nesli: an agent for change or changing the agent?
TRANSCRIPT
The Electronic LibraryNESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?Paul Harwood
Article information:To cite this document:Paul Harwood, (2000),"NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?", The Electronic Library, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 121 -126Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640470010325664
Downloaded on: 17 October 2014, At: 01:21 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 596 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Robert Bley, (2000),"NESLI: a successful national consortium", Library Consortium Management: An International Journal,Vol. 2 Iss 1 pp. 18-28(2000),"Kluwer offer electronic journals to NESLI", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. -Magdalini Vasileiou, Richard Hartley, Jennifer Rowley, (2009),"An overview of the e#book marketplace", Online InformationReview, Vol. 33 Iss 1 pp. 173-192
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
NESLI: an agent forchange or changing theagent?
Paul Harwood
Introduction
The National Electronic Site Licence
Initiative (NESLI) is part of the Joint
Information Systems Committee's (JISC,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk) Distributed National
Electronic Resource (DNER, http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/pub/#dner) ± an attempt to
provide a managed and structured framework
of trusted and validated electronic
information sources, in different disciplines
and subjects, for the UK higher education
(HE) community.
The initiative was planned as a replacement
for the previous three-year Pilot Site Licence
Initiative (PSLI) at a time when major changes
affecting the acquisition and dissemination of
academic and research literature (both
electronic and print) were under way.
Although PSLI had begun as a government-
funded effort to reduce the cost of printed
journals, an important byproduct of its
success was greater awareness and use of the
electronic versions of the journals included in
the initiative.
In addition, print journal purchasing by
consortia tendering had become the prevalent
purchasing model ± replacing the direct
relationship between subscription agents and
university libraries in many cases.
Added to this, a few major publishers,
having invested very heavily in new e-journal
delivery solutions, were actively approaching
both their library and their end-user customers
directly in order to find out firsthand about the
market's perception of their newly developed
electronic products and services.
Another significant development was that
CHEST (the Combined Higher Education
Software Team), having successfully obtained
attractive deals for software and secondary
databases for UK HE institutions (HEIs) over
a number of years was now looking into
negotiating with full-text primary publishers.
Given all the developments listed above,
and the fact that a range of new intermediaries
and aggregators were offering electronic
journal services, the role of the subscription
agent was becoming less clear and obvious
The origins of NESLI
The Pilot Site Licence Initiative was an
initiative of the Higher Education Funding
Councils (HEFCE, http://www.hefce.ac.uk),
The author
Paul Harwood is based at Swets Subscription Service
and is the NESLI Managing Agent.
Keywords
Electronic publishing, Licensing, Agents, Subscriptions,
United Kingdom
Abstract
The UK higher education community's National Electronic
Site Licence Initiative (NESLI) is an attempt to encourage
the widespread usage of electronic journals as
replacements for print. Although this is to a large extent
about reducing the financial barriers to the take-up of
electronic journals, another firm aim is to further integrate
provision of electronic journals with the full range of
electronic services offered to the academic community.
This paper examines the origins of the initiative, the
Managing Agent's functions, and the results of the
initiative so far. It goes on to consider the viability of the
NESLI model and possible future roles for subscription
agents in the electronic world.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Features
121
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . pp. 121±126
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0264-0473
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
and was designed to illustrate what could be
achieved. HEFCE made it clear that their
central funding would not be available after
the three-year project was over.
Responsibility for a successor scheme fell to
the Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC), an influential group comprising senior
academic librarians and policy makers. They
determined that if PSLI was to be scaled-up
significantly in terms of the number of
publishers participating, and the emphasis was
to move from print to electronic, a Managing
Agent would be required: an organisation that
had sufficient expertise and resources to
undertake this work on their behalf.
A tender process ensued in late November
1997, and following a series of presentations
in March 1998, a contract was awarded to a
consortium of Swets United Kingdom
Limited (http://www.Swets.ac.uk) and the
University of Manchester (http://
www.manchester.ac.uk) via Manchester
Computing (http://www.mcc.ac.uk). The
contract was for three years.
Who is the Managing Agent?
The two organizations that form the
Managing Agent bring together two different
but complementary kinds of knowledge,
expertise and resources.
Swets United Kingdom Limited is part of
the Swets and Zeitlinger group of companies,
one of the world's leading subscription
agents. The UK office is the main supplier of
printed journals to academic libraries in the
United Kingdom and, before the advent of
NESLI, the global parent company had
already begun promoting services in the area
of electronic journals to consortia and
individual libraries. The most obvious
example of that was the introduction of
SwetsNet, a full-text service for the delivery of
and for searching across electronic journals
from multiple publishers. As a subscription
agent, Swets is able to use its existing
relationships with publishers, its vast database
of publisher and title information, and its
expertise at handling subscriptions.
At the time of writing, Swets Subscription
Services had just completed a merger with
Blackwell's Information Services to form a
new global company ± Swets Blackwell
(http://Swetsblackwell.com), now the largest
subscription agent in the world.
Manchester Computing, or MIMAS
(http://www.mimas.ac.uk), is a JISC-
designated National Data Centre. Using
some of the most powerful computers
available, MIMAS offers electronic services to
the higher education and research
communities, including Beilstein CrossFire,
COPAC and JSTOR, the electronic archiving
service, and the new ISI Web of Science
service.
Manchester Computing has been able to
use both its hardware resources and, just as
importantly, its pool of technical expertise to
help fulfil the technical and support
requirements of the initiative.
The function of the Managing Agent
The Managing Agent's remit, as set out in the
original JISC tender document, covered four
principal requirements:
(1) Representation of UK higher education
institutes in negotiations with scholarly
publishers for better value electronic
journal access deals; communication and
clarification of the outcome of
negotiations to the institutes;
encouragement of them to take up offers
negotiated; encouragement of publishers
to accept a model licence based on the
one drawn up by the JISC/PA working
group (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/
elib/papers/pa/licence/Pajisc21.html).
(2) Handling of orders for titles included in
NESLI deals.
(3) Provision of a single interface for access
to the titles included in NESLI deals' full
back-up and support.
(4) Research into the use of new technologies
such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs)
(http://www.doi.org) to speed up the
process of linking between electronic
content and also to research into and
report on the issue of electronic journal
archiving.
The NESLI commercial model
The Managing Agent has received pump-
priming funding from the JISC to cover the
three-year contract period. Over that time
(and certainly beyond), it is expected that the
Managing Agent moves to full self-funding
and sustainability.
122
NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?
Paul Harwood
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . 121±126
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
Whilst it may be possible to charge for
newly implemented services and a small
access fee is made for the use of SwetsNet as
the single interface, the principle source of
income for the Managing Agent, once it
moves to full self-funding, will continue to be
the subscription itself. To that end, the
NESLI Managing Agent is also the
subscription agent for the initiative and could
not survive without the subscription income.
This has proved to be a contentious issue in
some cases.
The NESLI structural model
Having set the scene by describing the
background to the initiative, the process of
selecting a Managing Agent and a bit about
the Managing Agent itself, the NESLI model
and some of the issues it has thrown up are
evaluated below. An explanation of what has
been achieved so far and what criteria the
Managing Agent is likely to be judged on is
also provided. The easiest way to do this, is to
consider the principal tasks performed by the
Managing Agent as outlined above.
Negotiation
It was never going to be difficult for the
Managing Agent to identify those publishers
with whom to work: as a major subscription
agent, Swets was already aware of those
publishers who had electronic content
available and who were willing to work with
third parties in making it available. There was
a clear imperative to ensure that the existing
PSLI publishers continued under the new
scheme, and Swets UK knew who the major
publishers to UK HEIs were.
The biggest difficulty facing the Managing
Agent in May 1998 was the limited time
available to have proposals available for the
HEIs for the new subscription year. January
1999 sounded a long way off, but with many
publishers having already determined their
pricing policies for the following year,
summer holidays approaching and
considerable time needed to conduct
discussions and negotiations, time pressure
was very evident. With many librarians
wanting the earliest possible notification of
potential deals and certainly intending to
make subscription renewal decisions by
October at the latest, time pressure was one of
the biggest difficulties faced by the Managing
Agent in the first few months following their
appointment.
For some publishers, their first question to
the Managing Agent was `̀ what's in it for
me?''. Many were interested to know whether
NESLI offered the same centrally-funded
arrangements as PSLI which was attractive to
them. Others were concerned that in making
a special pricing or access arrangement
available to UK institutes, customers
elsewhere in the world would quickly hear
about it and demand similar treatment.
At a time when some publishers had already
embarked on a `̀ direct dealing'' basis with their
customers, the prospect of sitting around the
table with the organisation they were trying to
by pass was an interesting one. Naturally, there
were those publishers who simply did not like
consortia generally or the NESLI model
specifically, although there were equal number
who believed that NESLI represented a good
opportunity to raise their profile and to test
their electronic pricing and consortia policies.
One of the more interesting underlying
debates was the extent to which the traditional
relationship between the publisher and the
subscription agent was being changed as a
result of NESLI. In the traditional commercial
model, the agent receives a discount from the
publisher for the work they do in streamlining
the payments and renewals process. With the
Managing Agent representing the purchasers
and seeking `̀ value for money'' offerings, the
question of `̀ who are you representing?'' is
there to be asked. At a time when subscription
agents' relationships with major publishers is
in some cases undergoing its sternest test,
NESLI has introduced another dimension to
these discussions about who is controlling the
communication chain.
Negotiations initially focused on the four
PSLI publishers (Blackwell Science (http://
www.blacksci.co.uk), Blackwell Publishers
(http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk), The
Institute of Physics Publishing (http://www.
iop.org), and Academic Press(http://www.
iop.org)) and on the other publishers whose
material is most in demand by UK HEIs.
During 1999, despite the late start for the
subscription year, over 1,600 journal titles
from Blackwell Science, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Blackwell Publishers, MCB
and Elsevier Science were available under the
auspices of NESLI, and 78 institutions in the
UK took up access to journals included in one
or more NESLI deal.
123
NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?
Paul Harwood
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . 121±126
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
At the time of writing, the Managing Agent
had dealt with offers for the year 2000 from
Academic Press, Blackwell Publishers,
Blackwell Science and Munksgaard (http://
www.munksgaard.dk), Elsevier Science,
Internet Archaeology (http://intarch.ac.uk),
Johns Hopkins University Press (including
titles from other publishers), Kluwer
Academic Press (http://www.kluwer.nl),
MCB University Press, Mary Ann Liebert
(http://www.liebertpub.com/), The National
Research Council Canada (http://
www.nrc.ca) and Oxford University Press
(http://www3.oup.co.uk/jnls). Further offers
are expected from several more publishers.
The most popular offers have generally
been the one-year offers. Multiple-year offers
which also limit cancellations, have proved
more difficult to sell to the community, as few
libraries these days are able to commit funds
for more than one financial year. In addition,
the majority of the offers made from
publishers to date have been for their full
range of titles rather than offering title by title
choice.
Subscription management
As previously mentioned, the commercial
model of NESLI ± if it is to go beyond the
three-year funding period ± is dependent on
the revenue that comes from subscriptions
handled by the Managing Agent. By
implication, this means that all NESLI deals
should be handled by the Managing Agent
and this has inevitably created some concern
among other subscription agents who feel
they are being excluded from handling orders
under the initiative. For customers, too, there
has been some disquiet about having to deal
with an agent that they did not select or with
whom they are not contractually bound to as
a result of a tender exercise.
The alternative approach would have been
to opt for the appointment of an independent
negotiator (similar to the role currently played
by CHEST) with offers being disseminated
and individual HEIs being able to place the
subscription through the agent of their choice.
One of the benefits to publishers of NESLI,
however, is the notion of one contact point for
negotiation, order fulfilment and payment,
and this would not have been achieved under
the more distributed model.
To date, disquiet from both publishers and
libraries has been muted in this respect and,
clearly, the NESLI model may be refined and
modified at the end of the three year
contracted period depending upon the
success of the Managing Agent. The most
public criticism has come from a report into
Purchasing Consortia in the UK which
recommends that `̀ The operating structure of
the National Electronic Site Licence Initiative
(NESLI) be re-examined to consider: any
inherent potential conflict of interest; any
potential monopoly; the importation of
professional procurement expertise''.
Access
The desirability of a single interface to access a
broad range of electronic content is something
that has been expressed by librarians on behalf
of their users for several years now. To many
publishers who have invested significant sums
of money on their interface, this may not be
what they want to hear and, for many libraries,
the single interface is only desirable if it is `̀ the
one I like best''.
Whilst this aspect of NESLI had the
potential to be as contentious as the
subscription management issue, the reality is
that it has been less so. In most offers
disseminated by the Managing Agent, it has
been able to offer a choice of interface
(generally between the publisher's own
delivery vehicle and SwetsNet).
As well as providing an information point for
all matters pertaining to the initiative, the
NESLI Web site (www.nesli.ac.uk) is also a
gateway into the SwetsNet service, offering
users the opportunity to use their ATHENS
authentication password and a clickable,
alphabetic listing of all titles currently available.
Many university libraries have established
Web pages for their electronic journals with
direct links to the full text. The NESLI/
SwetsNet interface allows such linking, taking
the user directly to the table of contents of the
latest issue and without the need for further
password prompts.
Both within NESLI and outside, the
interface and access debate will continue for
some time, as the battle for critical mass of
content continues, and more advanced
technology allows greater sophistication of
presentation and improved speed of access.
Value-added services
The fourth and seemingly less tangible
deliverable of the NESLI initiative has to date
focussed on two areas: subject clustering of
titles and linking. The former is still in the
124
NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?
Paul Harwood
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . 121±126
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
early stages of development, and it is hoped
that some progress will be made in the area of
political science following a workshop hosted
by the Managing Agent in July 1999. The
involvement of MIMAS in the SuperJournal
project, the relationships established and the
progress made, gives the Managing Agent
cause to believe that a workable commercial
model can be found.
Linking from secondary sources into NESLI
full text took a major leap forward during 1999,
when JISC announced that MIMAS would
host the new Web of Science service from ISI.
The old BIDS-ISI service had proved to be
extremely popular, and it is hoped that the new
service from ISI will be no less so; particularly if
ISI and the Managing Agent can work together
to deliver seamless linking from resource
discovery at the secondary level into the
growing full-text content within NESLI. A
meeting between ISI and the Managing Agent
took place in July 1999; ISI is undertaking the
necessary technical work, and it is hoped that
some links will be in place later in the 2000
subscription year.
Encouraging a structured approach
The description of the work of the Managing
Agent, above, is an attempt to highlight not
only the progress made so far but also some of
the difficulties inherent in the model. It
should also be pointed out that the Managing
Agent is operating at a time of considerable
change in technology and philosophy. The
very nature of commercial scholarly
publishing is being questioned more than ever
before, and no doubt some would argue that
the whole initiative is simply perpetuating a
system that has a limited future anyway.
Within its remit, however, NESLI and the
Managing Agent has attempted to introduce
some form of structure, open debate and
analysis into the proceedings. The setting up
of a discussion list (lis-nesli) has enabled
librarians to openly question and discuss the
various issues involved in subscribing to a
particular offer. The closed lis-nesli-reps list
has proved a formal, discreet and structured
way of presenting deals to institutions, using a
standard template that covers all the
commercial and technical matters. In
response, librarians at many institutions have
set up project teams or nominated individuals
to consider the various deals and compose
considered replies to the various offers.
NESLI has encouraged the formation of such
teams and the consideration of such issues
earlier than would have been the case had the
initiative not existed.
Librarians' reactions
Whilst some librarians expressed initial
concern at the NESLI concept, especially the
notion of the Managing Agent as the
subscription agent, many have adjusted to this
or forgotten about it as their focus has turned
increasingly to the various proposals that the
Managing Agent has put before them.
Whilst some publishers may have been
sceptical, or were reluctantly persuaded to sit
around the table with the Managing Agent,
the reaction of librarians to the various offers
put before them provides invaluable
information about the expectations of the UK
higher education community and the
restrictions they are currently working under.
For many institutions, it is virtually
impossible to commit to a three-year
arrangement, even more so if the arrangement
includes a `̀ no cancellation'' clause. Many are
far more interested in an individual title deal
and appear not to be seduced by the `̀ full
stable'' approach unless the price is
particularly attractive.
The issue of the devolved budget has
increasingly been drawn into the equation, as
institutions profess not have a single pot of
money available for electronic deals such as
those put forward by the Managing Agent.
Relationships
One of the most fascinating aspects of NESLI
has been its impact on the relationships
between the various players. The Managing
Agent is a new team and so far it has proved
to be a harmonious one. The combination of
an obviously commercial organisation like
Swets working with a government-funded
organisation like MIMAS has proved to be
highly acceptable to the powers that be in the
JISC and the library community in general.
The relationship between subscription
agents has become slightly more strained, as
those on the outside of the initiative voice
concerns about monopolies and unfair
practices. The reality is that the role of the
125
NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?
Paul Harwood
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . 121±126
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
subscription agent will undergo an interesting
test during the life of NESLI. Those on the
outside will have the opportunity to watch the
successes and failures of Swets and to
approach the market with new ideas and
models based on what they have seen over
three years of NESLI.
At a time when many publishers were
convinced that they could manage without the
work of the subscription agent, the Managing
Agent has proved to be the barrier between
them and direct dealings with UK higher
education. If NESLI delivers success for HEIs
and their offerings, it may well convince them
that the agent has role to play in an electronic-
only environment. If their expectations are
frustrated, it is likely that they will see the
Managing Agent as the cause of that frustration,
and the competition between publishers and
agents, that is currently more implied than
obvious, may well intensify.
Agents themselves need to decide whether
`̀ negotiation'' is too strong and emotive a word
to put forward in their sales literature, and one
that may jeopardise their relationships with the
publishers who provide a significant slice of
their income. Maybe they will fall back into the
less contentious role of facilitating,
administrating and coordinating which has
really been their traditional strength for many
years in the print environment. For them, the
issue is quite simply: in a wholly electronic
environment, is there still sufficient
administration in the system to provide that
crucial piece of value-added?
How will the Managing Agent bejudged?
On one level, this is relatively easy: how many
full-text journals have been licensed under the
initiative? What level of savings have been
made by HEIs? What efficiencies have been
introduced into the acquisitions process as a
result of having a Managing Agent?
On another level, it will be much harder:
has the Managing Agent contributed to the
further decline in the number of subscription
agents able to compete for business by
enjoying a monopoly position? Has it simply
sustained and encouraged a system that is
now out moded? Has it confirmed a new
relationship between publishers and
intermediaries in an electronic world or
simply antagonised the former and convinced
them even more that the agent is an
anachronism?
The Managing Agent has cause to feel
pleased with what it has achieved so far. For
the 2000 subscription year several major
publishers are participating and it is likely that
linking from the Web of Science service into
NESLI full text will be available. Critical
mass and seamless linking are two major
objectives, and the realisation of these will
have major spin-offs in terms of achieving
extra content and further linking possibilities.
Conclusion
There has been a great deal of international
interest in the NESLI example. Trends in
scholarly communication are global in nature,
and many different types of consortia are
emerging around the world, as publishers,
agents and libraries face similar pressures.
Although NESLI is not likely to completely
revolutionise the scholarly communication
chain, it is one of the agents of change that
may help to encourage the shift from paper to
electronic media. However, its degree of
success in delivering value for money to HEIs
will have significant implications for the
future of subscription agents.
126
NESLI: an agent for change or changing the agent?
Paul Harwood
The Electronic Library
Volume 18 . Number 2 . 2000 . 121±126
Dow
nloa
ded
by N
ew Y
ork
Uni
vers
ity A
t 01:
21 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)