RE: Data on circulation of books

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

I think Joe and I are agreeing with each other, actually!

What I was trying, unsuccessfully, to say was that print journal 
backfiles were not necessarily unavailable - but that online 
versions were so much *more* available, even if not in many cases 
OA - easy to find, easy to access from your desk top - that usage 
greatly increased.  I was speculating that the same might be true 
for books.

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
Sent: 18 February 2007 21:04
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Data on circulation of books

Sally:

What is the difference between "availability" and "ease of 
access"?  I don't follow your argument.  Also, where does 
"findability" fit into this typology?  I would think that 
findability is the big item--what Google promises.  Something may 
be available, but darned if I can find it.

I took up this discussion today with a search-engine specialist. 
His view (with which I disagree) is that there is enormous 
untapped demand for content of all kinds, and that opening up 
library collections (his exact phrase was "tearing down the 
walls") would help to satisfy this demand.  My view is that the 
demand is mostly, though not entirely, met by the narrowly 
defined communities on university campuses around the world and 
that the large number of non-circulating titles (which, to be 
frank, astonished me) is evidence that publishers haven't been 
doing a good enough job in saying no.  Librarians, too--though, 
as Chuck points out, it may be a matter of DNA.  Better filters 
make for a better world.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: Data on circulation of books

> For once, I disagree with Joe (though of course the empirical
> data will tell us whether digital book backfiles do in fact
> lead to significantly increased use). My personal hunch is that
> it wasn't the availability that made the difference for journal
> backfiles - often they were available in print form
> (back-issues sales only recently died the death) - but rather,
> ease of access.
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> South House, The Street
> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
> Sent: 14 February 2007 21:19
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Data on circulation of books
>
> Responses to my query on circulation continue to come in, but I
> wanted to address just one aspect of Tony's comment below.
>
> Can we "take the digitisation of journal backfiles as an
> indicator"?  I don't think we can.  Backlist and out-of-print
> books have always been actively monitored by publishers, but not
> so journal backfiles until the advent of online publishing.  The
> monitoring of books in "the old days" (pre-1994) took various
> forms, not the least of which being the editorial advisory boards
> that all publishers work with.  Many, many times when I was the
> editor of a college paperback line I would get a letter
> (hardcopy, with an actual stamp on the envelope) suggesting that
> I bring this or that book back into print.  Entire companies were
> built around this (e.g., Dover Publications).  And authors
> monitored this:  all publishers from the prehistoric period
> remember receiving letters from authors or their agents invoking
> the "out of print" clause, which stipulated that the rights be
> reverted to the author after a particular title was no longer
> available to the public; such letters often resulted in a book
> going into a reprint. Journals always had a different
> dynamic--the rights issue for one, where there was no motivated
> author since there was no basis for a reversion of rights.
>
> In the end we will have the empirical data, and that should put
> an end to this argument.  My principal regret is that money and
> time (and time is the bigger factor) are being expended by some
> against the expectation that there will be an enormous boon for
> scholars when, say, all the books published in 1919 are suddenly
> available at the click of a mouse.  I would have preferred,
> cheapskate that I am, for the proposition to be tested first.
>
> Joe Esposito