[PREVIOUS] [CONTENTS] [NEXT]
Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Spring 1999

URLs in this document have been updated. Links enclosed in {curly brackets} have been changed. If a replacement link was located, the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be identified, the broken link was removed.

Electronic Publishing of Scholarly Journals: A Bibliographic Essay of Current Issues

STS Subject and Bibliographic Access Committee
Chad Buckley
Marian Burright
Amy Prendergast
Richard Sapon-White
Anneliese Taylor

Introduction

This multi-part bibliographic essay identifies the most relevant issues about the publishing of scholarly electronic journals: Access, Cataloging and Indexing, Pricing, Archiving, and Licensing.  Each of these issues merits careful consideration in its own right; however, as these essays demonstrate, the issues are vast, complex, and very interdependent. These sections ask questions such as: Who will take the responsibility for archiving? Will data remain unaltered after publication? Will libraries still have access to archival copies after canceling a subscription? The sections below highlight the current debates on each topic and provide references to sources of further study.


Access

Anneliese Taylor
Engineering Librarian
George Mason University
ataylor5@mailbox.gmu.edu

When it comes to accessing electronic journals there are many issues for libraries to consider: technology requirements, restricted access, access via publisher or aggregator, and making library patrons aware of online access.

For years publishers have been providing full-text access to a number of journals on CD-ROM, which requires a significant amount of hardware, time, and technical expertise on the subscriber's end.  Schoonbaert (1998) describes why information providers are rushing to put their products on the web -- because of the ease of use and universal acceptance of web technology.  Several authors discuss the primary formats used by electronic journal providers: HTML, Adobe Acrobat PDF, and the increasing importance of SGML (Luther 1997; Machovec 1997; Schoonbaert 1998).  Schoonbaert (1998), Luther (1997), Hudson and Windsor (1998), Porteous (1997) and Machovec (1997) review the enhanced features of online journal access provided through web technology such as hyperlinks to related texts and links to multimedia.

Machovec (1997) sums up the two most commonly used methods of restricting access to subscribers only as the issuing of a password(s) to the subscriber and using domain limiting on the Internet.  Lynch's article (1998) goes into the emerging practices of using proxies and electronic credential validation to facilitate remote authorized access.  Hudson and Windsor (1998) express the difficulty of communicating passwords to patrons in an academic environment and stress the importance of access through IP addresses.  Internet traffic delays are always a headache; Hudson and Windsor (1998) look at this access issue from the user's viewpoint and Machovec (1997) describes a method providers could use to ease bandwidth problems.

Several articles go into the possibilities for accessing full-text journals online via publisher or aggregator (Luther 1997; Machovec 1997; Schoonbaert 1998).  The benefits of getting access to an individual publisher's journals are value-added features and lack of intermediaries. Aggregators, on the other hand, conglomerate journals of several publishers under one interface and search system.  Luther (1997) and Machovec (1997) list the major publishers and aggregators with details on the products, formats used, special features, and collaborations with other online products.  Luther (1997) also discusses the possibility these vendors will provide cover-to-cover reproduction of the print journals.

Keeping library patrons informed of online journal access is a challenge for libraries when so much full-text information is going online so fast. The primary means of access to these journals to date is creating records for them in the library catalog and providing links from the library web page.  The difficulty of choosing which electronic journal titles get cataloged because of various means of subscription and how they get cataloged for utmost patron access is highlighted by Hudson and Windsor (1998).  There are many different and excellent ways libraries have chosen to present their access to online journals on web pages.  The Fondren Library (1998) is an example that makes use of many methods of journal access: by title, subject and publisher.

There is a plethora of full-text scholarly journals available free on the web.  Fondren Library's (1998) web page links to several "indexers" of mostly free e-journals.  Colorado Alliance (1997) is one of these indexers, providing links to journals by LC subject heading. Schoonbaert's (1998) article also discusses freely accessible online journals and the pros and cons of electronic publishing to the reader. Schoonbaert (1998) provides a list of URLs for publishers and aggregators.

References

Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries Electronic Journal Access Project. 1997. [Online]. Available: {http://ejournal.coalliance.org/} [November 27, 1998].

Fondren Library [Rice University]. 1998. Electronic Journals. [Online] Available: {http://riceinfo.rice.edu/Fondren/Electronic/ejournals.html} [November 27, 1998]

Hudson, L. & Windsor, L. 1998. Providing access to electronic journals: the Ohio University experience. Against the Grain 10(3):1, 16, 18.

Lynch, C. 1998. Access management for networked information resources. [Online].  Available: HYPERLINK {http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem98/cem9842.html} [April 29, 1999]. (Also published in Cause/Effect, 21(4), November 1998.)

Luther, J. 1997. Full text journal subscriptions: an evolutionary process. [Online]. Available: {http://www.arl.org:591/luther.html}. [November 27, 1998]. (Also published in Against the Grain, 9(3):18, 20, 22, 24, June 1997.)

Machovec, G. 1997. Electronic Journal Market Overview - March 1997. [Online]. Available: {http://www.coalliance.org/reports/ejournal.htm} [November 27, 1998].

Porteous, J. 1997. Plugging into electronic journals. Nature 389:137-138.

Schoonbaert, D. 1998. Biomedical journals and the World Wide Web. The Electronic Library 16(2):95-103.


Pricing

Amy Prendergast
Science Librarian
University of South Alabama
aprender@jaguar1.usouthal.edu

These articles highlight several issues concerning the pricing of electronic journals. That the attitude of traditional journal publishers towards e-journals differs from the attitudes of librarians is clear. In large part this is because publishers are intent that their profits not be diminished in whatever new scenario emerges while librarians hope for an opportunity to break the cycle of price increases and cancellations that has marked the relationship of libraries to serials in recent years.

The pricing models that have emerged for e-journals illustrate this dichotomy. Librarians favor models such as the one proposed for Post-Modern Culture in which the current issue would continue to be distributed free online while the back issues would be provided with value-added features such as a search engine and have an access charge added (Amiran 1996). L.H. Kevil (1997) reports that in another model librarians would prefer to be charged only a percentage of the print price for electronic access to a journal. Publishers, on the other hand, clearly seem to favor such strategies as offering the electronic version of a journal free with a regularly priced print subscription or for an additional charge. Alternatively, as Lee Ketcham-Van Orsdel and Kathleen Born (1998) find in their survey, some publishers are offering access to groups of e-journals either themselves or through "aggregators," which serve a similar function to print subscription agencies. Those publishers who do offer single journals in electronic-only access rarely price them at a discount and sometimes charge more for the electronic than the print version.

Richard Meyer (1997) describes several solutions to the pricing dilemma that have been attempted by librarians. One is that of access instead of ownership, that is, using document delivery services to provide articles on an individual basis as needed instead of subscribing to a journal. Another solution is putting together consortia of libraries to provide access to sets of electronic journals. A third solution is the creation and maintenance of electronic archives of journal articles without reference to commercial publishers. Deeming all these measures unsatisfactory, Meyer proposes the solution of legal action on the grounds that pricing articles in groups (as in journals) instead of individually represents unfair trade practice since electronic publishing makes individual pricing possible in a way that it was not in print.  Meyer believes that a class action suit challenging the journal publishers' monopoly holds the most promise as a long term solution.

References

Amiran, E. 1996. The rhetoric of serials at the present time. The Serials Librarian 28(3/4 ): 209-221

Kevil, L.H. 1997. Payment and subscription models for online publications. Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 21(Fall): 247-249.

Ketcham-Van Orsdel, L. & Born, K. 1998. E-journals come of age: 38th annual report periodical price survey. Library Journal 123(7): 40-45.

Meyer, Richard W. 1997. Monopoly power and electronic journals. Library Quarterly 67(4): 325-349.


Cataloging and Indexing

Richard Sapon-White
Catalog Librarian
Oregon State University
richard.sapon-white@orst.edu

Remote-access computer file serials, often referred to simply as electronic serials, possess characteristics that challenge our definition of the term "serial" and our ability to catalog them according to the established cataloging code.  These challenges are reflected in the library science literature, where cataloging and indexing issues have generated thoughtful discussion on the definition of serials and the purpose of catalogs.

Applying the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules to electronic serials is the subject of several articles (Graham & Ringler 1996; Shadle 1998; Shadle et al. 1997; Anderson & Hawkins 1996).  Commonly raised issues include the inability to identify the first or earliest issue of a title, a requisite for description; the ambiguity of the term "chief source" for a web-based title with multiple sources of information; the existence of multiple formats of a work (e.g., ASCII, PostScript, and HTML) which have identical content but different presentation; the ability of issues to change content after the point of cataloging; and the question of whether to catalog print and electronic counterparts on the same record.  Hawkins (1998) provides examples of electronic serial titles which show the diversity of problems encountered when attempting to apply established rules.

Redefining the term "serial" is a common theme in the aforementioned articles.  Hirons and Graham (1997) discuss seriality in a much broader context than just electronic serials, but the authors' motivation clearly stems in part from the peculiarities of electronic serials. They propose dividing the bibliographic universe into static and ongoing publications.  In a similar vein, Graham and Ringler (1996) call for a set of descriptive rules to cover what they call "bibliographic hermaphrodites," that is, materials not issued in successive parts but that are constantly updated, such as online databases and web sites. The limitations of defining the bibliographic world in terms of only monographs and serials are also addressed by Jones (1996).

CONSER's response to the issue of cataloging multiple versions on one record is  discussed by Hirons (1998).  Case studies of how individual libraries have dealt with the single-record question and other challenges are to be found in Shadle et al. (1997).

Cataloging electronic serials also raises questions about the role of the OPAC and whether it should include resources over which the library has no control (Duranceau 1995).

The indexing of electronic serials has not yet received much attention in the literature, though Rentschler (1998) described the H.W. Wilson Company's efforts to index these publications.

References

Anderson, Bill, & Hawkins, Les. 1996. Development of CONSER cataloging policies for remote access computer file serials. Public-Access Computer Systems Review 7(1). [Online]. Available at {http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/v7/n1/ande7n1.html} [November 11, 1998].

Duranceau, Ellen Finnie, ed. 1995. Cataloging remote-access electronic serials: rethinking the role of the OPAC. Serials Review 21:67-77.

Graham, Crystal, & Ringler, Rebecca. 1996. Hermaphrodites & herrings. Serials Review 22:73-77.

Hawkins, Les. 1998  Serials published on the World Wide Web: cataloging problems and decisions. Serials Librarian 33(1/2):147-166

Hirons, Jean. 1998. The interim guidelines for online versions. Serials Librarian 34(1/2):159-164.

Hirons, Jean, & Graham, Crystal. 1997. Issues related to seriality. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Canada, Oct. 23-25, 1997. [Online]. Available at {http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/confpap.htm}.

Jones, Ed. 1996. Serials in the realm of the remotely-accessible: an exploration. Serials Review 22:77-79.

Rentschler, Cathy. 1998. Indexing electronic journals. Serials Librarian 33(3/4):319-324.

Shadle, Steven C. 1998. A square peg in a round hole: applying AACR2 to electronic journals. Serials Librarian 33(1/2):147-166.

Shadle, Steven C., Anderson, Bill, Champagne, Thomas, & O'Brien, Leslie. 1997. Electronic serials cataloging: Now that we're here, what do we do? Serials Librarian 30(3/4):109-127.


Archiving

Chad Buckley
Science Librarian
Illinois State University
cebuckle@ilstu.edu

Introduction

As electronic journals become more mainstream and move to supplant or at least complement the role of print journals in the scholarly environment, the formidable obstacle of how to ensure reliable long-term access to e-journal archives stands in our way. A host of factors contribute to this predicament. Rapid obsolescence and uncertainty about the physical longevity of digital documents are major concerns, as is providing the assurance that the documents will remain unaltered after publication. The dilemma of which electronic format is best for archiving remains to be resolved. This problem of format will certainly require continual attention as digital formats appear and disappear. The question of which e-journals should be archived also needs to be addressed, as does the question of who will take on the responsibility for archiving. Should this be the charge of libraries, of publishers, or of some other entity? Finally, the issue of whether libraries will retain the right to access volumes of e-journals for which they have paid even if subscriptions are later cancelled remains unresolved.

Longevity of Digital Information

One of the premises of scholarly communication is the permanent availability of published papers (Cox 1997). However, the rapid obsolescence of both the file formats in which articles are stored and of the hardware and software needed to access and interpret these files looms as one of the major concerns related to archiving electronic journals. While he does not specifically address the topic of electronic journals, Rothenberg (1995) summarizes the long-term problems associated with future access to all kinds of digital documents. The content of digital files may be lost to future scholars not just because the physical item deteriorates, but because the information cannot be extracted and interpreted correctly. Words on the printed page can be viewed and comprehended without any special equipment as long one knows the language in which they are written (Cox 1997; Rothenberg 1995). Digital documents, however, are dependent on the hardware and software needed to access them (Neavill & Sheble 1995). Several authors have also addressed whether or not files used to store digital information need to be "refreshed" or converted to new formats so that they may be retrieved and interpreted by whatever technology comes into use at some future date (Luijendijk 1996; Butler 1997; Johnson 1997).

While the potential obsolescence of digital files overshadows their possible physical deterioration, the actual physical lifespan of various storage formats also remains a concern. Neavill and Sheble (1995) and Conway (1996) discuss the potential lifespans of various types of storage media.

    

Intellectual Integrity and Digital Documents

Authors generally want the assurance that their work will not be altered by others after its publication (Tagler 1998). Boyce et al. (1997) state that "Readers must have confidence that the copy of the article they read has not been tampered with and that it represents what the author wrote and what the editorial process has vetted." While alteration of the original is remotely possible with printed works, the problem is magnified for digital documents (Lynch 1994; Johnson 1997). An article printed in a scholarly journal has a certain fixity. It cannot be altered without a great deal of trouble, and such alteration would most likely be readily apparent. However, a digital document is not necessarily so stable. A simple text file could easily be modified without any indication that it had been altered. An electronic page image from a printed journal would be more difficult to alter although it could still be done. Neavill and Sheble (1995) describe various measures which can help distinguish between successive versions of electronic documents.

Formats for Archiving Electronic Journals

A wide range of formats are available for publishing and archiving electronic journals (Cochenour & Moothart 1995; Duranceau et al. 1996; Boyce et al. 1997). Some authors express preferences for one format over others, but there seems to be no clear consensus as to which is best.

Simple ASCII text was prevalent in early electronic journals, but it suffered because it was unable to express complex mathematical formulae or symbols.

The PDF (Portable Data Format) file appears to be the current de facto standard in electronic serials publishing. This format reproduces an actual printed page in electronic format. Therefore whatever can be printed should be able to be stored or viewed in PDF format. This format does not, however, take full advantage of the possibilities electronic journals offer, including links to references, navigation within articles, and smooth flow of information on a screen. Boyce et al. (1997) found that users of their electronic astronomy journal chose to access articles in HTML versions five times more frequently than PDF versions. These authors believe PDF and the similar PostScript format function more as the equivalent of an electronic document delivery system. They further state that an electronic journal without links to references should not even be taken seriously.

HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) is quite effective for navigating within and between the articles in an electronic journal or database. One can link directly to original data, intermediate results, and related references (Boyce et al. 1997). It also allows for forward referencing to articles published at a date later than the paper being read.

SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) offers richly tagged files which may be the best for long-term archiving and converting to future formats (Tagler 1998). Boyce et al. (1997) state that "SGML is the standard for electronic manuscript tagging which has been adopted in practice by the physical science community." They further state that it is possible to migrate from SGML to emerging formats "without losing information or altering the article."

Cochenour and Moothart (1995), however, raise the interesting question of whether electronic journals should be archived in electronic format at all. Perhaps archives should be in print or microform format to ensure longevity of the documents.

Which Electronic Journals Should be Archived?

Some print journals are of high enough value to the scholarly community that they are bound and archived, whereas others are not. Such is also the case with electronic journals. Nisonger (1997) and Cochenour and Moothart (1995) believe that the same general criteria librarians use to evaluate whether or not a print journal should be archived can be applied to its electronic counterparts. Some publications are considered to be scholarly resources and should be preserved, while others are more ephemeral in nature and need not be archived on a long-term basis. Tagler (1998) states that scientific information has a short lifespan in general and may therefore be more suited for current access than for long-term archiving. He suggests a ten-year period as a rule of thumb for archiving scientific material, although this would be shorter for more ephemeral information sources, and might be longer for certain subjects like mathematics.

Who Should be Responsible for Archiving?

Many authors have discussed who should be responsible for archiving electronic journals (Cochenour & Moothart 1995; Luijendijk 1996; Nisonger 1997; Duranceau 1998; Keyhani 1998).

Publishers are unlikely to maintain long-term archives unless it is financially beneficial to them to do so. Duranceau (1998) foresees the day when publishers may decide to maintain only the most recent information on their e-journal sites or may even totally drop a specific title. Lynch (1994) warns of the dangers of centralization of information at a single site by both publishers and government agencies. He suggests that multiple independent archival sites are needed.

Individual libraries have traditionally have taken on the responsibility of archiving the world's knowledge. This has generally not been a formal, organized system, but it has worked nonetheless. Multiple sites typically archived copies of various journal titles, ensuring redundancy and availability of the scholarly record. Tagler (1998) writes that historically "the archival record survived because there were many duplicate copies in distribution throughout the world." This principle should hold true for archiving electronic information sources as well. Neavill and Sheble (1995) suggest that local archiving by libraries or consortia would be more reliable than relying on publishers to do so. Duranceau et al. (1996) and Keyhani (1998) describe issues including storage space, costs, and mirroring which must be considered prior to beginning a local archiving project. Butler (1997) also discusses the costs of operating a digital archive.

Consortia or national libraries have increasingly begun to focus attention on the archiving of electronic journals. CICNet, composed primarily of Big Ten universities, seeks to archive all electronic journals available free over the web (Nisonger 1997).

Luijendijk (1996) describes another possible scenario in which vendors or subscription agencies might fill this archiving need, as they have with providing back issues of print journals. Keyhani (1998) discusses the role aggregators may play in archiving electronic journals.

Libraries' Long-Term Rights to Archives

Libraries want the assurance that they will retain the right to access volumes of electronic journals for which they have paid, even if they cancel their subscriptions at a later date (Duranceau 1998). They also want to be able to treat electronic journals in the same manner in which they have treated print journals with regard to making them available to their patrons, including the right to borrow and lend via interlibrary loan.

Duranceau (1998) examines the provisions five e-journal publishers are making to ensure libraries' continued access to e-journals which they have purchased. These include providing continued web-based access to canceled titles in the case of OCLC's Electronic Collections Online (ECO) or providing archival disks on CD-ROM annually for Project Muse and upon cancellation for JSTOR. Blackwell's and Highwire Press currently have no intentions of guaranteeing archival access in perpetuity at this time due to publishers' decisions and lack of adequate technology, respectively.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no shortage of issues to be considered related to the archiving of electronic journals. The problem has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. For further reading, Day (1998) has compiled an extensive online bibliography of sources dealing with other aspects of preservation and archiving of digital information which are beyond the scope of this paper to examine. The Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information (1996) also provides a comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding this complex problem.

References

Boyce, P.B., Owens, E., and Biemesderfer, C. 1997.  Electronic publishing: experience is telling us something. Serials Review 23(3):1-9.

Butler, M.A. 1997. Issues and challenges of archiving and storing digital information: preserving the past for future scholars. Journal of Library Administration 24(4):61-79.

Cochenour, D. and Moothart, T. 1995. Relying on the kindness of strangers: archiving electronic journals on gopher. Serials Review 21(1):67-76.

Conway, P. 1996. Preservation in the digital world. Microform & Imaging Review 25(4):156-67.

Cox, J.E. 1997. Publishers, publishing and the Internet: how journal publishing will survive and prosper in the electronic age. Electronic Library 15(2):125-131.

Day, M. 1998. Preservation of electronic information: a bibliography. [Online]. Available: http://homes.ukoln.ac.uk/~lismd/preservation.html/. [Accessed: December 23, 1998].

Duranceau, E.F. 1998. Archiving and perpetual access for web-based journals: a look at the issues and how five e-journal providers are addressing them. Serials Review 24(2):110-115.

Duranceau, E., Lippert, M., Manoff, M., and Snowden, C. 1996. Electronic journals in the MIT libraries: report of the 1995 e-journal subgroup. Serials Review 22(1):47-61.

Johnson, P. 1997. Libraries and the preservation of electronic information. Technicalities 17(6):8-10.

Keyhani, A. 1998. Creating an electronic archive: who should do it and why? Serials Librarian 34(1/2):213-224.

Luijendijk, W. 1996. Archiving electronic journals: the serial information provider's perspective. IFLA Journal 22(3):209-210.

Lynch, C.A. 1994. Rethinking the integrity of the scholarly record in the networked information age. Educom Review 29(2):38-40.

Neavill, G.B. and Sheble, M.A. 1995. Archiving electronic journals. Serials Review 21(4):13-21.

Nisonger, T.E. 1997. Electronic journal collection management issues. Collection Building 16(2):58-65.

Rothenberg, J. 1995. Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American 272(1):42-47.

Tagler, J. 1998. The electronic archive: the publisher's view. Serials Librarian 34(1/2):225-232.

Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information. 1996. Preserving Digital Information: Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Preservation and Access. [Online]. Available: {http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/digpresstudy/final-report.pdf}. [Accessed 26 January 1999].


Licensing

Marian Burright
Science Librarian
George Mason University
mburrigh@osf1.gmu.edu

Legal Background:

Libraries have traditionally provided access to information for their users under the guidance of copyright law. The advent of photocopying in the 1950s, however, initiated a host of new challenges for libraries, commercial publishers and authors, and of course, library users (Davis 1997). The Copyright Revision Act of 1976 was supposed to address the rights of authors in relationship to the emerging copying technologies. But by 1978, advanced copying  and other technologies had become widespread that publishers and authors began to seek protection for their rights under contract law rather than copyright law. 

The problem of safeguarding publisher and author rights escalated even further when new technologies allowed widespread copying of data and software. Publishers and authors felt threatened under the provisions made by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) of 1978 because CONTU applied the doctrine of fair use to electronic media. Fair Use made general provisions to protect the public's rights to use copyrighted works while also protecting the authors' rights using general criteria such as: 1. purpose and character of the use, 2. the nature of the work, 3. the amount of the total work used, 4. effect of the use on the market value.

Publishers' departure from copyright law became visible when "shrink-wrap" agreements were sent with software packages. Formal  license agreements that required signatures by both the licensor and the licensee appeared in the early 1990's with CD-ROM products. Licenses for electronic products continue to be used by publishers as legal contracts to control prices, limit access, define use and users, and protect their rights (Davis & Reilly 1998).

Practical Considerations: General Guidelines for Licensing:

There are several common elements in the literature surveyed that discuss license negotiation:
  1. Careful consideration of the use/impact of the product on library services and users before the final decision to purchase a product is made (Cramer 1994; Okerson 1996; Davis 1997).
  2. The need to define an institution's users, sites, campus branches, etc. (Cramer 1994; Okerson 1996).
  3. An understanding of general license terms (Davis & Reilly 1998). 
  4. A  team-oriented work environment in which appropriate staff from: collection development, public service, library systems/automation, and university legal staff are involved in the licensing process (Davis 1997).
  5. The library should not assume that the publisher will provide free training or other products as part of the license (Davis 1997).
  6. Archiving needs to be addressed (Okerson 1996), and
  7. Pricing model must be understandable and affordable (Okerson 1996). For an in-depth treatment of the individual parts of a license agreement, see Davis (1997) and Davis and Reilly (1998).

Future Directions: Where are License Agreements Going?

There are many ways in which libraries can take a proactive role in the licensing of electronic products. Stephen Bosch argues that librarians can influence the future direction of licensing so as to minimize staff time and resources spent on the licensing process (Bosch 1998). Bosch proposes that the development of each of those elements: 1. common templates/boilerplates, 2. common principles, 3. common vocabulary, 4. blanket licenses, and 5. third party brokering,  is  worth investigating; however, a single solution may not be adequate.

References

Bosch, S. 1998. Licensing information: where can we go from here? Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 22(1): 45-47.

Cramer, M.D. 1994. Licensing agreements: think before you act. C&RL News. 496-497.

Davis, T.L. 1997. License agreements in lieu of copyright: are we signing away our rights? Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 21(1): 19-28.

Davis, T.L. and Reilly, J.J. 1998. Understanding license agreements for electronic products. The Serials Librarian 34(1/2): 247-260.

Okerson, A. 1996. What academic libraries need in electronic content licenses: presentation to the STM Library Relations Committee, STM Annual General Meeting. Serials Review 22(4): 65-69.

Other Resources:

Brennan, P., et al. 1997. Licensing Electronic Resources: Strategic and Practical Considerations for Signing Electronic Information Delivery Agreements. [Online]. Available: {http://www.arl.org/sc/marketplace/license/licbooklet.shtml} [March 13, 1997].

LIBLICENSE Licensing Digital Information: A Resource for Librarians. [Online]. Available: http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml [March 12, 1999].

FEEDBACK

We welcome your comments about this article.

[PREVIOUS] [CONTENTS] [NEXT]

W3C 
3.2 Checked!