Transcript Document
Library Consortia for E -Journals:
A New Wine in Old Bottle
I.R.N. Goudar
Information Centre for Aerospace Science and Technology
National Aerospace Laboratories
Bangalore – 560 017
[email protected]
Consortia
Consortia is a Strategic Alliance
of Institutions that have Common
Interests
E-journals stakeholders
User/Author
Publisher
Library
Commercial/
Learned Society
Intermediary
Subscription Agent
Consortia
ingenta/Catchword/OCLC etc.
My E-Journal System
Must Have or Provide:
• Comprehensiveness
• Privacy
• Accessibility
• Flexibility
• Current Awareness
• It Must be User Friendly
• It Must Improve Overall Performance
E-Journals Major Players
Primary publishers
Aggregators
Vendors
Subscription agents
Document delivery agencies
E-print systems
E-Journal Consolidators
•
Benefits for e-journal users
–
–
–
–
Only one search engine, not many
Only one, easy source for articles
Ability to customize
May offer archiving services (OCLC, Stanford’s
HighWire only, so far)
– BUT: no consolidator offers one single license for
all journals
Some E-Journal Consolidators
•
Blackwell Navigator: http://navigator.blackwell.co.uk/
– About 700 titles as of late January
•
EBSCO Online: http://www.ebsco.com/online
– About 1200 titles as of early January
•
Dawson’s Information Quest:
http://www.informationquest.com/
– About 1400 titles as of February
•
•
Ingenta Journals: http://www.ingenta.com
OCLC: http://www.oclc.org.oclc/menu/eco.html
– About 1200 titles according to web site, but probably higher
•
Ovid: http://www.ovid.com
– 300? titles, going to 400 soon
•
Swets: http://www.swetsnet.nl
– 1212 titles available as of January
Consortia Goals
Increase the access base
More e-Journals
Rational utilization of funds
A little more pays a lot
Ensure the continuous subscription
Qualitative resource sharing
Effective document delivery service
Avoid price plus models
Pay for up-front products not for R&D
Consortia Goals
….Cont
Improved infrastructure
Enhanced image of the library
Visibility for smaller libraries
Improve existing library services
Boosting professional image
Harness developments in IT
Facilitate building digital libraries
Cost sharing for technical and training support
Increase user base
Access from desktops of users
Consortia Services
Union catalogues
Books, Journals, Technical Reports and Conference Proceedings
Shared library systems
Hardware, Software and other infrastructure
Shared professional expertise
Develop and realize consortia goals
Human resource development
Training staff and users
Electronic contents licensing for providing access to
Bibliographic databases, e-Journals, Full test reports, Conference
Proceedings etc.
Inter Library Lending and Document Delivery
….contd.
Consortia Services
….Cont
Electronic content loading
Contents generated by members and acquired on common server
Physical storage for archiving
Old back volumes and less used documents
Seminar/training programmes
Professional development to serve user community
Development of enabling technologies
IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces
Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services
.
Consortia Models
Participants Oriented Models
Geographical location linked
Ex: - Bangalore Special Libraries Group
Libraries in the same discipline
Ex: - Aerospace Libraries Group
Libraries belonging to the same parent organization
Ex: - CSIR LICs
Libraries of academic organizations
Ex: - INFLIBNET
Consortia Models
Purpose Oriented Models
Consortia for accessing electronic journals
Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection
Consortia for training and library workshops
Consortia Models
Client Oriented Models
Clients according to their age
Ex: - Children, Senior Citizen
Clients according to their interest
Ex: - sports, game
Clients according to their educational background
Ex: - Technical, Professional
Consortia Values
Libraries Vs Publishers
Libraries
Usefulness
Members driven
Lower price
Full text access
Expert vs. Student
Accessing Internet resources
Combined purchasing power
Simplify purchase procedure
Distribute financial and other risk
Increase participation of members
No storage & documentation problem
Instant Access
Quality of services
Free flow of information
Sharing – ideas, information
Contribution – time, resources
Publishers
Pricing/Education
Usage Reporting
Linking/Delivery
Interface options
Indexing/Filtering
Gain credibility with libraries
Increased marketing
Reduced cost of production
Reduced surcharges like mailing
Less extra efforts and expenditure for
new customers
Get consortium tool
o Gather library information
o Invoice libraries
o Products support
Pricing Models
“No universally acceptable pricing models, but ongoing experimentation with
lot of scope for negotiation”
Influencing Factors
Quantum of business
Number of consortia members
Types of institutions
Contract period
Number of IP enabled nodes
Number of campuses
Value added services
Rights to archive
Perpetual access
Training facilities
Multi year agreement
Publishers Issues
Free titles on Internet
Free access against print subscription
All titles of a publisher for fixed fee
Surcharge on print subscription
Discounts for electronic journals
Capped annual inflation
Discounts on non-subscribed titles
Access to subject clusters
Protection of current revenue
Uncertainty of new subscription
Single point payment
Pricing Models in Operation
• Bundled – Free with print
AIP, APS, AMS, Elsevier, Wiley
• Print as base + surcharge on electronic
Premium payments range from10-25%
ACS (20%), OSA (25%)
• Electronic only
Small increase (ACS 105%)
Same price (OSA)
Discount from print (AIP 80%, AMS 90%)
• Totally unbundled – No discount for both
JBC (P- $ 1600, E- $1200, P+E- $ 2800)
• Free e-version only
Charge for print if required
British Medical Journal
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Licensee Membership Fees
• Usage based pricing
FTE users
Concurrent users
Site population
• All titles of publishers with print optional
• Subject clusters
• Pay – per – view
• Free completely – Differently funded
• Extra fee for software
Continue…
Pricing Models in Operation
…Continued
• Extra for value added services
• Consortium discount
Number of sites
• Consortium surcharge
Access to all consortia titles
All titles of publisher
• Subscription to core titles + Pay-per-view
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Mission
Programs
Governance
Lobbying
Fund raising
Education
Purchasing
e-Journal subscription
Database access
Union catalogue
Digital libraries
Archiving
Resource sharing
Access rights
Outsourcing
Governing board
Council
Task Forces
Interest groups
Implementing
coordinating agency
Contd…
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Funding
Services
Staffing
Parent organization
Funding agency
Government
Membership
Service fees
Cataloguing
Training
Consultation
Preservation
Document Delivery
Copyright
Program staff
Support staff
Volunteers
Student trainees
Contd…
Consortia Issues
Strategic
Tactical
Practical
Geographical Coverage
Technology
Payment
National
Regional
State
Local
Website development
Shared infrastructure
Shared systems
Digital Library
Negotiation
Bill to library
Central funding
Vendor billing
Aggregator billing
Deposit account
Document delivery bill
Library Types
National
Public
Academic
Special
Subject based
Strong Links make Strong Consortia
Geographical
Coverage
Funding
Mission
Strategic
Consortia
Issues
Programs
Tactical
Library
Types
Payment
Practical
Staffing
Service
Technology
Governance
Indian Consortia Initiatives
INDEST
Consortia of IIMs
CSIR Consortia
FORSA (Forum for Resource Sharing in
Astronomy and Astrophysics)
ICICI- Knowledge Park
ISRO Initiative
INFLIBNET Initiative
RGUHS- HELINET
CSIR Initiative
• Access to >1300 E-Journals
• Elsevier’s ScienceDirect
• 40 CSIR Laboratories
• IP Enabled Seamless Access
• Central Funding
• Price based on Print Subscription
• Certain % of US $1.3 M
•Springer, Kluwer, Blackwel, T & F, ACS, Etc
The UGC Model
INFLIBNET
•Universities have a poor subscription base.
•Traditional consortium models therefore do not
apply.
•Electronic access only models.
•These should prove to be attractive to users as
well as suppliers.
FORSA
•Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR,
SO and CASA-OU..
Facilitate e-access to journals
Actively participate in resource sharing
Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)
Database merging of all libraries holdings
We have gone into two consortia formation, viz.
Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER);
FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature
Publishing).
DEMO
COMSAC
• Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts
• Consortium Leader – NAL
• Open Consortium
• Consortium For Material Science And
Aerospace Collection
• 25 - 40% Discount
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries
Lack of awareness about consortia benefits
Slow acceptance of e-information by the users.
Difficulties in changing the mind setup of librarians
Maintenance and balancing both physical and DL
Inadequate funds
Single point payment
Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules
Problems of defining asset against payment
Consortia Constraints Specific to
Indian Libraries
Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable
Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources.
Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources
Unreliable telecom links and insufficient bandwidth
( But lot of developments in pipeline)
Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools
Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies
Absence of strong professional association
Big brother attitude
FEW SITES LISTING
CONSORTIA OF LICs
•Michigan Electronic Library
http://mel.lib.mi.us/
•National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM)
http://www.nnlm.nlm.nih.gov/
•Oakland Library Consortium (OLC)
http://www.library.cmu.edu/OLC/index.html
•Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
http://www.oclc.org/
•PALINET
http://www.palinet.org/
FEW SITES LISTING
CONSORTIA OF LICs
•Pennsylvania Academic Library Connection Initiative
(PALCI)
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inpalci/
•
Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG)
http://www.rlg.org/
•
SOLINET The Southeastern Library Network
http://www.solinet.net/
Summary
•Library consortia are a growth industry
•Consortial models are different, but they share many
common interests
•Consortia increasingly will work together
•Becoming a potent economic and political force
Areas of concern:
• Reduce the unit cost of e-information
• Facilitate or build technology infrastructures
• Improve overall resource sharing among members
• Provide an effective information infrastructure
Conclusion: Consortia can …
•
be very time consuming, frustrating, and difficult
to build and to sustain
but still …
•
•
•
•
be a potent social, economic and political force
improve resource sharing among members
help to reduce the unit cost of e-information
help libraries do more collectively than they
could accomplish on their own
Tail Piece
“ Man can live individually, but can
survive only collectively. Hence, our
challenge is to form a progressive
community by balancing the interests of
the individual and that of the society. To
meet this we need to develop a value
system where people accept modest
sacrifices for the common good”
From Vedas – As quoted by Mr. Narayanamurthy
(IFOSYS)