Hi, Dusty.
Yes, Judith’s comment is what I understand to be true as well. However, I have reiterated to T&F and do so again, especially to current individually subscribing
customers here, the consideration of value in the flexibility of the (former 1997-pres, individual title) subscription model, which is at stake here. Budget uncertainties warrant a cautious approach to packages or set spend commitments. T&F is among only
a few major publishers not currently limited to a big deal model, and who also who has partnered in the SERU licensing initiative. We highly value both these elements in our relationship with T&F and it is both these, as well as the principles and value of
the access model, which I personally want to make certain don’t get overlooked.
I know that GWLA, my library consortia, is meeting this week to discuss this, and I encourage others to do the same with their consortia or institutions, and
take the opportunity to educate publishers.
-Angie
Angela Rathmel
Head of Acquisitions & Resource Sharing
University of Kansas Libraries
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG>
On Behalf Of Judith Koveleskie
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:48 PM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] T&F Moving Wall
I think they are negotiating different things with different customers. We were offered coverage back to 1997 for one journal becausè we had a print subscription for many years including the years we would be losing.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:06 PM Dusty Gorman <dgorman@pugetsound.edu> wrote: