International Coalition of
Library Consortia (ICOLC)
Statement of Current
Perspective and Preferred Practices
for Selection and Purchase
of Electronic Information
(Update No. 2, Pricing and
Economics, October, 2004)[[1]]
For
the Press
Release about this Statement, <http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/icolcpr.htm>
Introduction
Increasingly, today's
publishers
act globally to provide electronic information, and it is incumbent
upon libraries
to act globally to express their market positions about pricing and
other terms
and conditions related to purchase of published information. This document updates the ICOLC's earlier
statements about today's electronic information environment, our
desired
environment for the future, and preferred practices for library
consortia and
their member libraries to achieve these desired outcomes.
In this general update, we emphasize economic
and pricing matters, which have remained a significant concern since
the first
meetings of the ICOLC in 1996 and throughout the Statements we have
issued.
Once again, although
this
Statement may have general applicability, the adopters expect that its
primary
relevance will be within the higher education community.
We aim to foster a continuing dialog among
information providers and academic library consortia.
Thus, members of ICOLC invite information
providers to engage in meaningful and practical discussions about how
this
document and its predecessors might advance ubiquitous and affordable
information resources for library users in educational and research
institutions.
Although the Statement
intends
to be broad enough to encompass all types of academic consortia and to
set
general boundaries within which consortia usually operate, it is not
intended
to preclude individual consortia from taking specific actions that may
be
appropriate to their own needs.
Enduring Goals
for Access to Information
* Need
to Facilitate Information
Technologies. Academic libraries and
information providers must use information technologies to facilitate
increased
information delivery and to make electronic information more generally,
readily, and flexibly accessible than its print counterpart.
* Importance of Educational "Exceptions" in National Copyright Laws.. Most national laws provide for exceptions, or limitations, to the exclusive rights of owners. These exceptions favor the interest of the public. These exceptions, which take library reproduction and educational uses seriously, are to stay intact in the electronic environment.
* Permanent
Access and Archiving are of
When a title(s) to
which a library has electronic archival
rights transfers from one publisher to another there is no guarantee
that the
library will continue a licensing relationship with the acquiring
publisher. Therefore, the obligation to
provide a means of access to issues up to the point of transfer remains
with
the original publisher. The publisher
must not fail to provide a practical method of continuing access.
This
obligation includes the complete acquisition of one publisher by
another. In
this case the acquiring publisher must provide the method for
continuing access
to acquired publisher's titles up to the point of the acquisition.
ICOLC
expects that a condition of any sale of an entire stable of
publications to another
publisher must include as a condition of sale that perpetual access
will be
provided for titles that a library or consortium purchased perpetual
rights to
up to the date of sale.
* Information has to be Affordable. Pricing models for electronic information must result in a significant reduction in the per-use, or unit cost, of information. The savings accrued through the production of electronic information should, over time, be passed from the provider to the consumer. Eventually, the methods for pricing electronic information must dovetail with both the financial requirements of information providers and the budgets and missions of academic libraries.
* Usage Data Provide Much-Needed Measures of Success. Libraries and providers must jointly develop and agree upon what constitutes effective measures of the use and value of electronic information so both parties can demonstrate better returns on investment. Improved measures of electronic information value will be essential to enable libraries to secure future funding to procure these resources. ICOLC has developed guidelines regarding usage data[[2]] and also encourages the continued development of collaborative programs, such as the COUNTER Project,[[3]] that bring libraries, consortia, and publishers together to improve definitions and measures of usage.
* Broadest Possible Access. Scholars, academic institutions, publishers, and libraries share a common and compelling interest in fostering systems of publishing that result in broad information access at an affordable price. To achieve this, each group (universities and colleges, publishers, academic libraries, and academic authors) must take steps to improve the current system. All parties must be willing to take risks to create and implement new, technologically enabled research outlets for initial publication of scholarship and research results. Publishers should develop new policies allowing author archiving and access of published material through self or institutional archives. Authors should only publish where such rights are granted.
* Affordable
Access on a Global
Scale. ICOLC applauds the growing
number of recent partnerships with publishers who provide electronic
journals
for free or at very affordable access to countries in transition, such
as the
programs of the WHO, FAO, and eIFL.net[[4]].
ICOLC members hope that publishers will next address the needs
of more
developed nations that may be experiencing weak national currencies,
i.e., pricing models that are fair for users in
all countries in the world, though they need not all be based upon a
single
pricing construct.
* New models for Widest Possible Access. ICOLC supports the widest possible access to information and encourages experimentation with new business models such as Open Access and other scholarly information and access programs. These new experiments need to be mounted thoughtfully and tracked carefully so that authors, publishers, and libraries may generate the most benefit for readers. To accomplish this goal, ICOLC strongly encourages all abstracting and indexing services to include article-level citation to freely-available peer-reviewed scholarly journals, so that these become fully integrated into the most commonly used scholarly access mechanisms. Such access can be expected not only to increase the use of these journals, thereby reducing costs, but also to make the abstracting and indexing services more valuable to the scholarly community. Article-level metadata should be generated in a standardized format by all freely-available journals, for easy incorporation directly into abstracting and indexing services.
Preferred Pricing Practices - Reaffirmed
A.
Non-disclosure
language should not be required for any licensing agreement,
particularly
language that would preclude library consortia from sharing pricing and
other
significant terms and conditions with other consortia.
B. Providers should not expect libraries to pay the entire cost of their research and development to bring new electronic products to market. These costs should be shared by the company shareholders and amortized by the provider so current prices for electronic information are sufficiently affordable to encourage experimentation and ultimately widespread use. This strategy will offer providers a better long-term revenue stream from which to recover their research and development costs.
C.
Libraries should have the option to purchase the electronic
product without the paper subscription, and the electronic product
should cost
substantially less than the printed subscription price.
See Section A. below for more detail.
D.
Bundling electronic and print subscriptions in
non-flexible
multi-year packages must not be the
sole pricing option for purchasing electronic information. For example,
licenses and purchase agreements for electronic journals, after the
initial
pricing year, cannot
remain on an unchangeable fixed economic course.
Preferred Pricing
Practices
-- Additional Statements
Library consortia
are increasingly part of today's "information chain."
They work closely with publishers and vendors
in the electronic space. Through
aggregating buyers for numerous educational and scholarly information
resources, consortia create for information providers an increasingly
efficient
process for negotiating and administering licenses.
Consortia increase the sale and penetration
of information suppliers' materials into the educational and research
arena.
ICOLC members are
concerned that, amid all the changes in scholarly publishing, the
annual cost
to libraries of maintaining information access continues to rise far
more
rapidly than either inflation or library budgets, which are, in many
cases,
flat or decreasing. Publishers continue
to ask libraries to invest in new publishing initiatives, often while
maintaining
or expanding the print versions of publications, and the latter also
continue
to increase at rates above inflation or budgets.
Consortia must
achieve greater value for their money.
This goal can be achieved in various ways: for
example, by purchasing titles that
receive actual use and discontinuing low-use or unused titles, by
pricing
incremental cost of low use titles in proportion to their use. Intense discussions about journal costs have
spawned many opinions about appropriate solutions.
These solutions may vary based on the
constituency of the consortium and its particular business arrangement. ICOLC supports ongoing dialog and encourages
publishers to work with customers and other organizations to develop
additional
alternative models for electronic journal literature access.
It has always been
and will remain library practice to prioritize purchases to those
materials of
most value and use to its users. Through
the improved accessibility of electronic journals, the publishing
industry will
realize the benefits of increased readership, but the licensing
arrangements
must not preclude (or make impractical) the ability of libraries to
continue to
evaluate the use and value of journals and to cancel those of low use
and value
with non-punitive economic consequences.
Outlined below are
specific changes in business models currently being sought by library
consortia.
A.
AMove From "Print
Plus" to "Electronic Plus" Purchase Model.
Today, publishers price most e-journal content using print
publications
as their base price (the "print-plus" model). In
many offers from publishers, the pricing
of the electronic journal is still expressed as an "add-on" to the
price of the print product, or, alternatively, the price quoted is
linked to a
"no-print cancellation" clause in the contract.
A few publishers
now offer an "electronic-only" or "electronic-plus" model,
with the electronic journal being supplied for a base price and a price
for
print copies being added to that base price.
ICOLC endorses this model, provided:
1. The
purchase of the
print copies is optional, and
2. The
base price for the
electronic content is no more than 80% of the price for the
electronic-plus-print (thereby reflecting the savings that the
non-supply of
print copies can bring), and
3. The
combined electronic
and print price is no more than the price of the current print-only
subscription.
B.
Eliminate No-Cancellation
Clauses. ICOLC members object strongly
to "no-print cancellation" clauses in licenses and contracts for
e-journals,
and to pricing models that impose financial limitations or penalties
when
cancellations are permitted. Publishers
should direct more effort toward new pricing models that break away
from
print-based models, as above. To the
extent that publishers adopt properly allocated Electronic-Plus models,
the
non-cancellation issue becomes mostly insignificant if not moot.
C. "Big" or "Package Deals" need Breathing Room. Package deals have been useful for various consortial customers and will continue to have utility. As true group packages they can simplify title level administration for both libraries and publisher while maximizing access to the publishers’ collection. However, given current needs and uncertain multi-year budget situations, publishers must also build reasonable possibilities for "orderly attrition" into all such arrangements, which are seen as fair to both publishers and libraries. Structured properly, the best arrangement for both libraries and publishers should be broader rather than narrower title access, with orderly attrition as a necessary but secondary tool. This will enable customers to contain or reduce spending, if needed. For example, listed are some ways in which attrition might be offered, and there are likely other possibilities:
1. Shave
off unused titles and provide a
credit for them.
2. Shave
off titles that libraries choose
to do without (or buy by the drink) and provide credit for those.
3. Let
libraries delete titles and recoup
a percentage of the dollar value of the subscription price for those
titles.
4. Provide
cancellation allowances for
each year.
D.
Do Not Repackage Content.
Publishers should curtail the practice of repurposing or
repackaging
content (such as republication of articles in multiple electronic
journals) in
ways that require libraries to pay for the same content multiple times.
E.
Change -- but do not eliminate
--the Roles Of Intermediaries. All parties in the information
chain -- scholars, publishers, aggregators, agents and librarians --
are re-evaluating
their roles in the light of new electronic delivery developments. In the long run, each must add value to
survive. ICOLC members are supportive of
changes in the arrangements for purchase of and access to electronic
content,
but many continue to wish to work with serials agents and other parties
to
manage their subscriptions during this period of change.
Adopters
of This Statement
This statement was adopted in principle by member representatives of the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), whose organizations are listed below. This statement does not necessarily represent the official views of each consortium listed.
Adopters
of This Statement
This statement was adopted in principle by member representatives of the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), whose organizations are listed below. This statement does not necessarily represent the official views of each consortium listed.
Original list as of
* additions up to
ABM-utvikling (Norwegian Archive, Library and Museum
Authority)
Amigos Library Services US
AULC (Arizona Universities Library Consortium) US
BCR US
BIBSAM Sweden
BICFB (French-Speaking Library consortium) Belgium
BLC(Boston Library
Consortium, Inc.) US
CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians)
California Digital Library US
California State University - SEIR (Systemwide Electronic Information Resources) US
CALICO (Cape Library Consortium) South Africa
CAUL (Council of Atlantic University Libraries) Canada
CBUC (Consortium of Academic Libraries of Catalonia) Spain
CIBER (Coordinamento Interuniversitario Basi dati & Editoria in Rete)
Italy
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) US
Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries US
Colorado State Library US
COSALC (Coalition of South African Library Consortia)
Council of Federal Libraries Consortium/consortium Conseil des bibliothèques du
gouvernement federal Canada
CREPUQ (Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec/Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities) Canada
DEF (Danish Electronic Research Library)
eIFL.net International
ELNET Estonia
FinELib (The National Electronic Library in Finland)
Florida Center for Library Automation US
GAELIC (Gauteng and Environs Library Consortium) South Africa
GALILEO Georgia's Virtual Library, an initiative of the University System of Georgia
US
Greater Western Library Alliance US
HEAL-Link Greece
ICCMP (Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program) US
INCOLSA US
JANUL (Japan Association of National University Libraries)
JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) UK
LALC (Lebanese Academic Library Consortium)
LOUIS: The Louisiana Library Network US
MINITEX Library Information Network US
MLC (Michigan Library Consortium) US
MLNC (Missouri Library Network Corporation) US
MOBIUS US
NC LIVE (North Carolina Libraries for Virtual Education) US
Network of Alabama Academic Libraries US
NELINET, Inc. US
NELLCO (New England Law Library Consortium) US
NERL (NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium) US
NCAL (Nevada Council of Academic Libraries) US
Nylink US
OhioLINK (Ohio Library and Information Network) US
OHIONET US
Orbis Cascade Alliance US
PALINET US
PASCAL, the Partnership Among South Carolina Academic Libraries US
Pioneer, Utah's Online Library US
Procurement for Libraries UK
PULC (Private University Libraries Consortium) Japan
SOLINET (Southeastern Library Network, Inc.) US
SUPC (Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium) UK
Texshare US
Triangle Research Libraries Network (TRLN) US
UKB The Netherlands
University of Texas System Digital Library US
Utah Academic Library Consortium US
VIVA (The Virtual Library of Virginia) US
VOWB (Vlaams Overlegorgaan Wetenschappelijk Bibliotheekwerk/ Flemish
WILS (Wisconsin Library Services) US
WRLC (Washington Research Library Consortium) US
About the
International
Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC)
The
International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) is an informal
organization that began meeting in 1997.
Comprising over 200 library consortia across the globe the
Coalition
represents thousands of member libraries worldwide.
The Coalition serves primarily higher
education institutions by facilitating discussion among its members on
issues
of common interest. ICOLC conducts
meetings to keep its members informed about new electronic information
resources, pricing practices of electronic providers and vendors, and
other
issues of importance to consortium directors and their governing boards. These meetings also provide a forum for
consortial representatives to meet with the information provider
community,
discuss their products, and engage in a dialog with Coalition members
about
issues of mutual concern. The ICOLC also
maintains listservs and web pages for the benefit of its members. Additional information about the ICOLC can be
found at http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia
For further information about the Statement contact:
Note: in all email addresses below, please replace the AT with @"
Beverlee French, Director for Shared Content, California Digital Library
University of California - Office of the President, 415 20th Street, 4th Floor,
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510.987-0425 Fax: 510.287-3825
Email: beverlee.french AT ucop.edu
Arnold Hirshon, Executive Director, NELINET, Inc.
153 Cordaville Road, Suite 200, Southborough MA 01772
Phone: 508-597-1934 Fax: 508-460-9455
Email: hirshon AT nelinet.net
Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen, Director FinELib
P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23-25), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki FINLAND Phone: +358
9 191 44118
Email: kristiina.hormia AT helsinki.fi
Ann Okerson,
Yale University, Sterling Memorial Library, New Haven, CT 06520-8240
Phone: 203-432-1764 Fax: 203-432-8527
Email: ann.okerson AT yale.edu
Tom Sanville, Executive Director, OhioLINK
Suite 300, 2455 North Star Road, Columbus, OH 43221
Phone: 614-728-3600, ext. 322 Fax: 614-728-3610
Email: tom AT ohiolink.edu
Dr Hazel Woodward, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
University Librarian & Director of Cranfield University Press, Kings Norton
Library,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL
Phone:: +44 (0) 1234 754446 Fax: +44 (0) 1234 752391
Email: h.woodward AT cranfield.ac.uk
ENDNOTES
1. See "Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and Purchase of Electronic Information (March 1998)," and "Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and Purchase of Electronic Information (Update no. 1: December 2001)." Both are found at: <http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statementsanddocuments.html>
2 See "Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-Based Information Resources (Update: December 2001)," at: <http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statementsanddocuments.html>