Dissatisfaction and user research (Was: Re: May issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter)

[Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde@yahoo.com>]

> We provide NEJM via Ovid as publishers' HTML and they're not 
> even satisfied by that, . . .

OK -- a not insignificant observation (assuming *your* evidence 
is solid).

Some obvious questions might then be :

1. Why not ?

2. Can that a) change / b) be changed ?

3. a) How and when ?  b) Why not ?

4. Is Muenster representative ?

The questions may -- or may not -- be obvious, but the answers 
could be quite useful for everyone. Of course, seeking them 
requires good, qualitative research. My guess is that that 
research has yet to be carried out, or at least adequately (even 
in Muenster?). Am I wrong?

- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland


----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Oliver Obst <obsto@uni-muenster.de>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 3:04:10 AM
Subject: Re: May issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter

Dear Stevan,

> because users are satisfied with the Green OA version, ...

is there any evidence for that? I recently filled out a 
questionnaire from the Medical Library Association asking exactly 
this. We provide NEJM via Ovid as publishers' HTML and they're 
not even satisfied by that, so I answered: "No, they will only be 
satisfied by the journals formatted postprint PDF."

Regards, Oliver

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Dr. Oliver Obst
--------------------------------------------
Zweigbibliothek Medizin, Uni+LandesBibliothk
Domagkstrasse 9, 48149 Muenster, Deutschland
zbmed.ms | info@zbmed.ms | twitter.com/zbmed
--------------------------------------------