re: If electronic is to replace paper

["Sally Morris" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Recent postings about archiving, and who is responsible, make me
increasingly aware that we tend to confuse 2 very different things when we
use the term 'archiving':

1)  long-term (no-one dares say 'permanent' any more!) preservation

2)  continued access, to material previously paid for, after the cessation
of the licence

Perhaps we should forswear the use of the term 'archiving' altogether, to
avoid this confusion!

Preservation is both difficult and expensive.  It therefore makes no
economic sense for libraries to undertake it individually.  Personally, I
don't think it's appropriate for publishers to do it either, since they
are (naturally) driven by commercial imperatives and therefore have little
incentive to maintain material which no longer has commercially
significant value.  Large and 'permanent' institutions, such as
national/deposit libraries, therefore seem a better bet (though someone
still has to cover the considerable costs!);  some redundancy (at least 2
copies, preferably more, preserved in different ways) also seems prudent.

Contined access is a matter of licensing.  It certainly seems to be the
preferred journal licensing model for most libraries, although it is not
typical of other content licences.  Many publishers (cf the various model
licences in circulation - there's a listing on the 'Resources' page at
www.alpsp.org.uk) are accommodating this preference.

Sally

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-gen@alpsp.org.uk
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org.uk