Transcript Creating Congruence Between consortial goals & emerging initiatives in scholarly publishing Margaret Landesman, University of Utah Johann van Reenen, University of New Mexico.

Creating Congruence Between
consortial goals & emerging
initiatives in scholarly
publishing
Margaret Landesman, University of Utah
Johann van Reenen, University of New Mexico
Academic libraries are
moving in new directions:

Development of
consortia

Support of
reforms in the
system of
scholarly
communications
These directions have in
common that they are:

The same group of people responding...

to the same problem...

with the same long term goal in mind.
Assumption

What advances consortia will advance new
publishing initiatives. Or, if the two directions
don’t actively support, they at least do not
interfere, with each other
 We believe this assumption is false
 Sometimes we face decisions that will move us
toward one goal, but may slow movement
towards the other
Characteristics of consortia





Complicated organizations with complex
decision making and financial structures
Don’t often deal in individual titles
Don’t work with free titles – peer reviewed or
not – or with very inexpensive products. They
expect their members to do this on their own
Availability of a consortial discount is decision
point for purchase
Need simple pricing structures which allow
them to apportion cost and benefits among
their members. Prefer FTE pricing.
Characteristics of consortia

Consortial staff see electronic side only.
Many are non-librarians with little
experience in the pricing history of
journals
 Decisions on print made by different
group of people
 Buy in response to promotions more
frequently than from user request
Characteristics of scholarly
publishing initiatives

Aimed at individual libraries, faculty members and
individual journal titles
 Not set up to handle consortia
 No pricing structure for consortia
 Many offer no consortial discount
 Include a small number of titles and expect libraries to
respond to requests to purchase individual titles
 Lack sales and support staff

The desire to respect rights of editors/societies may lead
to models that don’t work for libraries
Causes of discongruity

Structural and inherent
 Consortia interface easily with large
publishers, have a lot in common,
advantageous to both
 Scholarly publishing initiatives on a more
individual basis
Effects of Discongruity –
shifting costs

If consortia negotiate exceptional price
reductions for their members, does this
help all libraries? Or, does it shift
publishers’ expectations so that libraries
not in consortia pay more?
 If consortial buying simply shifts the
burden from one set of libraries to
another, we have gained little.
Effects of Discongruity –
Increasing the percentage of the
budget going to a few large
publishers

If expenditures to a publisher rise faster than
the budget as a whole, the % of the budget
going to that publisher will increase.
 If a library makes several such multi-year
contracts, the % of the budget committed to
those suppliers may grow substantially
Example - Elsevier titles at UNM

1999 2000
 Print charges
$394,346 $472,82910% for elec. only
-39,434
-47,282
+7.5% "content fee" +29,576
+35,462
+"Incremental fees"
+47,091
+47,09
 Real total
$431,579 $508,100
 In 1999, 35% goes to Elsevier. This would bring
it close to 45%. The next year would be over 50%.
Effects of discongruity Endangering funds which could
be used to support library-friendly
publishers

Percentage of the budget available for
lower-priced titles drops
 Periodic cancellations are inevitable
 Canceling smaller, reasonably priced
titles in favor of more expensive, rapidly
inflating titles penalizes exactly those
publishers we need to support
Effects of discongruity - Misplaced
emphasis on percentage





Percentage increase from print to electronic becomes the
most visible figure
An expensive journal at zero increase is not necessarily a
bargain. A less expensive journal which doubles in price may
still be a good deal.
Publishers buy servers and hire staff - just like libraries - in
dollars. The publisher of inexpensive journals needs a higher
percentage (though lower dollar amount) to go electronic
Society publishers sometimes behave like commercial
publishers – libraries should not care if the base price per
page remains lower.
Societies’ support of faculty career interests is at least as
valuable as paying share dividends.
Effects of discongruity - Visibility
drives usage

Bundles protect titles which ought to die a
natural death by creating an artificial
demand for them
 Get a cycle of preferential use for titles in
bundles
 Is this a bad thing? Probably not if titles are
very inexpensive, e.g.., MUSE, PDC
Effects of discongruity – Wrong
players create new titles

Large publishers can create new titles
without pressure to build subscription lists
 Libraries should encourage societies and
low priced publishers to cometed in the
market for new titles.
Creating congruence

Consortia can
actively seek out
small low priced
publishers, whether
non-profit or forprofit and can be
willing to put in the
extra effort to make
these available to
users

Scholarly initiatives
can devise pricing
schemes which are
attractive to
consortia and can
find other ways to
involve consortia
Consortia can:

Consortia can help members present a
consistent stance on scholarly publishing
and provide publicity for emerging
initiatives.
 Support cancellations targeting specific
aggressively priced publishers
 Prevent the organization from joining
unwise larger consortial deals
Consortia can:

Create inventories of faculty from member
institutions who are editors, sit on editorial
boards, or are reviewers
 Support databases of publications by faculty,
staff and students, such as the initiative
currently in process at North Carolina State
University. ttp://www.lib.ncsu.edu/NCSUPubs/
Dspace at MIT

Develop courses and/or publications for
graduate students on "Your options and rights
as a future scholarly publications producer".
 Encourage faculty to research the
opportunities the Internet offers to re-invent
the scholarly publishing process.
 Encourage faculty to speak to these issues at
their associations' national and regional
meetings. These societies should take back
publishing from for-profit publishers whose
prices exceed reasonable limits.

Support amending promotion and tenure
guidelines
 Support the Public library of science
 Support preprint projects such as
PubMedCentral and scholarship
 Support open archives initiatives
 Support the creation of standards for
cross e-print server searches.
<openarchives.org/>
Scholarly publishing
initiatives can:

Find ways to include consortial
representatives in their governing
structure
 Work actively at educating consortia as
to how they can play a positive role
Conclusion

Consortia must take on a wider public
agenda and should not just be “buying
clubs”

Scholarly publishing initiatives must
become more consortia-friendly