Next year’s model: a provisional library view Tony Kidd, Glasgow University Library

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October JISC Experiments/Reports Journals Business Models study Apr 2005 – Usage Statistics study Mar 2005 – E-prints/Open Access Journal Delivery Models Jul 2004 – Learned Society Open Access Business Models Jun 2005 – cess%20Business%20Models.dochttp:// cess%20Business%20Models.doc Guide to Scholarly Publishing 2005 – Publishing%20Trends%20FINAL.doc

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Suspicion of big deals JISC Journals Working Group Individual libraries But….. NESLi2 –Opt-in participation Schizophrenic attitude

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Big deal advantages Increase in availability –1994/ journal subs/inst –2004/ CURL libs17250 Reducing cost/download –Glasgow 2005 c£2 [€2.90; $3.60]: still too high Negotiated nationally: ContentComplete Model licence

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Big deal disadvantages Cancellations –Restrictions/ban on cancellations still biggest hurdle for UK libraries –41% biggest downside [Harwood. ASA Conf, Feb agents.org/conference/200602/Harwood.pps] agents.org/conference/200602/Harwood.pps Unwanted content Knock-on cancellations of individual subs Titles moving between publishers

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Alternatives? JISC Business Models trials –Response to ‘big deal’ unease Analysing usage of publisher deals project –SCONUL Working Group on Performance Improvement –evidence base Open access

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October JISC Business Models trial PPV converting to subscription –Oxford UP/ Univ Liverpool/Univ Glasgow –Other participants listed by Paul Harwood –Doesn’t involve ‘real money’ –Both Liverpool and Glasgow paying in effect what they would pay under NESLi2 big deal

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Experience so far Figures for illustration only –Trial only half way through –Lots of discussion still to have –OUP/Liverpool/Glasgow may/may not be ‘typical’ Similar institutions –Glasgow JISC Band A, Liverpool Band B –Comprehensive research-based universities –Medical schools Jan-May 2006 –Liverpool article downloads PDF, 5721 HTML –Glasgow downloads PDF, 6717 HTML

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Subscribed/non-subscribed Subscribed titles –Liverpool98 titles12614 downloads –Glasgow109 titles13198 downloads Non-subscribed titles –Liverpool75 titles3189 downloads –Glasgow64 titles3697 downloads Lower proportion of ‘non-subscribed’ downloads than some publishers

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October ‘Conversion to subscription’ Subscribed titles – Jan-May –Liverpool76 of 98 titles –Glasgow88 of 109 titles Non-subscribed titles – Jan-May –Liverpool35 of 75 titles –Glasgow31 of 64 titles Based on published PPV prices (£9.72-£21.06 depending on title), and threshold of 115% of subscription price [remember Glasgow average cost/download c£2]

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October ‘Conversion to subscription’ If estimate that Jan-May 50% annual use… Subscribed titles – Jan-Dec –Liverpool85 of 98 titles –Glasgow101 of 109 titles Non-subscribed titles – Jan-Dec –Liverpool46 of 75 titles –Glasgow43 of 64 titles Subscribed titles not converting –Arts/Humanities + Maths/Computing Non-subscribed titles not converting more varied

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October ‘Conversion to subscription’ If these figures were carried through for real, and Year 2 subs depended on Year 1 results, would be huge increase in costs to library – much more than big deal cost… And in practice would probably still want to retain (print) subscriptions to some of the Arts titles that didn’t reach the threshold

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October ‘Conversion to subscription’ Can play around with the assumptions e.g. set price/download at £2 (Glasgow average), and convert to sub at 100% –Liverpool56 of 173 titles convert (44 sub, 12 non-sub – mostly medical [esp non-sub], life sci, law, some soc sci/arts) Even at this rate, likely still to be considerably more expensive than big deal (assuming retain existing subs)

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Additional comments Administration costs –Publisher/Library –Individual tailoring –Invoice production/payment Uncertainty, though capped Usage based, capped What measuring? –COUNTER –Free content –Backfiles –HTML/PDF

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Advantages? Flexibility? –Organisation type e.g. commercial info service Depends on arrangements for transition from one year to next –Start each year afresh? –Change subs each year, based on previous year? –Is pattern of use consistent from year to year? –Archival access?

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Evaluation Too early to come to conclusions Most interesting part of trial will perhaps be in the last few months – analysis Very useful to work through different options in semi-real conditions Important to continue to look for different models

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Evaluation Big deals still seemingly attractive –Almost-zero marginal cost to publisher to provide access to all content –Generally lower marginal cost to libraries too –Breadth of content But problems still there –Flexibility –Squeezing out other content Solutions – not easy… –Cut at margins – OhioLINK –Negotiate from strength – true national deals –…Abandon collections – individual article supply – counsel of despair –Open access… UK Research Councils, Wellcome etc etc

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October Evaluation Vital to continue to share experiences at venues such as ICOLC…