After waiting patiently after the Master Journal Bundle 2.1+ came out - not a lot has happened.
Where was the frequent release programme we were expecting.
Shalom
The TJL journals are some of the main tools I've used in Logos and besides a base package, my single best investment I've made in Logos
Nathan, you articulated your thoughts very well and I concur with all that you wrote
Nathan,
Correct me if I am wrong, but from past conversations with Galaxie, my understanding was that they created all there own content and sold there cd's to Logos as well as direct to customers. Logos never licensed the content from Galaxie, and Galaxie set the price that Logos or any other reseller could charge.
You look a the Logos pricing model for any title that requires significant tagging, and we have always paid a premium price for it. Just look at the pricing for public domain titles to illustrate my point, the money is in the tagging. Galaxie never tagged their resources to the extent now required by the Logos guide section for journals. The Westminster Theological Journal is on sale right now for 20% off and is selling for 291.00. I just don't see the pricing model you are looking for coming to pass.
Your pricing model reminds me off past conversations on the Forums about pricing. The argument went like this, If only Logos would lower its prices they would make up the difference by all the copies they could sell. Bob P pointed out in a post, that would not work for them.
I started with Galaxie from the very beginning and like you journals were at the top of my go to resources. I would have loved for Galaxie and Logos to have worked out something, but alas it didn't happen. Logos was the lions share of Galaxie sales, and indeed journals was at the very top of Logos best sellers for as long as they sold them.
Let's see what the future will hold, Phil Gons made a huge push for journals, but pricing kept sales from being what Logos needed to offer them every quarter. I am hopeful for this new push to reinvigorate the journals program. Lets see what they come up with for a pricing model for the future.
I have the latest master journal bundle, and every galaxie one that was ever available for purchase and a number of others besides. They have been some of my best investments. Even with their substantial flaws when it came to citations and tagging. How quickly we have forgotten the myriad of issues we had when we were purchasing the galaxie product. Now it almost feels like we're the Israelites longing for a return to Egyptian slavery. I believe Bob and the team will get it right. I just don't want them to think its an issue that we have forgotten about. The squeaky wheel often gets the grease. Squeak squeak.
How quickly we have forgotten the myriad of issues we had when we were purchasing the galaxie product.
I did not have any issues with the product for the price. But I do understand FL is trying to improve on what was. Just wish we could continue to get updated journals every year...and updates on the progress of things
How quickly we have forgotten the myriad of issues we had when we were purchasing the galaxie product. I did not have any issues with the product for the price. But I do understand FL is trying to improve on what was. Just wish we could continue to get updated journals every year...and updates on the progress of things
I agree I had no issues with the Galaxie product, the first I heard of issues is when FL put it forward as their reason for going it alone and journals since then have been a major dissapointment ever since with broken promise after broken promise.
A few more things I'll throw into this conversation...
1. It's likely true that the TJL content was originally produced by Galaxie (not Logos) and sold to Faithlife and other Bible software vendors, although Faithlife or Galaxie would have to confirm that as I haven't been specifically told that by either party. I know that times have changed with Faithlife reigning in more control over Logos resources (New Nelson eBible packages are no longer sold, SESB has been replaced by the GBS Bundle at Logos.com, etc.). Much of it is probably to ensure quality control, which I perfectly understand (although in some instances it has resulted in inferior collections or product offerings in terms of content offered).
2. In terms of the older TJL content produced as is from Galaxie, overall I was generally satisfied with it. My only main issue was citations weren't fully fleshed out, so I either had to go back and edit citations in documents, or if I was in a hurry and forgot to edit some of them, my professors would remind me in my grade. :-) This isn't as much of a personal issue to me anymore now that I use Nota Bene for academic writing, as I do all my citations outside of Logos in Ibidem and ensure the content is accurate in Ibidem before my citations are generated (plus I'm spending more time quality checking my papers). For others though, it's an area that certainly needed work, and I'll still appreciate any effort Faithlife puts into better citations in journals. The journals guide section is handy, especially those who are new to journals, and I've used it occasionally for quickly finding journals that match a Scripture reference I was looking for, but honestly, I got used to creating my own more complex searches in Logos with the journals that the guide section has limits for me, and and those complex searches worked even with the old TJL before any additional tagging was adding just because they were Logos resources.
3. My pricing model I proposed may or may not work. I threw it out there totally as a suggestion (nothing more). In the past, Faithlife offered me (and I purchased) a journal bundle with almost the same content as a year of TJL for about $10-15 less, so I'm judging by past experience with Faithlife when I mentioned that pricing model. I definitely understand that extensive Logos tagging costs money to do, and there's a limit on how low Faithlife can go to ensure it can tag resources and make a profit and pay the salaries of those who tag resources. I'd even be willing to pay somewhat more than the pricing model I proposed to have annual TJL resources complete with Logos tagging just to ensure I'd be guaranteed annual journals in Logos and have the additional perks of getting them in Logos. I would pay more because they are essential to my line of work. With that said, I also know there's only so high as Faithlife can charge for them where many customers aren't going to pay the "Logos tax" (can I use that term?) to have the journals in Logos. They'll go straight to Galaxie or another Bible software program and get them, even if the tagging quality or search capabilities are inferior. My pricing model was more of a rough estimate of an "I and likely most Logos customers would pay this no questions asked to get annual journals in Logos" (since Phil did ask how much are you willing to pay), and I personally would be willing to pay more. The secret to making this work is Faithlife is going to have to determine how to best offer regular journal content (annual updates are a minimum for me since I need to remain current) with enough of an extra cost to cover the quality tagging while still pricing them in a way that people are going to pay the "Logos tax" for without still jumping ship and going elsewhere. However Faithlife ends up doing it, if they can provide me annual journal updates somewhat decently priced, I'm happy and ready to fork over my credit card. I've purchased all of Faithlife's prior journal offerings, and I'm ready to purchase more.
My main goal in the message was just to say that no matter how Faithlife goes about offering this, the bridge has not been burned with Galaxie (this I know for a fact), so if Faithlife cannot pull this off going it alone, it's an option that Faithlife has on the table that isn't completely written off. However they end up offering them, if I can get current journal offerings each year, my credit card is waiting to be charged.
2. In terms of the older TJL content produced as is from Galaxie, overall I was generally satisfied with it. My only main issue was citations weren't fully fleshed out
no one else remembers all the threads
They are remembered [the tagging issues] but what else can one add to that discussion/topic?
At least we had those TJL journal articles.
Thanks
The Journal section in the passage guide did not exist when Galaxie was doing the journals so you can't say that was a problem back then and there are a bucket load or two of resources beyond journals that also continue to have citations not linked so its not a problem unique to journals. I would much rather have what we had back then with journals with yearly updates of a variety of journals than what FL offers now.
2. In terms of the older TJL content produced as is from Galaxie, overall I was generally satisfied with it. My only main issue was citations weren't fully fleshed out That was my problem too. I mentioned the tagging because the journal section wouldn't work without it. Nor were the links books or quotes particularly good... A lot of that was repaired when Logos took over the journals - which I really appreciate. I too am happy to fork over the credit card for more journals. especially if it is as afordable as it has always been. But probably would even if it were more money. I'm surprised no one else remembers all the threads from that era.
so you can't say that was a problem back then
Re-reading my post I see where I could have spoken more clearly. However that (the idea that tagging for something that didnt exist was a problem) wasnt my intent when writing. The new tagging wouldn't have been done by galaxie, because the lesser amount of tagging they used to do was severely lacking and Logos had to fix it for us. If they had attempted it, and I find it unlikely, it wouldn't have been complete. Thats all I meant. We did get them regularly, but they were diamonds in the rough. Absolutely invaluable, but lacking pollish. I worked proof reading ad copy for a couple of years (which is probably a surprise based on my writing here ) so perhaps I notice more issues than most when I'm reading.
We love using the journals as much you all of you do! We're working on a new posting schedule for journals at this very moment. In the next week or two, we should have that new calendar schedule for regular posting of new journals. We also have a new update to the journal bundles coming down the pipeline. The plan moving forward is more consistency and we definitely want to make sure that we can keep up with new issues as they come.
We love using the journals as much you all of you do!
We're working on a new posting schedule for journals at this very moment. In the next week or two, we should have that new calendar schedule for regular posting of new journals. We also have a new update to the journal bundles coming down the pipeline.
The plan moving forward is more consistency and we definitely want to make sure that we can keep up with new issues as they come.
Frankly these are empty, unsustainable words. Previous words like them were spoken by other Logos representatives and have come to mean nothing.
Logos has clearly not heard the clamor from those of us who want journals timely and complete. Journals that used to be offered that are no longer (and will never, it seems) available force us to spend money at Galaxie and other software companies.
If this were a priority at Logos, it would receive the same amount of attention/PR/Communication that LogosNow receives, or the like.
100% [Y]
This is disappointing and a chink in the Logos armor.
I am glad I purchased 2.1 and got it for a really good sale price..
I have an annual subscription to Galaxie now, and so far so good. It is a cost-effective way to ensure I'm fully up-to-date on the journals. It's a little tricky to perform some of the searches I perform on the journals in Logos using the web interface instead, but once I get it down, I should still be able to do some solid searches in it. I have the URL pinned to Logos so one-click can take me to the website.
As far as new journals, we're actively working to get licenses for many of the journals and put in place an "all current and future volumes" contract. That way we can just get the newest journals up as soon as they are available. Keep your eye out for something soon!
As far as new journals, we're actively working to get licenses for many of the journals and put in place an "all current and future volumes" contract. That way we can just get the newest journals up as soon as they are available.
Keep your eye out for something soon!
My eye is still out! You wrote Saturday, Feb 11, 2017 . . . today is Sunday, Sept 10, 2017 . . . fortunately, it's still the same year!
If you search these forums, the discussion on journals goes back years now... I think my last engagement on a thread goes back to at least 2013.
With all the imperfections, there was a 'golden era' of journals... we had Galaxie and BAR. I understand why they went away, but it was reasonably priced and consistent.
We can't go back, but I hope that something emerges from the ashes at some point.
Also want to see Hebrew Union College Annual (I am constantly encountering references to this journal), more Catholic Bible Quarterly, Harvard Theological Review, and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology.
No more Journals, why not? Because Logos decided NOT to sell them anymore. From the Galaxie website:
whether or not this is the official position, it is absolutely clear that journals are not a priority at Logos. Other tracks for business revenue seem to be where Bob wants to take his software company. At the very least, the promises made here by Logos employees still go unfulfilled. No mea culpa and no results. It begs the question why with such a vocal component of Logos users wanting journals, that more products are not released to us or, AGAIN AT THE VERY LEAST, better communication is made about when and why. I have reached out to Bob and Phil over the past few years on these issues and the reply is weak. Perhaps it is time for both to replay again and restate the future of journals in Logos.
No more Journals, why not? Because Logos decided NOT to sell them anymore. From the Galaxie website: whether or not this is the official position, it is absolutely clear that journals are not a priority at Logos. Other tracks for business revenue seem to be where Bob wants to take his software company. At the very least, the promises made here by Logos employees still go unfulfilled. No mea culpa and no results. It begs the question why with such a vocal component of Logos users wanting journals, that more products are not released to us or, AGAIN AT THE VERY LEAST, better communication is made about when and why. I have reached out to Bob and Phil over the past few years on these issues and the reply is weak. Perhaps it is time for both to replay again and restate the future of journals in Logos.
The future of biblical journals is described in DAL's post.
it is absolutely clear that journals are not a priority at Logos. Other tracks for business revenue seem to be where Bob wants to take his software company. At the very least, the promises made here by Logos employees still go unfulfilled. No mea culpa and no results. It begs the question why with such a vocal component of Logos users wanting journals, that more products are not released to us or, AGAIN AT THE VERY LEAST, better communication is made about when and why. I have reached out to Bob and Phil over the past few years on these issues and the reply is weak. Perhaps it is time for both to replay again and restate the future of journals in Logos.
I'm sorry for the delay in releasing journal updates and the lack of regular communication. Our plans for quarterly updates stalled out when new collections did get funded quickly enough. Then we had some staff changes that put this work on the back burner for a while. Mike has been working on getting us caught up with recent additions, and I've asked him to provide an update. We're still committed to journals as a category. We'd like to have all the journals that we used to have in TJL, and we'll keep working until we do.
One mistake we made a couple of years ago was offering too many journals that put the upgrade cost out of reach for many people who were used to spending $50/yr. Contrary to what many people thought, we actually priced our journals below the 50 volumes for $50 rate. They were less expensive per journal, but more expensive overall since we added many new journals and several large updates to existing journals. We're changing our strategy to try to keep prices closer to what you were used to before.
We'll post back soon with more details on timing. I'm sorry for the delay.
I'm sorry for the delay in releasing journal updates and the lack of regular communication.
Phil, there is no excuse for this. We have heard this line for a very long time. FL made many mistakes in taking over the journals from Galaxie. The price problem should have been anticipated. It was very poor marketing, very poor decisions on the part of FL. You have said in this email that there will be better communication. I hope it is true, but I have no confidence in it.
I am glad I got the bundle you offered when you did. You say that the large bundles were better deals. I agree with that. But it was not what the customer wanted. And that was made clear all along. You could have made more money by offering $50 TJL titles and $50 for a new package of journals etc. Except you could not do that because not all TJL titles were willing to part with Galaxie and come to Logos. I spoke with one Journal who said they would never come to Logos. I guess the whole takeover left a bad taste with many all around.
Mistakes are made. Recovering from them all depends on how FL responds.
We'll post back soon with more details on timing.
Eagerly awaiting to order!
I guess the whole takeover left a bad taste with many all around. Mistakes are made. Recovering from them all depends on how FL responds.
I guess the whole takeover left a bad taste with many all around.
I'll get in trouble and repeat my point, 52 pages back. There's 2 markets (at least). One group needs updates regularly, focused, and is willing to pay bottom dollar. My group want lots of journals (academic for me), pay bottom dollar (of course), and are happy with every now and then.
Now, if Logos starts dumping choices (journals) to achieve frequency, okie dokie, but not on my nickel. Just being realistic concerning the challenge.
I'm sorry for the delay in releasing journal updates and the lack of regular communication. Phil, there is no excuse for this. We have heard this line for a very long time. FL made many mistakes in taking over the journals from Galaxie. The price problem should have been anticipated. It was very poor marketing, very poor decisions on the part of FL. You have said in this email that there will be better communication. I hope it is true, but I have no confidence in it. I am glad I got the bundle you offered when you did. You say that the large bundles were better deals. I agree with that. But it was not what the customer wanted. And that was made clear all along. You could have made more money by offering $50 TJL titles and $50 for a new package of journals etc. Except you could not do that because not all TJL titles were willing to part with Galaxie and come to Logos. I spoke with one Journal who said they would never come to Logos. I guess the whole takeover left a bad taste with many all around. Mistakes are made. Recovering from them all depends on how FL responds.
This my sentiement exactly. I am frankly tired of the excuses and apologies. We are talking YEARS of this. There must be more than just words from Phil or Bob or "Mike" on this. There should be a very public and immediate action towards restoring journals in Logos. I have invested, as many, many others have, thousands of dollars in a company that now has dropped a major component of Christian scholarship and academia. How is that even possible for over three years? How is it acceptable in the CEO's mind to continue to allow this to continue on?
Logos used to be the leader in Bible Software, nay, it was unchallenged. That is not true anymore. Loss of marketshare and partnering publishing houses directly affects us as end users. Restore confidence in our minds that Logos is committed to journals in a significant way. Show us transparency in the progress. Update us regularly, even if it is to say: "This is still in progress and we are committed to bringing these to you." Hold yourself accountable by giving monthly or even biweekly updates on Fridays. Otherwise, all we have left are these grossly irregular updates when forum users email you directly. That is a poor relationship indeed.
I started using Logos in her Libronix days for the simple objective of utilizing the journals for writing papers/research. The development from FL has been disappointing, which is an understatement, really. If FL doesn't buck up and furnish us with what we deem as essential, then it is understandable that users might be forced to invest in alternatives.
I, for one, have already started to invest in a competitor's product.
Welcome to a monopoly producer in a free market...its all about the cash.
[quote]Then we had some staff changesThis still makes me sad. Every employee (except you Phil, and Bob) that I've communicated with at FL since I've been a customer were all sacked about the same time
I'm sorry that I haven't been on this thread since I initially posted.
We're committed to getting back to a regular schedule for journal posting. I have a list of journals that we have already but need updates for. I have another list of journals that we do not have and want to actively pursue producing.
We want to get those updates posted for you as soon as we can.
I'll post again toward the end of the week and give another update. We appreciate your efforts to keep us accountable and that you care so much about these journals!
I have a list of journals that we have already but need updates for.
Why not be more specific?
I have another list of journals that we do not have and want to actively pursue producing.
In fact, this post tells us absolutely nothing. Does FL not have a plan? A goal? Anything to communicate?
I am sorry, but there is no confidence at all when it comes to FL and journals.
I'm sorry that I haven't been on this thread since I initially posted. We're committed to getting back to a regular schedule for journal posting. I have a list of journals that we have already but need updates for. I have another list of journals that we do not have and want to actively pursue producing. We want to get those updates posted for you as soon as we can. I'll post again toward the end of the week and give another update. We appreciate your efforts to keep us accountable and that you care so much about these journals!
I'd also like to see the list of journals you don't have but want to produce.
I hope JETS comes back
If I pick up any of the couple of dozen books within reach, very FEW of the TJL titles will be listed in the bibliographies. On the other hand, I keep seeing the same dozen or so journals referenced AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...
My point in posting, again, is that while some folks my be content with generic journals, I want journals that are being referenced by the resources I have in my library. Time and time and time again, I DON'T have these journals because the ones most quoted are not available in Logos. WHY IS THIS THE CASE? Just get them already. I am more likely to buy the journals being referenced in my library than other random journals I am only familiar with because Logos offers them. Please become relevant. Please sell what is relevant. Frankly, what I'd like to see is Logos do a database crawl and offer journals IN ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF REFERENCES MADE IN THE LOGOS CATALOG. This should be the criterion that sets the marching orders for those working on this.
Every employee (except you Phil, and Bob) that I've communicated with at FL since I've been a customer were all sacked about the same time
[*-)]
I have a list of journals that we have already but need updates for. Why not be more specific? I have another list of journals that we do not have and want to actively pursue producing. Why not be more specific? In fact, this post tells us absolutely nothing. Does FL not have a plan? A goal? Anything to communicate? I am sorry, but there is no confidence at all when it comes to FL and journals.
Every FL employee that has made promises about Journals no doubt has done so with total sincerity and the best intentions but despite that I have to agree with you Mark. FL lost its way quite a few years ago.
Who moved the cheese?...Well it's no surprise it is FL who has done this. I am among the loyal customers who have invested heavily (Mercedes C300 car money) in FL and its products.
I moved my journals fund to a competitor with a sense of bitterness and deep disappointment. But, what choice did I have with FL's doddering inaction and consistent misrepresentations.
I have held my tongue hoping to see what is the only clear message that can be sent this late in the day, action. This foul exceeds the Britannica farce as it has been as grossly mismanaged and far exceeds it in time we've been waiting for its resolution. The time for promises unfulfilled and timetables overreached is done.
Parting with Galaxie was a gross error. And, as far as I'm concerned the only person who can put this thing right is Bob. He must see this as mission critical.
Exactly. The vaguery of the comments by Mike and Phil do nothing to assuage our frustration regarding this issue. Specifics on journals and timetables would be helpful. Considering how much of a fiasco this is, over communication should be the standard at this point.
Bet, you're right. Mike will put together some pre-pubs (updates, new journals). The 'little red line' will reach 50% (aka DOA). And there you go.
Bet, you're right.
And you know Denise the thing that stings the most is I put my trust in FL and the stool was kicked from under me/us. FL has to rebuild trust in this area before they attract my dollars. Once bitten twice shy. And Everett, your analysis has always been spot on.
So far what I've seen is what one of my favorite pastors called MOTS "more of the same" a sure sign you will not see a different outcome.
Well, Beloved, I thought you might enjoy 'deja vu'.
1. Libby has just been replaced. Logos4 is brand-new, missing some Libby-features, but excitement in the air.
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/7217.aspx?PageIndex=1
2. Time has passed. Logos5 is approaching (the version that Logos nailed). Journalistas are starting to smell rotton eggs:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/51922.aspx?PageIndex=1
Of course, after that came the collections, dreamy promises, etc.
Then (I added), some more sabre rattling, followed by Phil calming the waters:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/136193/917476.aspx#917476
Of, course, after that was the March 2017 updates (this thread includes).
Now, the sabres are out again. Sabre rattling seems the key.
If it weren't so ghastly it would be funny![:@]
If I pick up any of the couple of dozen books within reach, very FEW of the TJL titles will be listed in the bibliographies. On the other hand, I keep seeing the same dozen or so journals referenced AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... Vetus Testamentum Novum Testamentum (Also frequently referenced is the Supplements of these) Catholic Bible Quarterly Harvard Theological Review Interpretation: Journal of Bible and Theology OLDER issues of Journal of Biblical Literature Hebrew Union College Annual Oxford-related journals and, yes, JETS. My point in posting, again, is that while some folks my be content with generic journals, I want journals that are being referenced by the resources I have in my library. Time and time and time again, I DON'T have these journals because the ones most quoted are not available in Logos. WHY IS THIS THE CASE? Just get them already. I am more likely to buy the journals being referenced in my library than other random journals I am only familiar with because Logos offers them. Please become relevant. Please sell what is relevant. Frankly, what I'd like to see is Logos do a database crawl and offer journals IN ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF REFERENCES MADE IN THE LOGOS CATALOG. This should be the criterion that sets the marching orders for those working on this.
These are high on our wishlist. Last time we investigated, many of them were unavailable to license. We'll check again and see if anything has changed.
Phil
What is the plan?
1. How many journals do you have currently licensed and available for sale individually today? How many are on sale in bundles today? Can you link to them here please?
2. Which journals did you sell in the past which are no longer licensed currently in FL and of them, which are you striving to license in the future?
3. There are so many journals. What is the thinking of FL on how to sell them (those that you currently have licensed, but are not yet on sale)
Hi everyone,
I'm not an MVP or a Faithlife employee but I'm very uncomfortable with some of the posts here. I wonder if this discussion has gone on for long enough. I understand the need to vent but if we keep attacking and targeting the employees from Faithlife who are brave enough to stick their heads above the parapet, honest enough to admit mistakes and humble enough to apologise they'll hardly want to return to engage with us. We're right to want to hold this company which has Christian values accountable but we need to remember the rule of love ourselves.
I too am disappointed in how things have worked out with journals. For many years they were almost all that I owned in Logos and I used them extensively, looking forward to the annual update (though people complained back then too that they weren't coming quickly enough - perhaps our glasses are a little rosy now). I've come to realise though that there is more to Logos than journals and I've reached the stage where I barely scratch the surface of the resources I have.
Most people at university or seminary probably have access to online journals such as atla but they are unlikely to have access to a library as rich and varied as that offered by Logos. So I am thankful for what I have, hopeful that updates will be available but doubtful of the value of further venting or aggression in this thread.
Colin.
Parting with Galaxie was a gross error. And, as far as I'm concerned the only person who can put this thing right is Bob. He must see this as mission critical. Exactly. The vaguery of the comments by Mike and Phil do nothing to assuage our frustration regarding this issue. Specifics on journals and timetables would be helpful. Considering how much of a fiasco this is, over communication should be the standard at this point.
We'll provide concrete details as soon as we have them. We've responded to acknowledge that we've seen the discussion and let you know we're working on it. We're trying to avoid sharing details that aren't yet final.
Mike and team are close on the list of journal volumes we can update. As soon as we feel confident with it, we'll share the details. A couple of licensing conversations need to happen when team members are back in the office. I hope to have clarity on that front by early next week.
Bringing a good resolution to this is our top priority.
Ironic coming from you. Still agitating for the return of L3's notes? The firings are still a thing that bothers me. I have spent maybe 300$ (probably less than that actually) that i hadn't already agreed to pay since that happened. The year prior I spent like 6 or 7k? Any way, I'll check back in a year or so. Adios till something breaks again.
Colin, this discussion has lingered for years. It has done so because of the numerous promises and implications made directly by Logos representatives. Those promises have gone unfilled, multiple times. You may be uncomfortable, but there needs to be accountability for what has taken place. They have an obligation to return and engage with us. We have paid for software and liscineing with the agreement that more is coming. Yet that has not happened. This breach of verbal contract is simply not acceptable. At no point in this recent conversation has any Logos user not acted in accordance with the rule of love. Accountability is usually not warm and fuzzy. That does not mean that it is hateful and mean-spirited. If we did not want Logos to succeed we would have given up YEARS ago and pointed our money to some other software. What simply needs to happen is for Logos to clearly, timely, and completely communicate with us about the status of the journals promised to us.
(Frankly, I grow weary of posts like this when we hold Logos accountable. This is how we are to air this grievances about Logos, per Logos. I have yet to see why this is wrong or uncomfortable in some eyes. No one has stepped out of bounds, allow us to have this dialogue.)
1. How many journals do you have currently licensed and available for sale individually today? I assume by individually you mean at the individual journal level, not at the individual issue or volume level, right? The closest we have to this is our academic journals facet, which shows 502 results. But it includes individual issues and volumes as well as all the bundles. It also includes three Pre-Pubs and one Community Pricing product. Short answer: I don't have the definitive list readily available, but I could track it down if it would be helpful.
1. How many journals do you have currently licensed and available for sale individually today?
I assume by individually you mean at the individual journal level, not at the individual issue or volume level, right? The closest we have to this is our academic journals facet, which shows 502 results. But it includes individual issues and volumes as well as all the bundles. It also includes three Pre-Pubs and one Community Pricing product. Short answer: I don't have the definitive list readily available, but I could track it down if it would be helpful.
How many are on sale in bundles today? Can you link to them here please?
Over 2,000 volumes from 66 journals (including some magazines) are available in Master Journal Bundle 2.1 (2,000+ vols.). Subsets of those 2,000 are available in these three bundles:
Our plan is to license as many of these as we can.
Note: "Up to date" means compared to Galaxie, not compared to the available issues.
We'll sell them in the four bundles listed above and as individual journals (with dynamic pricing enabled). Sometimes our rights don't allow us to bundle. We're happy to explore other bundles where the current four don't meet our customers needs. We're open to other suggestions as well.
Phil,
Did we lose EX AUDITU? I was really looking forward to future volumes.
