Consortium of Consortia Meeting Summary
St. Louis, MO., Feb. 3-5, 1997
Tim Jewell
University of Washington Libraries
A. Consortial Information and Discussion
1. Discussions
There were many opportunities to talk with other consortium reps., and a couple of group discussions. One focused on things the group could do to further common interests, such as an "open letter to vendors" from the group. Such a letter might address a limited number of important concerns or principles such as access control, confidentiality of licenses and pricing, etc.
2. Web pages and documents
A number of participating consortia either provided lists of available documents (typically including things like organization documents and agreements, strategic plans, etc.), or mentioned that some of these things were available via their web sites. Wherever possible, I've provided the links; in other cases printed lists of documents may be available. (Several of the web sites may provide some ideas for shared databases, etc.)
Partial list of Attendees:
Boston Library ConsortiumCalifornia State University
http://www.co.calstate.edu/irt/seirCHEST (UK: Combined Higher Education Software Team)
Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
http://www.coalliance.orgCIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation)
http://cedar.cic.net/cic/ELN (British Columbia's Electronic Library Network)
NAAL (Network of Alabama Academic Libraries).
http://webserver.dsmd.state.al.us/ache/ache.htmOhiolink
Orbis (Oregon)
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/orbis/State University System of Florida
http://www.fcla.eduVIVA (Virtual Library of Virginia)
http://www.viva.lib.va.usWashington Research Library Consortium (D.C)
B. Vendor/Producer Presentations
Note: the participating vendors had been asked to make presentations which focused more on consortial issues (pricing, licenses, etc.) than the specifics of what they offer. A number of other vendors expressed a strong interest in making presentations, but could not be accommodated within the available time. The sessions were closed to other vendors, and scheduled for an hour and fifteen minutes each. There was often quite a bit of discussion, and I'm sure important points have been left out of the summaries.
1. Electronic Journal Publishers
Blackwell Science
http://www.blacksci.co.uk:80/default.html
Ian Bannerman presented the company as family owned and committed to providing high quality at lower prices than competing STM publishers. They are putting their 225 journals out in electronic form over a couple of years, selling electronic access on an individual title basis, feeling that it is appropriate to expose journal to market forces, which block electronic subscription programs don't do. They are not setting up their own server -- preferring to work through OCLC, BIDS in the UK, and possibly OVID, BH Blackwell and SWETS, instead. Those third parties will then compete with one another on the basis of features and pricing, etc. Strictly electronic subscriptions will be available in the US at 83% of print; combination subscriptions for print and online will cost roughly 128% of current print charges. Once one member of a consortium has electronic access to a title, the remaining consortium members are eligible for lower document delivery charges ($8-9 each, vs. $14 each on average for their titles via the Copyright Clearance Center.)
Elsevier
http://www.elsevier.com
Elsevier has one program in place (Elsevier Electronic Subscription) and one in development (Science Direct). EES is based on local loading of data, using local software or Elsevier's Science Server Software. Data for all 1200 of their journals is available, which amounts to roughly 2 million pages per year, with backfiles starting with 1995. The data is currently bit-mapped (TIF), with SGML-tagged header information. Soon this will change to PDF + HTML (and possibly SGML in the future.) Science Direct is a web-based service which will be in beta test between March and June, with 300 Biomedical and Life Sciences titles from 1993 forward, and they are working toward inclusion of titles from other STM publishers. In the future, it will be possible to combine locally-loaded with remotely accessed subscriptions. For both EES and SD, access is supposed to be available only for a defined user group, with control via UserIDs and passwords. Access or distribution outside the user group (or consortium) is not permitted. Upon termination, EES subscribers retain the right to use information paid for to that point; a mutually agreeable way to accomplish this in Science Direct is being worked on.
Pricing under the EES program for single institutions is available for a single year or 3 years, based on adding a percentage to existing print subscriptions, with a price advantage for multiple year. Consortial price quotes are always custom. Pricing for Science Direct will be substantially higher than for EES, in order to pay for the added costs. They want to stay away from FTE-based pricing models, and rely instead on the subscription model that they are familiar with. However, pricing will likely be based more on usage after the first 3 years, which caused one consortium rep. to remark that this is like a trial based on historical spending, which will then be replaced by a usage-based model. They expect that consortia will primarily realize savings through shared infrastructure rather than content price, although they are looking toward consortia as a means of increasing their market. (i.e. they get very little income now from smaller schools; adding them via consortia membership would provide new income.)
JSTOR
http://www.jstor.org/
Kevin Guthrie from JSTOR summarized the project's status and emphasized the added values for archival collections of journals that it provides: keyword searching, completeness of runs, desktop availability, savings on shelf space and capital costs, high-quality journal page images, etc. They expect to have 100 charter subscribers signed up by the end of the early subscriber discount period which ends in April, but will ultimately need 750 to make the project viable. They do not have a consortial purchase plan, and believe they have accommodated smaller institutions through their tiered pricing plan. Several attendees felt that they will be unable to get the necessary subscribers and funding unless they do, and that without it the project is a risky one.
Springer-Verlag Link
http://link.springer.de
Springer is establishing an e-journal program called Link, which is going into beta test Feb 24th, with general release to follow a month or so later (UW will participate in the beta). During the test, roughly 50 journals will be available, with about 100 by general release, and 200 or more by the end of 1997. During 1997, access for 25 concurrent users for each subscribed titles will be available free; 1998 pricing has not yet been set. They described their approach as being different from other publishers: organization of content and communication features into topical forums, with access to supplemental materials not available in their print journals, and value-added features, such as the ability to enter values into formulae and view resulting changes in a graph, alerting services, etc. Access control will be based on a combination of IP ranges and scripted passwords. Formats will include HTML and HTML frames, PDF, Postscript image files, and LaTeX for math and physics. TeXexplorer will be used as a viewer for the latter. They do expect to provide archival access, and have been approached by major database producers about providing links to their service.
2. Electronic Journal Aggregators
B. H. Blackwell Electronic Journal Navigator
http://navigator.blackwell.com/
They are aggregating article title-level bibliographic information for the 10-20 publishers (including Academic Press, Johns Hopkins, Blackwell Science, etc.) which they expect to have signed up, and thereby providing a cross-publisher access system. Actual content access will be provided mainly through publisher web pages, via hot links. Pricing is fairly attractive: $3950 per year, regardless of the number of titles involved and usage levels. That price also includes help in rationalizing e-journal orders, access controls, licensing, availability of appropriate viewing software like Acrobat, TeX, etc.
OCLC ECO (Electronic Collections Online)
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/menu/eco.htm
The ECO project is similar to the Blackwell service in that it brings together e-journal content from a variety of publishers, and provides searchability. However, OCLC currently plans to load all data there, provide a permanent archive, systematically migrate to improved systems and interfaces, and provide other different services. Many of the publishers that are participating in the Blackwell Navigator system are also working with OCLC, and they aim to have a very large collection of titles after a couple of years. Pricing is much higher on an annual basis than is Blackwell's, and will be a serious issue for libraries.
3. Full-Text Providers
Ohiolink/Kent State overlap study.
Ohiolink contracted with Greg Byerly at the Kent State Library School to do a study of title overlap across the major full-text databases from EBSCO, IAC, and UMI, and copies of the study were distributed with the understanding that they not be re-distributed broadly. He concluded that there was less title overlap than might be expected in products marketed to the same niches and that libraries and consortia need to pay attention to the specific titles offered by each, to see if they match local needs. In discussion, it was apparent that many (if not most) consortia have tried to do similar analyses, with somewhat limited success.
EBSCO
http://www.ebsco.com/
EBSCO focused on its Academic Search FullText 1000 database, but mentioned parallel products for Business and for Health information. These are or will be available through Ebscohost via web browser and proprietary interfaces, Z39.50, and on tape. According to the presentation, the fulltext 1000-title database represents the "largest general academic full text database available," and currently includes text for 850 titles, with an additional 120 under contract and soon to be introduced, and represents $130,000 per year in print subscription value. The database also includes abstracting and indexing for 2800 titles, with an additional 300 soon to be added. Selection was initially based on Ebsco's information on which 2000 titles are subscribed to most frequently by academic libraries, then cut refined and reduced based on other criteria. EBSCO claims to cover 1093 peer-reviewed journals, vs. 668 in what they termed their major competitor's database. They have also established a working relationship with Elsevier through which they will receive very current bibliographic information and abstracts for several hundred of their journals, and are working toward something similar with Springer-Verlag. They also are working toward providing links to e-journal text in their databases and expect to help libraries with licensing and access issues on the subscription side. In general, they realize they don't yet have much of our business, but want to be aggressive in changing that by reducing their own margins while maintaining income for publishers.
IAC (Information Access Corp.)
http://www.iacnet.com/
IAC sees a rapidly changing landscape with respect to technology and intellectual property rights which raise a new set of issues. On the IP/rights front, publishers are increasingly skittish and wary of licensing data; IAC's staffing in this area has doubled in the last 2 years. In terms of technology, they are investing heavily in hardware and software development, and in the ability to track and report on usage. They have a number of consortial agreements in place for their main databases (primarily General Business File, Expanded Academic Index and National Newspaper Index), and provide access via their web interface, Z39.50 service, and tape.
Pricing is based on whether simultaneous user or site licensing is required. If site licensing is required, such factors as the type of consortium (i.e. whether a centralized, shared system with a single contact and installation, decentralized system with single billing but multiple installs or a buying group with multiple billing, installation, and contact), size of book budgets, FTE's, etc. are taken into account. They consider unlimited access to be a misnomer, and encouraged consortia to consider simultaneous user pricing. Site license fees will typically have to be adjusted periodically on the basis of usage in any case, numbers of simultaneous users required can generally be predicted accurately and adjusted easily, fees are non-arbitrary and tied to actual usage and costs. Simultaneous user pricing will typically be somewhat lower. (For instance, General Business File is priced at $3300/user, EAI at $2400/uesr, and National Newspaper Index at $1,300/user.) They also provide multiple database and volume discounts, and 2-year price guarantees. They are hoping to offer additional text services in the future, including the text for PsycINFO.
UMI
http://www.umi.com/
UMI provides ASCII text, enhanced graphics and images, and complete page image reproductions via Windows, web, Z39.50, and Lynx interfaces, and works with a number of distribution partners, including DRA, Dynix. Innovative, OCLC, Ovid, and Silverplatter. Their databases include ABI/Inform, Business Dateline, Dissertation Abstracts, Newspaper Abstracts, and Periodical Abstracts. They contrasted their text and image coverage as being more thorough and inclusive than their competition. Pricing is based on type of users (academic vs. public library, for instance), demographic data (FTE, etc.), and load level (simultaneous users). A current pricing issue for them is outreach on college campuses to alumni, since this increases access beyond the traditional definition of a campus user population. The databases are valued differently, based on editorial content and nature of the data provided (e.g. abstracting/indexing only, ascii text, image, etc.), although a single pricing model for full text is emerging, regardless of presence or absence of images. Historically, UMI has used their own Article reference number (ARN) to link A & I databases to the text and image, and recognize that the market needs SICI-based links, so that other A & I services can tap their text materials. They are working toward development of a Digital Archive through which their existing microform collections can be provided, and digitizing dissertations and theses, starting with 1997. They are also testing a Remote Image Server to take the place of existing Power Pages jukebox installations.
4. Database System Vendors/Providers
DIALOG@CARL
http://www.carl.org/
DIALOG is making a radical departure from their traditional approach to higher ed. marketing. Called DIALOG@CARL, the idea is that sites can get access to between roughly 300 DIALOG databases at a fixed price per port, starting at about $12,500 per year, but with a sliding scale discount program to encourage buying multiple. (For instance, 10 ports would be roughly $100,000 per year.) The final list of available databases is not yet complete, but it now includes dozens of newspaper files (including Seattle Times, P-I, Oregonian, etc.), text resources from UMI and IAC , BIOSIS, etc. The interface is designed for use with standard web browsers, although a LYNX interface is in development. Z39.50 access may be available in the future, but not in the initial program. Expected future enhancements include Z39.50 hooks to local catalogs for holdings information, optional SUMO document delivery program
Lexis-Nexis
http://www.lexis-nexis.com/
The Nexis Educational Program is essentially being replaced by a new one called the Academic Program, which will be available to all interested schools, rather than the 50 or so in the frozen educational program. Currently the available interfaces are the familiar DOS and Windows clients, but an end-user oriented web interface is planned for the summer. The new program permits faculty research and administrative uses, and is based on a substantially higher fee schedule than the current Educational Program.
The schedule is complex, but the basic idea is that schools can purchase ports for a collection of subsets; and there is a graduated discount program for multiple ports. A school might purchase a couple of ports for the entire system (i.e. all the available Lexis-Nexis segments), plus a few ports for major papers. or financial information, etc. The subsets or slices are priced lower than the full range of information. The prices will be phased in over 3 or 4 years for current educational program participants.
During discussion of the new rates, it was explained that the Nexis educational program was taking up 25% of the Lexis-Nexis system resources, and providing only 1/2% of income, with a similar pattern holding for the Law School program. They expect the program to attract a fair amount of business, although there was very little positive comment about the rate structure from the group.
5. Other Information Providers
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information)
http://www.isinet.com/
ISI reps. identified 5 products and services for consortia, including citation indexes, current contents, custom alerting services bibliographic management tools, and document delivery.
The 3 citation indexes were identified as their premium products and are available with weekly updates, either in raw tagged data format for local loading or with ISI's software and interface as an intranet service. Platforms currently supported include DEC Alpha and Sun Solaris, with RS6000 available by April and Windows NT later in the year. Ohiolink and Unilever have signed contracts for the intranet version (which Ohiolink helped to develop and test). Science Citation Index available for local loading or intranet includes 2000 more journals than do either the print or cd counterparts, and support multi-database and multi-year searching, which the cd does not. Other features include electronic document delivery, link to local holdings, and search limits. Current Contents is now available in raw tagged data format, and from Ovid, Silverplatter, and IAC via their Searchbank system.
They are working with publishers to provide online full text access in the future, plus e-journal feeds. They have worked with many consortia since the 1980's, and see this both as an opportunity to provide more economical access, and as a source of vulnerability, in that they have seen a clear pattern of subscription cancellations when network access is available. Pricing is based on the particular databases accessed, number of sites/users/enrollment, serials budgets, historical usage/buying patterns, etc. They use a tiered pricing model in which smaller schools are charged lower fees.
Return to Consortium of Consortia Homepage