RE: FW: Message from EBSCO - Attn: Academic Librarians

[babbot@lsuhsc.edu (Abbott, Bruce)]

Deborah,

I had an entirely different take on this. 

Your point about EBSCO seeking exclusive contracts with publishers is
valid, and germane. But EBSCO provides several full text
services--including EBSCOHOST (an aggregated database of full text content
analogous to Academic Universe or INFOTRAC databases) and EBSCO Online
(which both mirrors publishers' online journals and redirects subscribers
to remote publishers' URL's).

Are INGENTA/Catchword, EBSCO Online, HighWire Press, and IDEAL aggregators
in the same sense that INFOTRAC, Academic Universe, and EBSCOHOST are?  I
have seen the term used for each type, but for me they are very different.

My initial reaction to EBSCO's statement was "You've got it exactly
right." I have had real problems with treating aggregated full text as
equivalent to online access to the publisher's full text content.  An
aggregator such as Academic Universe or InfoTrac which does not provide
table of contents access to a title, is offering an entirely different
product than a publisher which licenses access for the online version of
the title and provides table of contents browse access to the full text.

Aggregators of full text content, particularly Lexis-Nexis, are quick to
remove content at the request of a publisher. While they are getting
better at informing their subscribers when materials are removed or
unavailable, they still have a long way to go in this area.  In fact, a
Lexis-Nexis staff member recently put out a post stating that they often
do not know when content is missing from a title--they merely load the
content provided by the publisher/supplier. Aggregators sign licenses with
their providers in order to make available as much full text content as
they are able--they are less interested in having licenses which hold the
publisher/supplier to a standard than in making it easy for the
publisher/supplier to provide what content they are willing to make
available to the aggregator.  The aggregator wants to be able to say "we
have 535,000 full text articles from 1999--present", rather than "we
provide cover to cover full text content for these titles."  There are
exceptions and examples of providers who take different approaches--OVID
being a notable one.

If this post from EBSCO is viewed as referring to the AU, INFOTRAC,
EBSCOHOST type of aggregators, then I think it is very much on target.


Bruce Abbott
LSU HSC Library
433 Bolivar St.
New Orleans, LA  70112
504-568-6103 (voice)
504-568-7718 (fax)
babbot@lsuhsc.edu <mailto:babbot@lsuhsc.edu> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Lenares [mailto:dlenares@uno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:49 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Message from EBSCO - Attn: Academic Librarians

I believe this e-mail from Ebsco is probably tied to their pursuit of
exclusive contracts with publishers.  Ever since Ebsco's deal with the
publishers of the Harvard Business Review , I've been hearing this refrain
from Ebsco: publishers come to us asking for these contracts because they
know that, unlike our competitors, we don't want our customers to cancel
their print subscriptions. (the exclusive contracts make full text
database access available only through the Ebsco product )

This from an email from our regional sales manager:

"In the last two years, academic publishers have become much more
selective in licensing their content to aggregators.  Our competitors have
experienced and continue to experience tremendous turmoil as a result.  
By January of 2001, there will be nearly 1,500 scholarly journals
available through EBSCO's databases that are not available via our
competitors.  EBSCO has always realized that the publishers are the key to
successful full text databases and we have developed and maintained
long-term and outstanding relationships with these partners."

The post from David was the first I've seen of what appears to be the
other side of the exclusive contract bargain: Ebsco actively campaigning
against the cancellation of print titles.

Although Ebsco's patronizing attitude about journal cancellations is
annoying to me, what concerns me more is Ebsco's pursuit of exclusive
licensing with publishers.  I feel strongly that it is not in the best
interests of libraries to encourage these exclusive contracts, and we will
pay the price in the future.

Deborah Lenares
Electronic Resources Librarian
University of New Orleans