[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding accesspolicy
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: RE: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding accesspolicy
- From: Janet Croft <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:39:16 EDT
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
When I worked at a 500-student college with only 12 terminals in the library, a database with a 5-IP access model wasn't too big of a hassle. We lived with it quite happily, for the most part, although we had the occasional traffic jam at the specified terminals. But for a larger institution, it could be a nightmare! I would suggest NEJM consider a couple of other options as well, which I have encountered from other vendors in the past: 1. Sell additional blocks of five access points at a substantial discount. This keeps the 5-IP model affordable for the small school, but offers the option of more access for larger schools. 2. Go to a 5-simultaneous-user model instead, allowing access from up to five IPs from a specified IP range at the same time. This cuts down on traffic jams at specific terminals. And offer additional blocks of 5-simultaneous-users with this option, too. Both options offer the security advantages you are looking for when compared to your previous system. Flexibility in meeting the needs of different types of libraries is the key. Maybe a great many libraries would find the 5-IP model satisfactory, but not all libraries are alike. Janet Brennan Croft Head of Access Services University of Oklahoma Bizzell Library NW106 Norman OK 73019 405-325-1918 fax 405-325-7618 email@example.com _______________________ Kent Anderson wrote: To the Listserv, There has been a vocal response to our change from a 2-username access model for institutions to a 5-IP access model. I hope this note will explain our reasons for this change. The 2-username model was implemented years ago, at a time when it was unclear how Internet access would evolve, especially at institutions. Our guidelines were loose, and this led to widespread use (both on and off campus) of the 2 usernames and passwords per print subscription. Usernames and passwords were emailed to entire staffs, posted on intranets, and even posted openly on the Internet. Over time, this type of access has become quite prevalent, and clearly beyond the scope of a standard institutional subscription. At the same time, both anecdotal and statistical evidence mounted showing that subscription cancellation rates around academic institutions with this type of access for NEJM was significantly higher than the norm. The 5-IP model was chosen as a moderate alternative for the time being. We wanted to give the library community as much notice as possible, and have worked hard to notify you in a coordinated manner, and before the academic year begins in earnest. There is presently no option for campus-wide access (except through some aggregators). We are evaluating our options for direct site licensing at academic institutions. However, given our heritage as a publication devoted to meeting the needs of individual subscribers, we are very careful when considering changes that may separate us from our readers to such an extent. That's our reasoning. My hope is that we'll find a unique, innovative, and powerful way in the coming months to strike a fair balance. In the meantime, I invite your suggestions. Sincerely, Kent R. Anderson Publishing Director, NEJM firstname.lastname@example.org
- Prev by Date: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- Next by Date: Reed Elsevier Sells Bowker to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Information Today, Inc.
- Prev by thread: Reed Elsevier Sells Bowker to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Information Today, Inc.
- Next by thread: Re: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding accesspolicy