1. 2016 Charleston Library Conference
Cutting the Cord: Learning to Live Without Comprehensive Journal Packages
2016 Charleston Library Conference

2. David Hellman
Collection Development Coordinator/Associate Librarian J. Paul Leonard Library San Francisco State University

3. Disclaimer on anonymity:
The publisher used in this case study is not being named for the following reasons
The presentation is not about a vendetta against a publisher
My library still maintains cordial relationships with the publisher and conducts business with them. We are not looking to burn bridges here
The “name” should not be a distraction from from the main points of the presentation
Ultimately this is about systemic issues and not a problem with just one publisher

4. What is the “Big Deal” and why do we live with it?
“Simply put, the Big Deal is an online aggregation of journals that publishers offer as a one- price, one size fits all package.” - Kenneth Frazier (2001)
Initially the “Big Deal” seemed like a blessing to many
At SFSU we eagerly embraced the “Big Deal” at a time when serials inflation and stagnant budgets required frequent serial review and cancellation projects
The “Big Deal” has now become the “norm”
Demands from users, particularly faculty, and generally good usage data led libraries to believe they cannot live without the “Big Deal”

5. how did we get into this mess in the first place?
The California State University (CSU) system’s Systemwide Digital Library Content (SDLC) office manages most of the “Big Deals” for CSU libraries
The package in question, which included about 1400 titles, had a number of problems, and was overly complicated and time consuming to deal with when it came to renewing
In 2014 SDLC was unable to negotiate a renewal with the publisher and the consortia offer ended
For 2015 SFSU negotiated its own deal

6. Decisions, Decisions – cutting the cord
We gave ourselves a year to think it over
We had serious concerns about what direct impact this would have on users and how it would effect their ability to do research
There was a lot of internal discussion and selectors were encouraged to solicit feedback from faculty
The good news is we did have proprietary access to significant back files
It was ultimately decided, with the support of the University Librarian, to cut the entire package

7. What data did we use?
We analyzed years with publisher provided JR1 Counter reports (Successful Full-Text Article Request, SFTAR analysis)
We also analyzed JR5 Counter data going back to pre-1990
SDLC provided a detailed database title “overlap” report which was very useful
We had list pricing for all titles from the publisher

8. Usage and cost
Between 2010 and 2015 usage ran between 30,000 to 60,000 total articles per year
For the same period the cost of the package ran between $110,000 and $180,000
Per article costs were between $2.00 and $3.00 (SFTAR analysis)
Lots of content, lots of usage and low costs per article, sounds good, right?

9. But…
About 10% (roughly 150) titles got 1 usage and 33% of titles had 5 or fewer articles used
66% of titles in the package saw usage between 6 and 1100 articles. Only top 10% of titles had 100 or more articles used
More than two thirds of titles (more than 1000) in package were duplicated by aggregated databases we already subscribed to (note: to be fair often with a month embargo and no perpetual rights)
Compared to other packages it was significantly more expensive when it came to cost/use analysis
But what does Counter data tell us about true usage and impact? The fact is not a lot…

10. further considerations…
We considered other options besides total package cancellation
Top titles listed for $94,000
Top 100 titles was not cost effective
2016 usage (all retrospective holdings) were 29,904 articles which supports the argument based on JR5 data that older content is as important if not more so than current content

11. informing stakeholders
You need to inform stakeholders even if they refuse to listen. If they refuse to listen at least you have your documented communication to fall back on
We notified faculty via a template that was sent to library subject selectors to distribute to the programs they worked with
We also put a short statement in our “Campus Memo” and a longer statement at our library website
The CSU Academic Senate put out a resolution supporting the decision to end the systemwide deal and we used this to support our own decision to cut the complete package
What was the response? Surprisingly little – to date I have only heard directly from three faculty members and no students

12. strategies for survival
This was only one package and we still have several more, plus aggregators… but we are not adverse to making other tough decisions
We are strongly committed to our Interlibrary Services unit and will support it with the necessary funding… this is a big part of the future!!!
We started to use Get It Now and restricted it to the titles canceled and limited it to faculty only, but might add graduate students in the future
We felt undergraduate students would resort to “next best” sources or if they really needed something would rely on Interlibrary Services

13. The wrap up – where we go from here
The stand alone serial title is an antiquated concept and it needs to be replaced with something more fluid and technologically robust
Taking back our scholarship and owing it – this also means changing the culture of the academy and more specifically retention, tenure and promotion practices
Real “open access” not “pay to play” – “green” OA preferred, “gold” ok if low cost

14. Final word
Just say NO!!! - either drop packages altogether or do a cost/use analysis on top use titles and only pay for what you use
Have the courage of your convictions and stand up to exploitive corporate publishing practices. We can succeed if we do this together!!!

15. Ask me anything (Questions?)

16. Contact information:
David Hellman