RE: Post-cancellation arrangements and ScienceDirect

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Those associated with any of the first-round SD contracts can confirm what
Tony says: these contracts were always clear that the user had the right
to access after cancellation, but the specific terms were not detailed. In
that recent relatively optimistic period, everyone was quite willing to
put off detailed discussion of what seemed so distant, so unlikely, and so
unpleasant.

This is now: cancellations remain unpleasant, but they have been occurring
and will presumably continue: with so many SD contracts in existence, this
is not surprising. Perhaps we agree that the continuation terms should be
set so they do not affect this decision; choosing among options should be
on the basis of the most efficient and desirable way of accessing
currently-needed content, with the assurance that suitable ways of
continuing future access at known costs will be permanently available. Put
more directly, the terms should not force one to stay in an otherwise
undesired contract.

Tony discussed the possibility of running one's own server; it was always
available as an option, just as it is an option for current content for
subscribers who prefer their own platform. Over many years we have seen
the balance between local and centralized storage and use of data shift
several times. At present, both communications and storage are inexpensive
by earlier standards, and the choice will probably not be determined
solely by technical factors. The generally unsatisfactory experience of
operating locally networked CDs in the past may no longer be applicable.

For many years the SD platform was (imho) clearly among the very few good
electronic journal interfaces; many others have now improved, The more
complete incorporation of journal content into library systems proceeds in
several different directions. The page for Science Direct Onsite gives an
indication of the possibilities Elsevier are developing:
(http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/licensing_options/sd_onsite/index.shtml)
There are of course many other being developed elsewhere.  A library might
well be reluctant to be locked into any particular solution at this early
period.

If I were buying journals content at this time, with the changes to be
brought about by OA so little known, I would want as much as possible to
be under my library's physical control.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu
and, formerly,
Princeton University Library

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Mcsean, Tony (ELS)
Sent: Wed 10/27/2004 10:31 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Post-cancellation arrangements and ScienceDirect
 
Dear Mrs Dervou:

Thank you for your reply.  Since contract renewal discussions are
continuing between Elsevier and SELL - lively, open and we hope productive
discussion - I will limit this posted reply to archiving matters.

The current contracts between Elsevier and SELL members distinguish
clearly between archiving and continuing post-cancellation access, and
these should not be conflated.

It commits Elsevier to assuring long-term access to our electronic
publications, which we have achieved with our archiving agreement with the
Koninklijk Bibliotheek.  The link
<http://www.kb.nl/kb/resources/frameset_kb.html?/kb/pr/pers/pers2002/elsevie
r-en.html>  ) will confirm that this is a strategic disaster planning and
strategic continuity initiative rather than a means of coping with
individual contractual matters.

The second commitment is that organisations cancelling entirely their
ScienceDirect agreement have the right to purchase and spin locally
electronic copies of all the years/titles for which they have paid.  If
you cancel individual titles but remain an SD customer you have continuing
access to all paid-for years as part of your main agreement and no
additional payments are necessary.  Post-cancellation SD access is not
mentioned in the SELL contract and formed no part of the original
negotiations because at that time this had not been introduced.

As Like anyorganisation we have to cover our costs and satisfy our
stakeholders, in the broadest sense, in order to survive. To do this we
seek to set prices that are as fair and equitable as possible across all
our customers taking a lot of care to listen to what our customers tell
us.  The UTL pricing system grew out of feedback telling us we needed to
strike a fairer balance between big and small customers; and we added an
online continuing access alternative when we were told that the
locally-mounted option was not a real option for most of you.  In this
context we feel it is logical and fair for us to charge former SD
customers for online access, because the alternative is for current
customers to be subsidising them forever.

I hope that this clarifies the situation regarding the arrangements for
assuring access to non-current SD subscriptions.  Regarding the
Elsevier/SELL negotiations, all concerned are now working hard to ensure
that we reach workable compromises on the outstanding issues.

Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier