Re: Aggregator Embargoes, and bargains too good to be true

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

The confusing trade names have fostered some misunderstanding. 

When we buy the electronic version of a title from the publisher, it's the
full version at the full institutional price whether we pay the publisher
directly or through an agent or intermediary or a supplier selling a group
of publishers titles like Ideal or Highwire. We pay the full institutional
price, outrageously high though it may be, often many times the individual
price, and we expect the full content without any embargo or other limit.
If we can't get that, we don't buy.

But there are also aggregators in another sense, such as Proquest, Ebsco
Academic Search , Lexis, and others, which resell the contents of a very
large number of titles at a very low price per title, typically 1% or so
of the regular institutional price per title. Paying this price, it is not
reasonable to expect the same content and guarantees. In exchange for the
low price, there is first, no guarantee of permanence, second, in some
cases ascii text only , and third, sometimes time limits or embargos.

I do not see how any realistic purchaser can expect anything more for the
price. Therefore, these journal aggregates can not serve as part of the
journal collection of a research library. They can supplement the regular
journal collection, adding temporary access to a wide range of titles that
may be of some use. We buy several on that basis, and we plan to list
them, with appropriate notes about their limitations.

In a non-research collection, such as a school library or small public
library, they can be a very useful way of acquiring titles. Such libraries
do not generally need to keep permanent journal collections, and this may
meet much of their need. If a patron of such a library requires an
embargoed article, there's ILL.

Part of the confusion is possibly because some suppliers, such as Ebsco,
sell both sorts of packages: they have many versions of these
supplementary collections, but they also sell the full publishers'
product, accessible either through their interface or the publishers', at
of course the full publishers' price. The names of these packages do not
make it clear what's in them, and to me the advertising also does not
sufficiently clarify it. Recent postings make it obvious that the
difference was not clear to many purchasers. It is the sellers duty to
make it unambiguously clear what he is selling, but it is also the
purchaser's duty to know unambiguously what he is buying.


David Goodman, Princeton
University
Biology Library				 dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235

On Mon, 21 May 2001, Tom Williams wrote:

> That's all well and good, Mr. .com guys, but whether you have 2 or 2000
> embargoed titles it makes littles difference, there should be NO embargoed
> titles.  It serves no useful purpose for anyone except a possible minimal
> extra profit for the publishers/aggregators - IF ANY.  This policy is a
> huge disservice to libraries and their users.  As more and more libraries
> learn about this practice, I wouldn't be surprised if they began to balk
> at signing for this reason.  We wouldn't sign.
> 
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Thomas L. Williams, AHIP
> Director, Biomedical Libraries and
>  Media Production Services
> University of South Alabama
> College of Medicine
> Mobile, Al 36688-0002
> tel. (334)460-6885
> fax. (334)460-7638
> twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu