Re: Fascinating quotation

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org>]

I think Mark has misunderstood the object of the ALPSP/AAAS/HighWire
study.  We are looking at different models of OA publishing, not
self-archiving - see http://www.alpsp.org/openacc.htm

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
E-mail:  chief-exec@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 5:13 AM
Subject: RE: Fascinating quotation

> Dear Mark,
>
> You would have us believe that medical libraries never discontinue
> periodicals, and, if they did, availability elsewhere would not be a
> factor.
>
> First, even for a truly first rate medical library like Cornell there are
> presumably some biomedicine related journals which you do not get, and for
> which you rely on document delivery, from, among other places, the nlm.
> Unless there is a sharp discriminating factor between the worthwhile and
> the worthless rather than an imperceptible transition, there must also be
> a few journals of about the same importance to which you do subscribe.  I
> wonder if you mean you would not drop even the most scientifically
> insignificant biomedical journal if 90% of its articles were CERTAINLY
> available on line at the nlm?
>
> Second, there are many fields of some relation to medicine at least
> occasionally. A journal on the subject of bioethics, say, which you would
> certainly get, might have any article referring to any imaginable major or
> minor journal in philosophy. Surely you collect only the more important
> philosophy titles, not them all, and would discontinue them much more
> readily than titles in medicine, and availability elsewhere would be one
> ofthe factors.
>
> Third, I think the same argument you make also applies to key libraries of
> major international status in their own subject fields.  Chemistry
> librarians regard their subject and its journals to be every bit as
> important as you view medicine. They too will not discontinue anything
> nontrivial in their central area until it becomes available otherwise--
> then, there is a level of low use and quality that they will consider.
> Further, just as philosophy is a subject of secondary importance to you,
> medicine might be a very secondary subject to them.
>
> Finally, I can offer you direct proof that some medical research libraries
> would discontinue some medical titles.  They already have. All faculty in
> medical schools do research, but there are many medical schools supported
> by a considerably smaller library than yours. They, obviously, do not
> subscribe to some of the biomedical titles that you subscribe to.
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> dgoodman@liu.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Mark Funk
> Sent: Fri 12/17/2004 5:38 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Fascinating quotation
>
> I suspect that, rather than two blind men trying to describe an elephant,
> Joe and I are actually describing two different animals.
>
> Aggregator products like EBSCOhost, Project MUSE and JSTOR are typically
> subscribed to by academic libraries, not by medical libraries. In fact,
> JSTOR has no journals in medicine, health, or the biomedical sciences; and
> Project MUSE has only six titles. I don't doubt that Joe's clients are
> correct in saying that libraries are cancelling journals because of their
> later availability in these packages. But those are not medical libraries.
>
> The topic under discussion was the NIH proposal, which will affect the
> biomedical literature. As I stated earlier, biomedical users have an
> urgent need for immediate access to the latest literature. For medical
> librarians, cancellation of a journal because SOME articles MIGHT show up
> six months later is not a viable option. The medical library is a
> different animal from an academic library, and comparisons must be done
> with caution.
>
> I wonder if the ALPSP study differentiates between these two markets?
>
> Mark Funk