Page:Finch Group report.pdf/81

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

81


7.47. Walk-in access would not, of course, meet the demand for access at any time and anywhere. But access free of charge to any user of a public library would provide real benefits to many people who at present face considerable barriers if they want to find authoritative information about research relevant to their interests and needs. At the very least it would be a valuable—and free—supplement to the current access options of PPV from the publisher’s platform, document delivery services such as those provided by the British Library, and other services such as DeepDyve.

7.48. It is proposed that this public library initiative should run for an initial period of two years, in order to gather and analyse data on demand and usage; and publishers hope to extend the service at the end of the two years if it has not led to any damaging loss of core revenues. The precise terms of what will be provided—whether access will be restricted to screens on library equipment, restrictions on copying to other devices, access to printing, and related matters—and issues such as discoverability and whether access will be provided to all content via a single platform, have yet to be worked out. A working group of representatives of public libraries and of publishers has been established to consider these issues, and how the proposal can be implemented to best effect.

7.49. If the initiative is to achieve its full potential impact, it will need to be accompanied by the development of clear guidance and advice for both users and the staff in public libraries on the nature and scope of journals and their contents, and on how to navigate to relevant articles. A clear marketing strategy will also need to be developed and implemented to ensure that those who are interested in gaining access to journals are aware of the initiative.[1] With all those measures in place, the initiative is likely to have a major impact.

Content coverage

7.50. In considering extensions to current licensing arrangements, it is important, as we noted earlier, to consider the amounts and proportions of content, as well as the sectors, that are covered. There could be a natural tendency in seeking to extend he numbers of people who have licensed access to focus attention on the larger publishers who control the majority of content in the form of journals and articles. It will be important, therefore, to put measures in place to protect the interests of large numbers of smaller publishers—with journals that are valuable in their fields—who would find it more difficult than their larger colleagues to engage in negotiations on extending their licence agreements to cover more people and organisations; and to make sure that as many people as possible have access to as wide a range of journals as possible, including those published by the smaller publishers.

Costs

  1. Experiments in the Netherlands to provide access through libraries to SMEs have proved disappointing mainly, it is thought, because they received very little publicity.