[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Nature
- From: Beverlee French <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:49:53 EST
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
The California Digital Library (representing all of the University of California campuses) has rejected the Nature model and sent a letter stating the reasons. It will be very important for the prestigious institutions especially to reject Nature's model so I am saving the Cornell and Princeton statements. BTW, I never rec'd a response from Nature. Waiting for those 40 institutions to identify themselves, Beverlee French ________________________ At 06:22 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote: >It is absurd to expect an institution to buy access to part only of a >journal, and the other part coming months later. The relevant Princeton >selectors have decided unanimously that they will not buy under such >terms--not even the best scientific journal in the world, and that's what >Nature is. > >We can expect to succeed in getting Nature to continue to be a responsible >scientific publisher and publish the entire content to all subscribers, if >they are unable to sell it on other terms. > >I would hazard a guess that it Nature contrary to all probability actually >succeeds in selling this plan, other publishers are likely to follow. Then >full access to key journals will be available only to those who can afford >personal subscriptions. I do not think that's the purpose of academic >libraries--or any libraries. > >David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library >email@example.com 609-258-3235 > >On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Harbert, Cathy wrote: > > > It has been several months since Nature released its new site licenses for > > institutions. I would like to find out how many libraries have decided to > > purchase the institutional site licenses for online access.