic distribution makes ILLs easier, an
increasing number of library subscribers are dropping subscriptions in
favor of obtaining what they need through ILLs. We then have to push up
subscription prices for the remaining subscribers to make up for the lower
volume, which places an increasing burden on larger institutions.

What's particularly irksome is to read MedLib-l list requests for our
material from list members who cheerily add, "We'd like to get it for
free, of course! But we're willing to pay up to $25." We've longed offered
single-article access for $6.95, and we've considered dropping the price
further. But it seems some libraries prefer the ILL process, no matter how
easy or inexpensive it is to purchase content from a publisher.

We don't prohibit ILLs. But theoretically, one library could subscribe to
our publications and then offer free ILLs to everyone else. That won't
happen because research libraries simply won't be able to bear the
increasing burden of growing numbers of freeloaders. And then many
publications will simply disappear.

Dean H. Anderson
Publisher

COR Health
http://www.corhealth.com