[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: going online only... (and JSTOR)

Back years of Annual Reviews are available through JSTOR.
JSTOR's current contract terms provide:

"6.3 In the event JSTOR ceases to exist and the archive services
contemplated by this Agreement cease to be offered, JSTOR shall provide
Licensee with one (1) complete set of CD-ROMs (or their equivalent at
JSTOR's option) containing the digitized images of the journals contained
in the Archive as of such date. JSTOR hereby grants to Licensee a
nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use such images ...

6.4 Upon termination of this Agreement all online access to the Archive by
Licensee and Authorized Users shall be terminated. Print copies of
Materials may be retained by Licensee or Authorized Users and used..."

In my opinion, neither of these provisions meets the best current

The best current practice for situations like 6.3, where the supplier
ceases to exist, is for the supplier to provide material to an alternative
source such as a national library, where the material will be archived and
supplied if needed.

The best current practice for situations like 6.4, where the institution
stops subscribing, is for the supplier to offer the library the choice of
obtaining CDs, obtaining tape, of obtaining continued access to the
purchased portion at an appropriate fee.

Elsevier and some other commercial suppliers now offer the equivalent of
both provisions (not all of them do--read carefully). It is time for
JStor, which was once a leader, both technically and otherwise, to update
its contracts. It has begun at last to be open url compliant, and the
modernization of its contracts ought to follow.

For contracts with suitable permanency provisions, I do not regard it
essential for even research libraries to maintain print outside their
primary collecting areas. I think it would be desirable to keep existing
print at least in storage, because it may prove preferable for some users,
and we ought to serve all our users if we can, not just the vast majority
who prefer an electronic format.

For contracts without such provisions, no research library should discard
print, or cease a print subscription if the title is considered important.

In the case of libraries that do not consider themselves to be research
libraries, a policy of providing only current direct access to some
materials, and relying on document delivery or ILL for the rest, might
well be justifiable. In any case, all libraries, research or otherwise,
rely upon document delivery and ILL for a great many titles, including
both current and older ones.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, DuBose, Stefanie wrote:

> Hi all,
> My question seems to be coming at an opportune time as we're all dealing
> with the issues raised by the Elsevier pricing structure changes and its
> impact on our collections.  First of all, very generally, how are
> libraries now going to look at the issue of moving titles from a print
> collection to an electronic-only collection?  Here at East Carolina
> University, we were beginning to look at Synergy, and have been looking at
> Wiley as well; however, because of Elsevier's move, I'm very hesitant
> about the potential damage to the integrity of our collection.  What is
> everyone else doing?
> We are also seriously considering acquiring Annual Reviews' full text
> database, but according to my information, there is no pertpetual access
> available.  If a vendor/publisher does not offer perpetual access, are
> libraries then maintaining the print volumes while simultaneously paying
> for the online version?  Has anyone had any success with negotiating for
> such access from AR?
> Replies can be sent to me and I'll summarize for the list.
> Thanks for your help,
> Stefanie DuBose
> Serials Librarian
> Collection Development, Joyner Library
> East Carolina University
> Greenville, NC 27858-4353
> (p) 252-328-2598
> (f) 252-328-4834
> duboses@mail.ecu.edu