[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- To: "'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:42:22 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Kent Anderson notes: "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." I'd be interested in hearing a more about the evidence. Bernie Sloan -----Original Message----- 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 kanderson@nejm.org
- Prev by Date: Reed Elsevier Sells Bowker to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Information Today, Inc.
- Next by Date: Re: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- Prev by thread: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- Next by thread: Re: New England Journal of Medicine: a response regarding access policy
- Index(es):