I was contacted by our NPG representative earlier this year
telling me about their new license and encouraging me to
sign and
return it soon. In addition, I've received numerous glossy
mailings announcing the change in policy. They don't need
a
signed license until the end of 2006, so I have not signed
it
yet. In the meantime, I'm hoping they will reconsider
their
policy, and I'm glad to see some discussion beginning about
this
issue.
As I understand it, the new policy will apply to new
subscriptions started with 2007, and subscriptions in place
before the end of 2006 will be grandfathered under the old
policy. I was encouraged to consider ordering new
subscriptions
before the end of the year to get the best value. This
sounds
like marketing hype to me (Have you noticed how much more
and
aggressive marketing NPG has been doing over the past two
years?), but it also suggests to me that they have doubts
about
their own new policy.
Again, as I understand the policy on new subscriptions, you
get a
rolling 4 years + the current year, and if you want more
than
that, you will need to license the backfile for the title,
AND
each year purchase the one year to be added to the archive
that
rolled off of your current subscription to that title.
(I.e.,
you purchase a new title to begin with vol. 1, 2007, then 5
years
later you remember to order the archive so you continue to
have
access to vol. 1, then every year you remember to purchase
the
year that rolled off to be added to the archive. Imagine
the
record keeping on all sides - library:vendor:publisher - and
the
opportunities for system failure.) As I pointed out to my
NPG
representative, this is very similar to the model that was
abandoned by the American Chemical Society after 2005, and I
recommended they contact Adam Chesler at ACS for more
details
about the ACS decision to change its subscription model.
According to my NPG representative, they reviewed the
proposed
changes with the NPG library advisory council, and no one
pointed
out any problems with it.
In my experience over the last few years, Nature has had
problems
with the quality of their PDFs, accurate information about
subscription start/end dates, and access to current
subscriptions, and I have doubts about their ability to
handle
two subscription models for as many institutional
subscribers as
they have. There are just too many IFs in their proposed
new
policy to believe that access will be unaffected.
I have not signed the license yet, nor have I ordered any
new
Nature journals.
=======================
Daniel H. Jones, M.L.S.
Librarian
Preston G. Northrup Memorial Library
Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research
Tel: 210-258-9426
Fax: 210-670-3313
Email: djones sfbr.org
=======================
|