NEJM - change in online access rules

From: Fytton Rowland <>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:15:31 +0100

I know that this isn't really the subject of this Forum, but I thought
members of this list might be interested to know that the originators
of the Ingelfinger Rule are also outrageous at the other end of the
process (sale of their product).

    [Interesting observation, and the reason this is not the subject
     of this Forum is that this Forum is dedicated to transcending
     (refereed-journal) access tolls, legally, not to lowering them.
     The message is here posted so participants can reflect on the
     telling fact that the motivation behind BOTH phenomena -- both the
     recent silly access rules and the Ingelfinger Rule -- is EXACTLY
     the same: to protect current journal revenue streams. This is
     fully understandable, and we should not condemn it (we would do
     the same in their shoes). Rather, we should transcend it, legally
     (by self-archiving our own institutions's contribution to that
     very same refereed journal literature on the outgoing end, thereby
     freeing access to all of it for all potential users, everywhere,
     forever). Amen -- S.H., Forum Moderator]

Fytton Rowland

> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:00:37 -0400
> From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <>
> Subject: Re: NEJM - change in online access
> X-Cc:
> If there is truly no site licenses, I would deal with the problem as
> with Nature: refuse to enable this inadequate online access, post an
> explanation, and instruct the users how to complain to both the
> publisher and the editor.
> As with Nature, this typically happens with the highest quality titles,
> which are so confident of their status that they think that libraries
> will accept whatever absurdity they propose. Our experience showed that
> this was not the case with Nature, and the publisher eventually
> understood. The same happened two years ago with the American Society
> for Microbiology, when they proposed institutional licenses linked to
> specific buildings. Very few libraries subscribed, very many users
> complained, the editors were outraged at the loss of access to their
> journals, and the society eventually changed its policy.
> The continuing high status of a journal such as NEJM requires both high
> editorial standards and wide distribution.
> Dr. David Goodman
> Biology Librarian
> and Digital Resources Researcher
> Princeton University Library
> Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
> phone: 609-258-3235
> fax: 609-258-2627
> e-mail:
> (note: anyone who wishes to transmit my suggestion further has my
> permission and encouragement to do so--DG)
> Elizabeth Lorbeer wrote:
> >
> > Friday, August 24, 2001
> >
> > How is your institution handling the change in online access to the New
> > England Journal of Medicine? To ONLY be able to access the journal online
> > from 5 workstations on our campus is outrageous! There is no site license,
> > and the publisher's remedy is to purchase more individual subscriptions.
> > Has anyone spoken to the publisher?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Elizabeth Lorbeer, Ed.M., MLS
> > Collection Development Manager
> > Rush University
> > Rush Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago Illinois
> > <>
> >
> > Eileen Welch
> > Director, Online Development
> > The New England Journal of Medicine
> > Publishing Division
> > Telephone (781) 434-7040

Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.

Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039 Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:14 GMT