SPEC Kit 316: Evaluating E-resources · 49
Whenever possible, the library encourages publishers to use SERU in lieu of a formal license/contract. This approach has
been most successful with new and small publishers and, to a lesser extent, publishers from the developing world.
Again, SERU never had enough publishers sign on so that it was a useful tool for us. The only publisher we are
interested in that is a member is Lyell, and we only have one title from them, and they are not requiring a signed license,
so we are on a handshake. SERU is a great idea, but it is a party to which no one came.
Although we would be happy to use SERU if more vendors supported it.
Don’t use it at this time.
Model license under development.
NISO used Occasionally.
No, not yet. UCB, UCI, UCSD, UCSF, UCSB, CDL all belong to the registry, not sure if they use SERU.
Not yet, but we are part of the SERU registry.
Only when there is a single title involved with small cost.
We are actively looking into SERU.
We have signed on as willing to use SERU but have not yet had an opportunity to do so.
We look to the NERL generic license and principles for guidance.
We served as a pilot library for the SERU beta period, but had no success with convincing publishers to adopt it for use.
We tend to follow the NERL standard license.
25. How important are the following licensing terms when evaluating potential e-resources for direct
library purchase/licensing? Please make one choice per row. N=72
N Not at All
Interlibrary loan 72 2 6 17 42 5
Electronic reserves 72 1 3 25 40 3
Walk-in users 72 1 3 10 38 20
Cancellation restrictions 72 1 11 22 31 7
Consequences of unauthorized use of the
72 1 16 23 26 6
Consequences of unauthorized access to
72 1 17 23 25 6
Level of support 72 1 9 38 24 —