I would like to add my two cents worth to this side issue. It is indeed becoming problematic for our users when they cannot  identify exactly what the institution subscribes to on some platforms.  Surely it should be a standard facility on all sites which will allow Institutions to filter on “Subscribed Content”

 

 

 

I would like to add a side issue, but one I hope that publishers read. As we move more content to these sites and platforms, our users and librarians are finding it very difficult in most platforms to determine what we have access to. It is not clearly identifiable on the Search Page or Publisher site that Institution X has titles marked with a green key or other icon. Some of the smaller publishers, like Cabell’s directories, and to some extent Elsevier on Science Direct, map out what we have access to.

For others, like Ingenta, Wiley Interscience, etc. it is a maze. Users see the login and password box when really they could just start searching because of IP authentication but the message is mixed.

Hmmm maybe a standard for publisher web sites for institution-specific subscriptions!

Connie Foster

 

 

 

I will try to put my thoughts in some understandable order:

 

Depending on the size of your library, the number of current subscriptions, subject areas, and which types of patrons you serve are asking for E only, if you have a substantial number of subscriptions, you might consider converting over a number of years, concentrating on 1 or 2 major publishers every year, and add some smaller/society publishers in other areas.

 

In this way, you can really focus in on what each publisher agreement / site license is offering.  (post-subscription access, annual maintenance fees, P- Only versus E-Only rates,  access to extra content granted with current subscriptions [Taylor/Francis]). It also shows that you not rushing to convert and worry about problems and regret the decisions later.  Start with publishers where you have the most subscriptions (or if certain departments/individual Faculty is pushing) (Good Public Relations).

 

You might have to do a separate project and look at subscription databases of journals (for us MD Consult [Elsevier] ; EbscoHost, Ovid Packages).  With some of these types of databases of journals, “You Stop, You Lose Access”. So maybe you keep the Print copy as your archive, or compare the cost of the most used titles in the subscription databases versus purchasing E-Only through the publisher. [ statistics, AH, statistics]

 

Are you members of JSTOR or similar entities where you pay for access to archives?

 

Until 2011, I was using this approach to evaluate the cost, access, AND reviewed my perceptions of the reliability of the publisher’s website before converting.  As a medical institution, I also used PubMed Central for converting to E-Only,  titles that were being archived there, and having our E subscriptions for non-archived coverage. 

 

Some Publishers STILL charge more for E-Only over P-Only or P+E.  Some Society and small publishers still do not offer E only Subscriptions.  Some still insist on Institutions having User/Passwords.  I do not recall the specific title, but one small publisher (w/ 1 title) stated that even if you had an E-Only subscription, if you cancelled it at a later date, you would NOT have access to the subscribed to content.  [a Homer DUH !]

We are undergoing a forced reduction of space in the library and our collection is being split. I had to look at EVERY Publisher and subscribed to title to determine if we could go E-Only. There are some publisher’s sites where I am leery of reliable access but still converted.  Other titles in these databases of journals, I am still keeping in print (clinics of … North America in MDConsult = ScienceDirect) as these titles are by a different division and not included in SD. However this may change in the next few years.

 

My rule under this loss of space debacle was if the P-Only versus E-Only Price was at least the same (or maybe a little more for IP versus User/Password), then I converted to E only regardless of reliability.  For many titles we were initially given complementary E-access even though our subscription was Print at the time.  When their policy changed, we still had access to those volumes.

 

 We have converted an additional 376 titles to E only for 2011 but still have about 400 unbound current journals where some other factor(s) determined the continued use of P-Only (Amer. Chem. Soc.) or P+E.

 

Sorry for the length.\

 

With Best Regards,

John Lucas, Serials Librarian (until Oct. 22, then Ret. I’ll miss the challenge)

Univ. Mississippi Medical Center, Rowland Library

 

 

 

 

Individuals who have received this information in error or are not authorized to receive it must promptly return or dispose of the information and notify the sender. Those individuals are hereby notified that they are strictly prohibited from reviewing, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing or using this information in any way.