RE: EBSCO and ProQuest database content

["LENARES,DEBORAH A." <LENAREDA@apci.com>]

Mr. Brooks,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.  Please be assured that I am
not anti-Ebsco.  Much of my library work has been facilitated by the
serials management functions of Ebsco.  However, I am very concerned by
Ebsco's pursuit of exclusive contracts.

If my posting about the pursuit of exclusive contracts by your competitors
was incorrect, I apologize.  However, your response does not convince me
that this the case.  You state that Gale has a "co-exclusive" contract for
Gannett newspapers.  What does that mean?  You say "other vendors" share
"semi-exclusive licenses."  Who are these other vendors?  Lexis/Elsevier?
What does "semi-exclusive" mean?

I have heard the explanation that Ebsco is the "natural partner" for
publishers before, and I have never been able to understand that logic.  
If, due to budget problems, a library has to cut journal titles based on
what is available through a full text database, it doesn't matter whether
that database is from Ebsco, Gale or ProQuest.  I do not understand the
argument: "publishers are not likely to align themselves with companies
who have no financial interest in preserving and expanding their core
business: journal subscriptions."  Why not?  What can Ebsco do to stop a
library from canceling print subscriptions?

I have never heard a sales rep from your competitors ever suggest that we
cancel print journal subscriptions to fund a full text database purchase.
Never.  I have heard sales reps from Ebsco claim that your competitors do
this.  I have also heard sales reps from Ebsco, on more than one occasion,
spread unsubstantiated rumors about competitors and distribute lists of a
competitor's cancelled titles.  Sales reps from other vendors rarely
discuss a competitor's product.

Concerning my suspicion of the number of "peer-reviewed" journals, my
experience in investigating full text databases has taught me that the
term is often used indiscriminately.  It becomes difficult to compare
lists of "peer reviewed" titles between databases because each vendor
defines the term differently.  I understand that this would not be an easy
task for a vendor, and your system sounds fair.  Still, each list must be
carefully reviewed by prospective purchasers before comparing numbers of
"peer reviewed" titles.  I was only pointing out this necessity.

I would like to reemphasize my concern about exclusive contracts.  If each
database vendor pursues exclusive contracts, soon libraries will be forced
to make difficult decisions.  To support our users needs for specific
titles, we will be required to purchase all available databases.
Additionally, a vendor with exclusive rights to an important title, let's
say Lexis-Nexis/Elsevier, will be able to charge exorbitant prices for
access to these titles.  Libraries will not be able to sustain these
budgetary demands, and may have to do without these valuable information
tools.  An inability to provide the new generation of information tools
could lead to dire consequences for libraries.  I believe that it is in
the long term best interest of libraries to not encourage exclusive
contracts.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I do hope that Ebsco,
a long time friend of the library community, continues to support the
goals and the future of libraries.

Sincerely,
Deborah Lenares


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Brooks [mailto:SBrooks@epnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 10:23 AM
To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
Subject: RE: EBSCO and ProQuest database content

Dear Deborah,

I would like to see if there is anything I can do to improve your
impression of EBSCO.

First, regarding your previous posting in which you thanked Gale and
ProQuest for not pursuing exclusives; according to the publisher, Gale has
a co-exclusive for all 73 Gannett newspapers.  This is the largest
newspaper publisher in the United States.  Other vendors share
semi-exclusive licenses in cases such as the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal.  EBSCO would like to provide our customers with full text
for all of these newspapers, but because of other agreements, we can not
do so.  The only reason it is different with academic publishers is
because EBSCO is the natural partner for these publishers, so these
publishers are not likely to align themselves with companies who have no
financial interest in preserving and expanding their core business:
journal subscriptions.  Regarding the idea that EBSCO is responsible for
all of the turmoil in our competitors' products, it's just not true.  We
have tried to differentiate ourselves with academic publishers because
many of them have shared with us that they have had negative experiences
with these other aggregators and and we do not want to be perceived as
similar to those vendors that have lost content.  Juggling the needs of
libraries and publishers is not easy, but it must be done if we are to
have the best possible products in the long-term.  This is our goal.

Second, we are not inflating the number of peer-reviewed journals in our
databases.  If they seem "suspiciously high", I assume that means you are
impressed with the numbers.  They are not faked or exaggerated in any way.
Any journal which is not yet fully loaded in the database is marked with
an asterisk and the list shows at the top: "* indicates that this
publication was recently added to the database and therefore few or no
articles are currently available".  We are in the middle of a massive
expansion this Summer and the lists attempt to reflect what will be on the
products this Fall.  In addition, we clearly show which journals are
categorized as peer-reviewed, unlike our competitors' on most of their
lists (the two exceptions are ProQuest Research Library and Gale Health &
Wellness - I can't find peer-reviewed status on any of their other
products).  We had a librarian identify which titles are peer reviewed.  
She updates the list as we add more journals.  These peer reviewed
journals are where the lion's share of the embargoes exist.  Our
philosophy is that a deep backfile of PDF's and ongoing-but-embargoed
coverage of leading journals is better than no coverage or abstract-only
coverage of these journals.

I agree with you that comparative searches are a critical part of the
evaluation process.  For best results in EBSCO databases, trials should be
planned for October/November, since by then the majority of the titles
marked "*" will be loaded and in addition, many of the backfiles from our
expansion product will start to appear by then.

Lastly, regarding the study done by J.B. Hill, I thought it was well done.
My conclusions were a little different, but I do not dispute the facts
used. It showed Academic Search Elite as the clear-cut journal quality
leader in nearly every subject category measured, but #2 in full text
backfiles.  To enhance our products, we have begun the massive backfile
expansion project that is detailed in the May 15, 2001 issue of Library
Journal.  We are hoping J.B. Hill will do a follow up of the article once
our backfiles are expanded.  In addition, we would like to see Academic
Search Premier included in any future comparisons as well as Academic
Search Elite.

Regards,

Sam Brooks
Senior Vice President
EBSCO Information Services
EMAIL: sbrooks@epnet.com