I.R.N. Goudar Information Centre for Aerospace Science and Technology National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 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 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: –About 700 titles as of late January EBSCO Online: –About 1200 titles as of early January Dawson’s Information Quest: –About 1400 titles as of February Ingenta Journals: OCLC: –About 1200 titles according to web site, but probably higher Ovid: –300? titles, going to 400 soon Swets: –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 Publishers  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  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 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 software Continue…

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 StrategicTacticalPractical MissionProgramsGovernance  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 StrategicTacticalPractical FundingServicesStaffing  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 StrategicTacticalPractical Geographical CoverageTechnologyPayment  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 Tactical Consortia Issues Strategic Practical Mission Funding Geographical 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 : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, SO and CASA-OU..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 ( , 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

Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Consortium Leader – NAL Open Consortium Consortium For Material Science And Aerospace Collection % 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 National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) Oakland Library Consortium (OLC) Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) PALINET

FEW SITES LISTING CONSORTIA OF LICs Pennsylvania Academic Library Connection Initiative (PALCI) Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) SOLINET The Southeastern Library Network

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 S ummary

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)