skip to content
  • LGBT History Month at the UL

    During February the University Library joined with a number of colleges and other institutions across town and University to mark LGBT History Month, an annual event promoting equality and diversity by increasing the visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and raising awareness of matters affecting the LGBT+ community. This began on 1st February with the raising of the rainbow flag (for forty years a symbol of gay pride) over the Library’s iconic tower and concluded on 28th February with a drop-in exhibition—entitled ‘Queering the UL’—of LGBT+ material from our historic and modern collections, an event which will be repeated tomorrow (Tuesday 20th March, 12.00-2.00, in the Milstein Seminar Rooms).

    Whilst the display naturally includes material by or about individuals who lived, for example, as gay men (Oscar Wilde and Edward Carpenter), the intention is also to draw out evidence of LGBT+ culture in what might be called more traditional literature (including Chaucer and Shakespeare). There is also a focus on connections with Cambridge, including the Uranian poets Charles Sayle (member of UL staff) and Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson (fellow of King’s College).

    Although it is difficult to capture the breadth of material on display in the blog format, we hope that the imagery here gives a flavour of what was on show. The physical display intentionally juxtaposed old with new, without any attempt to impose a strict narrative from beginning to end, qualities captured here by focusing on imagery rather than text: some items are self-explanatory and others required more interpretation.

    Poster by the Front d’Alliberament Gai de Catalunya (1979) from the collection of Hispanic ephemera recently presented to the Library by Dr Robert Howes

    The Yellow Book (July 1895), associated with the Aesthetic and Decadence movements, included much work by flamboyant artist Aubrey Beardsley, who had illustrated Oscar Wilde’s Salome (T727.c.5.6)

    An issue of ‘Get Real’, Cambridge University’s Queer Positive Magazine, kindly lent by the CUSU LGBT group

    Probably the first book written for children about homosexuality in animals, ‘And Tango makes three’ (based on a true story and first published in 2005) tells the story of two male penguins, named Roy and Silo, who create a family together (2015.11.1202)

    ‘Alcibiades the Schoolboy’, loosely based on the form of Platonic dialogue, is an early defence of homosexuality; indeed, it has been called the first homosexual novel. (Arc.d.65.1)

    Preparations for kabuki theatre (an elaborate dance-drama with a tradition of men playing female roles), printed in 1771. The central figure is being dressed in a female outfit (FJ.720.2)

    Educated at Selwyn College, Ralph Chubb’s work combined art and poetry. Like William Blake he produced a number of hand-coloured books in very limited editions. Manhood (1924)—a paean to the male form—is the first of his publications (1924.7.4605)

    A letter dated 1902 from the poet and gay rights activist Edward Carpenter (a student at Trinity Hall) to A. T. Bartholomew, a member of UL staff, inside Carpenter’s Iolaus (an anthology of gay poetry and literature). Keynes.Y.4.40

    This salacious Latin dialogue between two schoolboys, was written by P. G. Bainbrigge, a Trinity graduate, and published posthumously in 1926. It belonged to the Trinity College classicist and poet A. E. Housman, and came to the Library at his death in 1936 with about fifty other works of erotica (Arc.b.92.25)

    The French essayist Montaigne and Estienne de la Boetie both served in the Bordeaux parlement and enjoyed a short but intense friendship until the latter’s early death in 1563. Montaigne edited his friend’s translation of Xenophon for publication, to which he appended this account of his death (Montaigne.1.7.20)

    John Atherton studied at Oxford and joined the ranks of the Anglican clergy, becoming Bishop of Waterford and Lismore in the Church of Ireland. In 1640 he was accused of buggery with John Childe, his steward and tithe proctor. They were tried under a law that Atherton himself had helped to institute and both were condemned to death, their story recorded in this 1641 pamphlet (Hib.7.641.5)

    Shakespeare’s Sonnets, here in the 1640 edition of his Poems, have long been the subject of discussion, both when it comes to the identity of the dedicatee ‘Mr W. H.’ and the possibility that some of the verses may be addressed to a man. In sonnet 20 (here called ‘The Exchange’) the poet’s lover is ‘the Master Mistris of my passion,’ with the grace and features of a woman but devoid of the guile and pretence that apparently comes with female lovers (SSS.45.16)

    Originally published in Danish in 1981 this book was aimed at children with gay parents and aimed to normalise such family groups, in the hope that they might identify with five-year-old Jenny. The inclusion of the book in a London Education Authority teacher centre was enough to enrage the UK press, which fed into the ideology of Clause 28 (1984.9.1516)

    The recent work considers the growth and success of gay-themed pulp fiction in 1950s and ’60s America (2017.8.5656)

    A recently-published collection of queer African fiction (2018.8.80)

    In Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night the lead female character dresses as a man. The change in gender is used as a joke, but there is more to think about: a woman can become a man, but only if it is not permanent and the effect of the change cannot be too great because she must change back to female once everything is settled. They are strong female characters, but must become men to protect themselves and ultimately solve the problem of the play. From the First Folio of Shakespeare’s works, printed in 1623 (SSS.10.6)

    An eleventh-century letter from a Jew, Hasan son of Mu‘ammal of Ramla (near Jerusalem), to another Jew, Abu Nasr al-Ahwal in Fustat, Egypt. He describes how a disagreement arose among pilgrims on the holiest day of the Jewish year when, during a synagogue service, a man from Lebanon and a man from Tiberias appear to have become intimate. This greatly upset their fellow worshippers and the (Muslim) police had to be called to restore order for the continuation of the service (MS T-S 8J22.25)

    (See the Genizah’s fragment of the month pages for more information)

    Portrait (1917) by John Wells of A. T. Bartholomew, member of UL staff 1900-1933, surrounded by books in his rooms at Pythagoras House (within the grounds of St John’s College). He arrived at the Library as a young man, ran it more or less single-handed during WWI and remained on the staff until his early death. Though not kept from his close friends, his homosexuality was largely kept a secret; it was said of him that he would tell potential friends ‘so that they might discontinue their friendship if they disapproved or found it embarassing’ (hangs in the Rare Books Department)

  • Trial access: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL)

    Originally posted on ejournals@cambridge:
    The University of Cambridge has trial access on campus only to the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) to April 12, 2018. The link to the trial is here: We regret that we cannot provide off campus…
  • To celebrate, to commemorate: Stephen Hawking, 1942-2018

    In common with the university community across Cambridge, we were saddened this week to hear of the death of Professor Stephen Hawking. I wondered what place music played in his life, and was delighted to discover that it was important … Continue reading →
  • Trial access: SAE Mobilus

    Trial access is now available to the SAE Mobilus online library of journals, technical papers and standards in mobility engineering via this link.

    This trial is only available on campus as it has not been possible to set up off campus via EZproxy and SAE Mobilus does not enable Shibboleth access for institutional trials.

    The trial will end on close of business on March 31, 2018.

    Please send your feedback on this trial to:  Thank you.

    The SAE Mobilus platform includes over 200,000 resources covering a wide range of technologies surrounding the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries.  Content includes aerospace standards, ground vehicle standards, aerospace material specifications, technical papers, eBooks, magazines, video, and journals.  An overview of the platform is available here.

  • Scare campaigns, we have seen a few

    In a sister post, I identified the latest scare offensive in the ongoing discussions around open access as: ‘restricting choice of publication’. In this, there is an implied threat from editorial boards and publishers that if the UK Scholarly Communication Licence (UKSCL) were to be in place, then these journals would refuse to publish articles from affected researchers.

    In this post I want to look at other threats that have been or are lurking in the shadows in the open access debate. The first is tied fairly closely to the ‘restricting choice of publication’ threat.

    The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’

    The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open access. In his tweet sent during  the Researcher to Reader conference*, one of my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this comment:

    “Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf:
    “I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)

    In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting).

    Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher Education is  primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members and students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”.

    This definition was based on the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom which includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in the publication of results”.

    Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, not that they have full freedom in choosing where.

    Rick has since contacted the AAUP to ask for clarification on this topic. Last Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 statement to clarify the ‘freedom in publication’ statement in light of evolution of scholarly communication since 1940.

    The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. In the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets because colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with online publication and search engines this argument no longer holds.

    What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is necessary because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem is not open access, the problem is the reward system to which we are beholden. And the commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this.

    So let’s be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression rather than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert Merton’s 1942 norms of science which are:

    • “communalism”: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm.
    • universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants
    • disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them
    • organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.

    If a publisher is preventing a researcher from publishing in a journal based on their funding or institutional policy rather than the content of the work being submitted then this is entirely in contravention of all of Robert Merton’s norms of science. But the publisher is not, as it happens, threatening the Academic Freedom of that author.

    While we are here, let’s have a quick look at some of the other threats to researchers invoked in the last few years.

    Historic scare 1 – Embargoes are necessary for sustainability

    In the past the publishing industry has tried to claim research on half-life usage of research articles as ‘evidence’ for the “green open access = cancellations” argument. This sounds plausible except for the lack of any causal link between green open access policies and library subscriptions. The argument here is that embargoes are necessary for the ‘sustainability’ (read profit) of commercial publishers.

    We should note the British Academy’s own 2014 finding that “libraries for the most part thought that embargoes for author-accepted manuscripts had little effect on their acquisition policies” and that any real cancellation issue was “the rising cost of journals at a time of budgetary constraint for libraries. If that continues, journals will be cancelled anyway, whether posted manuscripts are available or not.”

    My debunking of this claim dates back to 2015 although it did raise its head again loudly in 2017 during discussions around the UKSCL. It is not uncommon for a researcher to express concern about their chosen journal’s viability because of open access. The message has been successfully pushed through to the research community.

    Historic scare 2 – The need for full copyright

    Copyright is supposed to protect the content creator. The argument I hear repeatedly about why publishers need authors to sign their copyright over to publishers is so they can ‘protect the author’s rights’. But when people sign their copyright away to another entity, copyright becomes a purely economic tool for financial exploitation by that entity.

    There is no doubt publishers protect their own copyright. Indeed owning it allows maximum freedom to make money from the content (and prevent anyone else from doing so). But strangely whenever I have asked for examples of publishers stepping in to protect an author’s rights as the result of a copyright transfer agreement, there has been no response.

    However it is not uncommon for a researcher to tell you that this is one of the protections that publishers offer them. I defer to Lizzie Gadd here who has published thoughts around the distinctions between copyright culture and scholarly culture. She notes how many academics have been led by publishers to believe that the current copyright culture supports scholarly culture to a far greater extent than it actually does.

    Historic scare 3 – Press embargoes

    The HEFCE open access policy requires the collection and deposit of work within three months of acceptance (although the first two years of the policy pushed this timeline out to three months from publication).  This means that work is deposited into repositories, and the metadata that exists – the title, the authors, the intended journal and the abstract – is made available before publication. The work itself (and we are talking about the Author’s Accepted Manuscript, not the final Version of Record) is under an infinite embargo which will be set when the work is published. This process has its own problems, discussed elsewhere.

    In 2016 there was a blow up about the metadata about an article being in the public domain before publication. Our office received multiple concerned calls by researchers asking us to remove records from the repository until publication because of fear that having that metadata available was in contravention of the embargo rules. They were concerned the journal would refuse to publish their paper. When we investigated, not only was this not publisher policy but if anyone had been threatened in this manner the publishers we contacted requested we forward the information so they could follow up.

    It demonstrates how spooked academics can be by their editors/journals/publishers.


    This latest ‘restricting choice of publication’ threat is just another in a long line of implied threats that the scholarly communication community is having to manage. Each time a new one looms we need to identify the source, develop evidence and information to counter the threat and try and work with our research community to reassure them.

    Between this, and the huge amount of time we have to spend identifying dates of publication or managing publisher and funder policies or keeping track of the funds that are being spent in this space, we are exhausted.

    But perhaps that’s the point?

    Published 15 March 2018
    Written by Dr Danny Kingsley

    * Note: In the past two years I have written a precis up about the Researcher to Reader event with summaries, see: ‘It is all a bit of a mess’ Observations from Researcher to Reader conference and ‘Be nice to each other’ – the second Researcher to Reader conference. Time pressure means I may not be able to do that this year, but see the Twitter hashtag for the event.

  • Sara Gallardo, recently rediscovered Argentine writer

    This is a guest post by Jordana Blejmar (University of Liverpool) and Joanna Page (University of Cambridge).  Sara Gallardo was born in Buenos Aires in 1931 to an aristocratic Catholic family, with illustrious antecedents such as General Bartolomé Mitre, the … Continue reading →
  • Trial access: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL)

    The University of Cambridge has trial access on campus only to the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) to April 12, 2018.

    The link to the trial is here:

    We regret that we cannot provide off campus access to this resource.

    Please send your feedback on the encyclopedia to  Thank you.

    The BBKL is the largest ecclesiastical encyclopaedia worldwide, including more than 20.000 entries about deceased personalities of ecclesiastical history – in the area of theology, religion, philosophy, art history and related subjects.

  • The Brooke Crutchley collection of letterpress printing

    A guest post by Anna Crutchley

    Brooke Crutchley (1907–2003) was Printer to Cambridge University between 1946 and 1974 and an advocate of good book design and typography. His collection of letterpress printing (Ref: MS Add.9824/E) comprises over 200 items, including limited edition booklets, prospectuses, Christmas greetings, invitations to exhibitions and dinners, monographs and other single sheet ephemera sent to Crutchley by friends and colleagues from private presses in the UK and abroad. The collection was kept in six box files in his study in Little Shelford, Cambridge, labelled ‘Double Crown Club’, ‘Printing Items 1’, ‘Printing Items 2’, ‘Private Presses’, ‘Rampant Lions Press’ and ‘Whittington Press & Gwasg Gregynog’.

    The collection is now available for research at the University Library and reveals the friendships and professional connections that Crutchley maintained with printers, typographers and designers throughout his working life and into his retirement. Examples of this are items sent to him by Will and Sebastian Carter at the Rampant Lions Press, John and Rosalind Randle at the Whittington Press, Eric Gee and colleagues at Gwasg Gregynog, and Vivian and Anne Ridler at the Perpetua Press (Ridler being Crutchley’s counterpart at Oxford University Press and his wife a published poet). Many other presses are also represented.

    MS Add.9824/E/2/1/20

    MS Add.9824/E/5/1/2

    Two items designed and printed by Sebastian Carter at the Rampant Lions Press that demonstrate this close connection are Crutchley’s own monograph on the Cambridge Christmas Books (Ref: MS Add.9824/E/2/1/20) commissioned by the book collector and dealer Tony Appleton, and Will Carter’s eightieth birthday celebrations (Ref: MS Add.9824/E/5/1/2). Crutchley composed a birthday ode for Carter which is also included.

    Besides its major publications of limited edition books, the Rampant Lions Press was also known for ‘jobbing printing’, undertaking orders for stationery such as invitations, letterheading and business cards. No order was considered too lowly, although every item leaving the press was beautifully designed. ‘Portfolio 1’ – a red paper A4 portfolio containing twenty-eight items by Will Carter, printed between 1959 and 1967 exemplifies the wide range of commissions undertaken by the press (Ref: MS Add.9824/E/5/2/1).

    MS Add.9824/E/5/2/1

    Dinner invitations from the Double Crown Club, of which Crutchley was a long-serving member, and one-time president, form a particularly interesting sub-series. Founded for the purposes of exchanging ideas on good printing, the club holds between four and six meetings annually in which notable people in the world of printing and bibliography are invited to speak on an aspect of contemporary or historical typography, book design, book collecting and so on. Invitations and accompanying literature in this series were printed by club members who used it as an opportunity to display fine design and printing, and the collection holds 91 invitations for dinners spanning the years 1948 to 2000.

    MS Add.9824/E/1/3/2

    The boxes labelled ‘Printing Items 1’ and ‘Printing Items 2’ hold a miscellaneous collection of booklets, private press prospectuses and monographs, a particularly interesting example of which is a facsimile of Ratdolt’s fifteenth-century Venetian typefaces: ‘The oldest type specimen – Erhard Ratdolt’s Index Characterum, Augsburg, 1486’, with a historical explanation written and printed by Jan Tschichold (Ref: MS Add.9824/E/3/1/22).

    MS Add.9824/E/3/1/22

    Christmas and New Year cards were another opportunity for printers to exchange family greetings and share each other’s work, and there are many in the collection. A particularly individual one is a brass rubbing from Isleham Church in Cambridgeshire with printed text from Adrian and Joyce Wilsons, printers and writers from Tuscany Alley, San Francisco.

    MS Add.9824/E/4/1/21

    A catalogue hand-list of the collection is available from the Department of Archives and Modern Manuscripts.

  • The ‘restricting choice of publication’ threat

    When you work in the open access space, language matters. It is very easy to distract the academic community from the actual discussion at hand and we are seeing an example of this right now. The emerging narrative seems to be that open access policies, and specifically the UK Scholarly Communication Licence (UKSCL), are going to threaten academics’ ability to choose where they publish.

    The UK-SCL Policy Summary is explicitly “an open access policy mechanism which ensures researchers can retain re-use rights in their own work, they retain copyright and they retain the freedom to publish in the journal of their choice (assigning copyright to the publisher if necessary)”.

    Let’s keep that in mind when considering the following examples of the ‘restricting choice of publication’ argument that have crossed my path recently.

    Sowing the seed 1

    In January Elsevier sent an email to their UK editors (and some non UK editors) about the UKSCL.  It was written in a friendly tone expressing ‘concerns’ about the UKSCL. The ‘choice of publication’ argument appeared three times in this letter:

    • [The UKSCL] …“we believe may have a negative effect on UK research and may impact whether and how researchers publish in your journal”.
    • Elsevier fully supports the need for research institutions to use the articles published by their researchers, but further discussion is needed to ensure the SCL does not compromise the sustainability of academic journals or restrict researchers’ ability to publish quickly and easily in journals of their choice.
    • A key concern is that the SCL may restrict a UK researcher’s ability to choose where they publish (given there is no guarantee a copyright waiver will be granted) and ultimately threaten the publication of UK-based papers.

    Note that this letter was inaccurate at best, and not just on this point. Under the UKSCL, copyright remains with the author and is free to be assigned to the publisher. The UKSCL is not restricting publisher or journal choice. Only the action of the publisher would achieve this.

    Sowing the seed 2

    On 26 and 27 February I attended the Researcher to Reader conference which attracts a mixture of publishers, library and administrative staff and some researchers. During the event one of my Advisory Board colleagues, Rick Anderson tweeted this comment:

    “Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: “I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.)

    Rick was quoting someone else, but he ended up in something of a Twitter argument over this tweet, including from Matt Ruen who asked: “Is there any evidence that researchers are actually being prevented from publishing what & where they want? Or is it just that if you want to get certain grants (or tenure/promotion), you have to play by the rules of funders/institutions? Because it has always been so.”

    It seems the ‘restricting choice of publication’ message has been clearly disseminated. It is now coming back out from the academic community. Here are two examples that have happened very recently.

    The British Academy

    On 27 February, I also attended a meeting at the British Academy to discuss the UKSCL. The British Academy is considering their position on open access. They last published something on this in 2014 – see “Open Access journals in the Humanities and Social Science” – and they are consulting with their community to see if the position has moved. I applaud them for this and there is no criticism of the British Academy in what is described here. They are not creating this narrative, they are passing it on.

    In preparation for their discussions, the British Academy recently surveyed their membership about the UKSCL. Amongst other questions the survey included the ‘restricting choice of publication’ bogeyman in the context of journals that have longer embargoes. One question was “Opinion of 12 month embargo impact on choice of journal”. The options included:

    • “I would strongly oppose not being able to place the article in the journal that I preferred” and
    • “I would regret not being able to place the article in journal that I preferred”

    What is surprising about the result of this question is that only 55% of fellows and 48% of post doctoral fellows chose the first statement.

    The problem here is that the ‘restricting choice of publication’  was invoked as an option for an outcome of a 12 month embargo. It is very unclear under what circumstances the ‘restricting choice of publication’ situation would occur in these conditions. (To be fair, one of the options to that question was ‘I think this is unlikely’, however only a very small number of respondents chose that option.)

    The British Historical Society

    Then in the same week as the Researcher to Reader conference and the British Academy meeting, the British Historical Society released “The UK Scholarly Communications Licence: What it is, and why it matters for the Arts & Humanities”. I won’t go into this document in detail – that needs a more comprehensive discussion. But I will pick up on one of the points in the paper.

    This document invoked the ‘restricting choice of publication’ argument under the heading: “(D) UK researchers’ continued access (as authors) to non-UK scholarly journals”. This section made the point:

    “In addition, the editorial boards of several established non-UK and UK published journals (e.g. the American Historical Review and Past & Present) have indicated that they are unlikely to agree to publish an article which has already been published via an institutional repository.” Note that both named journals are published by Oxford University Press.

    Ah, there it is. The first identifiable threat.

    So it seems this ‘restricting choice of publication’ argument is striking fear into the hearts of many researchers.

    Hang on…

    Shall we consider the statement by those editorial boards for a moment?

    Green open access works with the Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM), not the Version of Record (VoR). The AAM is placed in a repository with an embargo – 12 months in the case of the UKSCL for Humanities and Social Sciences journals.

    This ‘indication’ by those editorial boards highlights two issues:

    1. The embargoed AAM will only be available before the final VoR is published if the journal’s publishing processes are very slow, meaning there is a period of more than 12 months between an article being accepted for publication and it being published
    2. By their own admission, these journals provide such little value add between the AAM and the VoR that having the AAM available in an institutional repository means there is apparently no subsequent point publishing the work.

    Neither of these points paint those journals in very good light.

    Who is the bad guy here?

    I personally consider this simply another in a long series of scare campaigns. But for the sake of argument, let’s observe who is at fault if this restriction were to occur.

    If an editorial board is by its own admission prepared to make arbitrary decisions about what they will publish based on people’s location and their policy requirements rather than the quality of the work, does this not fly in contravention of the idea that the ‘best’ research is published in that journal? It points directly to editorial decisions being made on economic  or political grounds.

    The problem in this scenario is not open access, it is not funders, it is not the UKSCL. The problem is with the editorial boards and publishers. Why are researchers not pushing back on them and demanding that editorial decisions be made solely on the basis of the work?

    Published 13 March 2018
    Written by Dr Danny Kingsley

  • Access to Biomedical and Life Sciences ebooks on SpringerLink continues

    The Moore Library is pleased to announce the continued access to Springer Biomedical and Life Sciences ebook collections on the SpringerLink platform. As of the 1st March, titles published so far in 2018 have been opened up for University of Cambridge users; this means that access is now available to all titles published from 2015 – 2018 inclusive.

    There are currently 1,898 available titles and further titles will be added as they are published during 2018. Monograhs, contributed volumes, handbooks and selected encyclopaedias in Springer designated sub-disciplines such as Animal Models, Cell Biology, Human Genetics, Immunology, Microbiology, Neuroscience, Pharmacology, and Plant Sciences are includes in these collections.

    The full text of these titles can be found and accessed from iDiscover, and are accessible for unlimited concurrent users, both on and off campus via a Raven login.

    These collections will be available in full until the end of February 2019, at which point the most popular titles will be purchased in perpetuity.

    A selection of recently published titles are listed below:

    Brooks -Veterinary Forensic Pathology, Volume 2

    Choi – Encyclopedia of Signaling Molecules (2nd ed.)

    Ehara – Sago Palm

    Jacobson – Neuroanatomy for the Neuroscientist

    Pokorski – Current Concepts in Medical Research and Practice

    If you have any feedback or comments on these ebooks, please email the Moore Library Librarian, Yvonne Nobis, at or the ebooks@cambridge team at