next year’s model: a provisional library view tony kidd, glasgow university library

Next year’s model: a provisional library view

Tony Kidd,

Glasgow University Library

ICOLC Europe, Rome, October 2006 2

JISC Experiments/Reports

• Journals Business Models study Apr 2005– http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JBM.pdf

• Usage Statistics study Mar 2005– http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/nesli2_usstudy.pdf

• E-prints/Open Access Journal Delivery Models Jul 2004– http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF1E88.pdf

• Learned Society Open Access Business Models Jun 2005

– http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Learned%20Society%20Open%20Access%20Business%20Models.doc

• Guide to Scholarly Publishing 2005– http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/i)%20Guide%20on%20Scholarly

%20Publishing%20Trends%20FINAL.doc


Suspicion of big deals

• JISC Journals Working Group

• Individual libraries

• But….. NESLi2– Opt-in participation

• Schizophrenic attitude


Big deal advantages

• Increase in availability– 1994/95 3358 journal subs/inst– 2004/05 7575

• CURL libs 17250

• Reducing cost/download– Glasgow 2005 c£2 [€2.90; $3.60]: still too

high

• Negotiated nationally: ContentComplete• Model licence


Big deal disadvantages

• Cancellations– Restrictions/ban on cancellations still biggest

hurdle for UK libraries – 41% biggest downside [Harwood. ASA Conf,

Feb 2006 http://www.subscription-agents.org/conference/200602/Harwood.pps]

• Unwanted content• Knock-on cancellations of individual subs• Titles moving between publishers


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


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


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 15803 article downloads

• 10082 PDF, 5721 HTML– Glasgow 16895 downloads

• 10178 PDF, 6717 HTML


Subscribed/non-subscribed

• Subscribed titles– Liverpool 98 titles 12614 downloads– Glasgow 109 titles 13198 downloads

• Non-subscribed titles– Liverpool 75 titles 3189 downloads– Glasgow 64 titles 3697 downloads

• Lower proportion of ‘non-subscribed’ downloads than some publishers


‘Conversion to subscription’

• Subscribed titles – Jan-May– Liverpool 76 of 98 titles– Glasgow 88 of 109 titles

• Non-subscribed titles – Jan-May– Liverpool 35 of 75 titles– Glasgow 31 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]



• If estimate that Jan-May 50% annual use…• Subscribed titles – Jan-Dec

– Liverpool 85 of 98 titles– Glasgow 101 of 109 titles

• Non-subscribed titles – Jan-Dec– Liverpool 46 of 75 titles– Glasgow 43 of 64 titles

• Subscribed titles not converting– Arts/Humanities + Maths/Computing

• Non-subscribed titles not converting more varied



• 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



• Can play around with the assumptions e.g. set price/download at £2 (Glasgow average), and convert to sub at 100%– Liverpool 56 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)


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


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?


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


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


Evaluation

Vital to continue to share experiences

at venues such as ICOLC…

next year’s model: a provisional library view tony kidd, glasgow university library

Documents