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

RE: Proposed Haworth Press e-journal Policies

For the first time on this discussion group I also want to add my view.
The note from Mr. Watkinson said much of what we all know - big investment
in moving to electronic environment, new costs from new environment, etc.  
No news here.  The concern that librarians and users have in my corner is
not so much that publishers make information available free or cheaper in
electronic than in print, rather that they stop and consider the
environment separately.  We cannot should not continue to base our
electronic access and use on the older print publication model.  Also, I
most certainly do not want to be required by a publisher to maintain a
certain print subscription price minimum in order to obtain access to
electronic information.  These 2 commodities need to be split, as the
print/video world has always recognized, for example.

Please stop and carefully consider pricing in the electronic world as a
separate commodity, considering all elements necessary to keep a good
business environment in the publishing house, which in turn should be an
element of the quality of the publication.  Also, please do not ask that
the first libraries and users to move into this new environment re-pay the
complete investment you have made in the new environment. This must be a
payback over time, and not overnight.

Joanna Tousley-Escalante

*	Head Technical Services Unit
*	Vienna International Centre Library
*	Wagramer Str. 5, P.O. Box 100
*	A-1400 Vienna, Austria
*	tel:  *43-1/2600-22624
*	fax: *43-1/2600-29584
*	j.tousley@iaea.org

>From: 	anthony.watkinson[SMTP:anthony.watkinson@BTinternet.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, October 20, 1998 12:38
>To: 	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: 	Re: Proposed Haworth Press e-journal Policies
>I am writing as a former publisher to pick up on one point that Patrick
>Callahan makes. I think he does not fully understand the overall economics
>of the situation when he writes "we should encourage publishers to offer
>discounts for electronic only that reflect their reduced printing and
>distribution charges".
>I do applaud the action of those publishers such as Blackwell Science who
>offer electronic only at a reduced price. They have made a brave decision.
>Librarians should however by now be aware of the economics of the whole
>situation from the supply side.
>If the journal is in both print and electronic form which I take it is
>what we are concerned with here, electronic availability represents
>significant additional costs not just because of the extra cost of
>preparing the electronic files but also and more important the
>infrastructural costs - the server, the management, the extra staff skills
>etc. etc. Libraries are of course very aware of these infrastructural
>costs from their end. I think it has been a nasty shock to both sectors.
>If anyone wants to see back-up information on publishers' costs they
>should look at the ICSU Press site (see www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/icsu/). The
>International Council of Scientific Unions held a workshop in Oxford in
>April dealing with the cost question specifically and most of the
>proceedings containing some pretty detailed information from some
>non-profits is available free on that site.
>Only a relatively small part of the costs of the print version
>(distribution and printing) are lost when the journal is bought in an
>electronic form only and the mix of sale (electronic or print or both) has
>to change very much in favour of electronic only before the overall
>decreased income is matched by overall decreased costs. This is easier to
>show on a graph than in words. At present (so I am told) those publishers
>who have offered electronic only at a reduced rate have had little take
>up. But then we get on to archiving again.....