[original posting followed by responses.]
What is the driving force(s) around some major publishers
now limiting content in JSTOR and MUSE?
1. Duke Univ. Press is altering their arrangement with MUSE,
http://www.dukeupress.edu/edukecollection/DUP%20e-collection%20PR.shtml
2. Several publishers are instituting fixed walls (cf. moving walls)
in JSTOR. These include: "Duke University Press, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Oxford University Press (Note: Not all OUP titles
have fixed walls at this time. Check specific journal information for
details.), Rice University, The University of Chicago Press
(Note: A very limited number of UCP titles have fixed walls. Check
specific journal information for details.)"
-source http://www.jstor.org/about/movingwall.html
Is this honeymoon with rational e-journal availability ending?
--
John P. Abbott
Coordinator, Collection Development
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC
===1===
From: teresa.myscich_at_cide.edu
Hello colleague: Too bad, but I think it might be as the Duke
University page indicates "... we continue to build our own online
projects..." They probably needed to use the Muse technology years
ago, but now have local capabilities and find it more beneficial (more
profits?) to have their own site. It does make the librarian's job
more tough with disbursed sites, rather than a single one-stop shop
like MUSE and JStor.
Unless a super specialized electronic journal site interfase is
developed to search for these disbursed sites on the Internet (frankly
I find the SWETS and EBSCO interfaces less than accurate), these
publishers may get lost in the Web and go running back to MUSE and
JStor. It's a reflection of the still every changing Internet.
Saludos, Teresa Msycich
CIDE, A.C.
Mexico City, Mexico
www.cide.edu
===2===
From: David Wright <Wright_at_mc.edu>
After reading the information on the Duke Univ. Press website, it
appears evident that even some of our not-for-profit publishers fail
to understand the financial situations of most university libraries.
We have had to make difficult acquisitions decisions in past years,
and some of those decisions were made on the relative stability of
JStor and the partnership with other non-for-profit academic presses.
Just where do those publishers do their marketing surveys to
determine that they will be able to draw all the previous customers
from Project Muse, even (at the beginning) for a reduced price? Of
course, DUP is pulling the significant titles, based on the lists on
their website.
We can wring our hands about how bad this is, but I guess lots of us
should write letters and e-mails to all parties expressing our grave
concern over these situations.
--David Wright
David A. Wright
Library Director
Leland Speed Library/Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4047
Clinton MS 39058
Voice 601.925.3438 Fax 601.925.3435
===3===
From: Dianne Cook <cookdc_at_post.queensu.ca>
Perhaps publishers are watching libraries pay large amounts
direct to journal publishers for back files and have decided on
direct marketing? And since many of us have to cancel print
to pay for electronic versions, perhaps fixed walls are intended
to force us to keep print and pay extra for electronic access?
If so, they will soon experience again the limitations on library
budgets that have forced us to be very selective in acquiring titles
in the past.
We assumed that Duke's decision re MUSE related to the big discounts
consortia have enjoyed when purchasing MUSE. We were hoping that
the new pricing structure for MUSE would solve the problem of
individual publishers needing more revenue. SPARC-like initiatives
may well have been too optimistic about the level of cost savings that
could be maintained on an ongoing basis.
Dianne Cook
Coordinator of Collection Development
Queen's University Libraries
Kingston Ontario K7L 5C4
Received on Wed Sep 15 2004 - 09:42:16 EDT