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

2. Academic libraries are moving in new directions: Development of consortia Support of reforms in the system of scholarly communications

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Example - Elsevier titles at UNM 1999 2000 Print charges$394,346$472,829- 10% 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%.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Creating congruence Consortia can actively seek out small low priced publishers, whether non-profit or for- profit 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

17. 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

18. 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 Consortia can:

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Conclusion Consortia must take on a wider public agenda and should not just be “buying clubs” Scholarly publishing initiatives must become more consortia-friendly