Re: Nature

[Beverlee French <beverlee.french@ucop.edu>]

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
>dgoodman@princeton.edu            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.