I.R.N. GoudarInformation Centre for Aerospace Science and Technology

National Aerospace Laboratories

Bangalore – 560 017

goudar@css.nal.res.in

Library Consortia for E -Journals: A New Wine in Old Bottle

Consortia

Consortia is a Strategic Alliance

of Institutions that have Common

Interests

E-journals stakeholders

User/Author

Publisher

Library Commercial/ Learned Society

IntermediarySubscription Agent

Consortiaingenta/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 for accessing electronic journals

Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection

Consortia for training and library workshops

Consortia Models

  Purpose Oriented Models

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 PublishersUsefulnessMembers drivenLower priceFull text access Expert vs. Student Accessing Internet resourcesCombined purchasing powerSimplify purchase procedureDistribute financial and other riskIncrease participation of membersNo storage & documentation problem Instant AccessQuality of servicesFree flow of informationSharing – ideas, informationContribution – time, resources

Pricing/EducationUsage ReportingLinking/DeliveryInterface optionsIndexing/FilteringGain credibility with librariesIncreased marketingReduced cost of productionReduced surcharges like mailingLess extra efforts and expenditure for new customersGet consortium tool

o Gather library informationo Invoice librarieso Products support

Pricing Models

Influencing Factors Publishers Issues 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

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

“No universally acceptable pricing models, but ongoing experimentation with lot of scope for negotiation”

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 softwareContinue…

• 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

Pricing Models in Operation

…Continued

 Consortia Issues

Strategic Tactical Practical

Mission Programs Governance

LobbyingFund raisingEducationPurchasing

e-Journal subscriptionDatabase accessUnion catalogueDigital librariesArchivingResource sharingAccess rightsOutsourcing

Governing boardCouncilTask ForcesInterest groupsImplementing

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

NationalPublicAcademicSpecialSubject based

Strong Links make Strong Consortia

Tactical

Consortia Issues

Strategic

Practical

Mission

FundingGeographical

Coverage

Library Types

Programs

Service

Technology Governance

Staffing

Payment

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 : Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, SO and CASA-OU.SO and CASA-OU...

Facilitate e-access to journalsFacilitate e-access to journals

Actively participate in resource sharingActively participate in resource sharing

Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post)

Database merging of all libraries holdingsDatabase merging of all libraries holdings

We have gone into two consortia formation, viz.We have gone into two consortia formation, viz. Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER);Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER); FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature Publishing).Publishing).

DEMO

• Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts

• Consortium Leader – NAL

• Open Consortium

• Consortium For Material Science And Aerospace Collection

• 25 - 40% Discount

COMSAC

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

Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries

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/

•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

Summary

Conclusion: Consortia can …

• be very time consuming, frustrating, and difficultto 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)