[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Nature

I second David's statement.  This is a case where we have to work together
as a team and collectively push for better licensing terms.  The large
research libraries need to set a good example, and if a few of us cave in,
our internal competitiveness will push the rest to follow.

I don't think that Macmillian understands that online access is the key to
their long-standing prestigiousness as a journal.  No online access means
that this publication might fall from grace into mediocrity.  Considering
that we've successfully negotiated with Science (their competition), I
don't think that Macmillian should feel that they can dictate their terms
without having to come to the bargaining table.

Philip Davis
Life Sciences Bibliographer
Cornell University

At 1/30/2001, David Goodman 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