Nature Questions

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

This message is being forwarded from Marlene Cummins at the Astronony
Library of the University of Toronto.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:44:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Astronomy Library <astlibr@lepus.astro.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Nature questions

I wonder what the Nature market research told them about whether (or how
many) individuals would cancel if the library had the full Nature online?

I wonder whether they did any research among non-subscribers?

And I wonder why, if they think that libraries are just acting as an
archive, they aren't PAYING US instead of CHARGING US so very much? (Ok,
that may be a wee bit unrealistic. But if we are only getting part of the
thing, shouldn't we pay less?)

Marlene

     ***********************************
     *         Marlene Cummins         *
     *  U of Toronto Astronomy Library *
     *  Dept. of Astronomy Webmaster   *
     *    library@astro.utoronto.ca    *
     ***********************************

> In case you haven't seen it, here is today's LJ Academic Newswire, whose
> first two items concerned the Nature situation.

[deletions]

>LIBRARY COMMUNITY'S REACTION TO SITE LICENSE TAKES NATURE BY SURPRISE
> 
>Officials at the eminent science journal NATURE this week 
>said that the dissent over the publisher's current site 
>license terms was unexpected and that there are no current 
>plans to substantially alter those terms. The LJ ACADEMIC 
>NEWSWIRE reported last week that a substantial number of 
>libraries have refused to sign NATURE's site license 
>agreement because the company does not offer libraries the 
>full contents of its journal in its online edition. 
>Libraries are chafing because the company does offer 
>personal the journal's full content online upon or before 
>print publication. Under the publisher's current terms, 
>library site licenses carry a 12-issue delay for select 
>sections of the weekly journal NATURE, and a 3-issue delay 
>for select sections of NATURE'S monthly titles. 
>
>NATURE Marketing Director Della Sar told the LJ ACADEMIC 
>NEWSWIRE that the "unexpected reaction" of the library 
>community seemed to defy market research done by the 
>publisher. "During 1999 and 2000 we carried out extensive 
>market research amongst our 48,000-plus personal 
>subscribers," says Sar. "The response from the subscribers 
>was, that [since] all of them have online access to all 
>content at no additional charge, and certainly well ahead 
>of receipt of their paper copies in most cases, they 
>primarily use their library copies for archival research. 
>In fact there was almost no personal subscriber who said 
>they used the library copy for the news section." Asked if 
>this unexpected reaction might cause the publisher to amend 
>its current embargo policy, Sar said no. "We are naturally 
>constantly discussing our license terms," she 
>noted, "but...have no immediate plans [to amend the 
>policy]. Sar noted that the current model was tailored to 
>meet library needs by offering access, albeit restricted by 
>the embargoes, 24 hours seven days a week, campus-wide. 
>
>DESPITE NATURE'S MARKET RESEARCH, LIBRARIANS SAY 
>INSTITUTIONAL USERS WANT ACCESS TO FULL CONTENT
> 
>Librarians were quick to counter NATURE marketing director 
>Della Sar's explanation that restricting access to NATURE 
>in library site licenses was a plausible publishing 
>strategy because market research showed "almost no personal 
>subscribers" used library copies of NATURE for its current 
>news. "It's possible that would be a logical response from 
>an individual user who has a personal subscription, but it 
>does not answer the need of an individual user at a 
>university that does not have a personal subscription and 
>who relies on access through their institution," said one 
>librarian who requested anonymity. The librarian said her 
>institution wants to work with NATURE to come to a mutually 
>satisfactory understanding regarding online availability of 
>NATURE. Other librarians said they also hoped to work with 
>NATURE but would not sign the current agreement.

---