Re: National Online: Nature and Others... (like SCIENCE)

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com>]

I am a personal subscriber to Science as an AAAS member. I have access to
three university libraries but do not "work" in any university. I very
rarely use the libraries concerned. You cannot tell this from my address.
I would not wish AAAS to refuse me facilities which they want to give to
members but cannot afford to do if they have to give them to institutions
also.

When I was a publisher we wondered how to deal with the problem AAAS has.
A starting point was to look at the addresses of our individual
subscribers and try to guess how many we would lose if we included the
particular journal concerned in a consortial offer. This is hopelessly
unscientific. In all this correspondence I have not seen any clear
explanation about how a publisher should handle this problem. Loss of
income is a problem even if it is potential loss of income. Budgets are
crucial for publishers as they are for libraries.

Almost all learned societies are desparately worried about how to keep
their members many of whom are thought to belong mainly for the journal.
Commercial publishers who partner with them in their publications
routinely offer special extras for members only: this is what they are
asked to do. If they did not provide these facilities the society would go
to another partner.

These are three different points and only tangential to what David has
written but I wonder how they fit in with his very library-centred scheme.
A system of ethics of information flow based on the library is surely one
which many authors and users would be unhappy with as much as they should
be with any system based upon the interests of publishers, even if they
are not-for-profit and representing the scholarly community. I happen to
agree with David about the importance of libraries but there are many
research groups who consider that libraries are irrelevant. They want to
disintermediate (at least as far as libraries are concerned) because they
consider that they would get information easier that way.

If members want their publisher to provide something which the publisher
does not want to provide for libraries and thus for lots of non-members I
cannot see that this is unethical. On the other hand I cannot see why
libraries should not try very hard to get this additional content or
earlier availability either by lobbying or (in the end) cancelling. Both
actions seem to me to be "ethical" and acting in self-interest.

Anthony Watkinson
Visiting Professor in Information Science at City University London

----- Original Message -----
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: National Online: Nature and Others... (like SCIENCE)


> I think it ethical for a journal publisher to charge an individual for
> such convenience features as a personal print copy, but not for provision
> of content that is not available to the library, or that is available
> before the library's.
>
> The university library exists to provide sources of information for the
> members of that institution to access. There is such a wide range of
> possible information sources that it is impossible for each student and
> teacher to acquire them all independently; rather, they acquire it
> cooperatively through the library. The number of sources is so great that
> it cannot be practically acquired and accessed unless the university
> library, acting as an agent for its clients, acquires it and makes it
> available as a centrally provided resource. The library serves as an
> economic equalizer--while typically the faculty can afford to purchase
> basic journals and books, the students can at best be expected to purchase
> their textbooks, and supplementary material beyond that is provided for
> them in common by the library.
>
> Rick, suppose Science provided individual subscribers the articles now,
> and the library the articles in 6 months. Suppose 12 months. Suppose 5
> years. What is the fundamental difference between these and 3 weeks? In
> any case the journal publishes information to make it available, and the
> authors publish in it to make it available.  This works, and people access
> it, because their institutions can afford it. Otherwise, why run a library
> at all? Let everyone buy personal subscriptions to what they want, and if
> it is too expensive for the students, too bad for them.  We cannot say
> that a university library is responsible for providing a minimal service
> only and that good service must be paid for extra. Within a research
> university, prompt information provision is a basic necessity, not a
> luxury.
>
> I urge that libraries assist the authors of the highlighted articles in
> Science to realize that the advance exposure to their articles does not
> apply to all their readers, but only the small minority with personal
> memberships. They are then likely to realize that their best interest lies
> is persuading the editor that all their readers see their work as early as
> possible.
>
> David Goodman
> Biology Librarian and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
> Princeton University Library
> Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
> e-mail: dgoodman@princeton.edu