Big Deal Deconstruction

  • 463 views
Uploaded on

This program will provide information about how Mississippi State University Libraries deconstructed two of their "big deal" eJournal packages and reverted back to individual subscriptions. The …

This program will provide information about how Mississippi State University Libraries deconstructed two of their "big deal" eJournal packages and reverted back to individual subscriptions. The presenters will explain the reasons why the "big deal" packages were no longer viable for MSU and the methods we used to deconstruct two of our largest and most used publisher packages. The new individual subscription model takes effect January 2012, therefore, the presenters will have 6 months of tangible consequences, comments, and repercussions to present and discuss with the audience.

Mary Ann Jones and Derek Marshall, Mississippi State University

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
463
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Big Deal Deconstruction Presented by Mary Ann JonesAssistant Professor/Coordinator of Electronic Resources Derek Marshall Assistant Professor/Serials Librarian
  • 2. Purpose• 2012 = Flat journal budget• Already reduced our individual titles with cancellations over the past 4 years• Needed to find $500,000 to cancel• Big packages were the only remaining possibilities for cost savings
  • 3. History of Packages• MSU journal packages – ScienceDirect Freedom package – Wiley – Springer – Sage – Emerald• Only 2 packages up for renewal in 2012: Wiley and Springer
  • 4. History . . . Wiley• Wiley – Entered into the Wiley package in 2002 • ESIG consortia package(EPSCoR Science Information Group) • Shared title list with 7 other ESIG libraries • Original spend = $200,000
  • 5. History . . . Blackwell• Blackwell – Entered Blackwell package in 2007 • ESIG consortia package(EPSCoR Science Information Group) • Full collection • Original spend = $165,000
  • 6. History . . . Wiley/Blackwell• Wiley/Blackwell merger – Remained in both packages • 2010 – separate addendum’s for each package – Each package still paid for separately • 2011 – combined the Wiley and Blackwell packages – Paid as one package – 2011 combined spend = $400,000
  • 7. History . . . Springer• Springer – Entered into package in 2007 • ESIG consortia package(EPSCoR Science Information Group) • Shared title list with 31 other ESIG libraries • Original spend = $350,000
  • 8. Methodology• Needed a methodology to determine new subscription list• Decided that usage statistics would be our metric – Determine the most highly used titles
  • 9. Timeline• Original evaluation was done in 2010 in preparation for 2011 renewals. – Started in September of 2010 – Prepared 4 options for cancelling either Wiley or Springer packages
  • 10. Data Gathering• Criteria – Usage Statistics • 2008, 2009, Jan.-Jun. 2010 • Separated into 4 options based on statistics from 2009 – Price • Price for journal actually subscribed to • Price for journal NOT subscribed to (consortia titles) – Gathered 2010 price and added 6% to determine approximate 2011 cost
  • 11. GroundworkSpringer Analysis for 2011
  • 12. OutcomeThe Library Administrative CouncilDecided NOT to pursue “Big Deal” cancellations for 2011.
  • 13. FY 2012Late 2011 – updated the 2010 evaluation withinformation from 2011 usage • Definite cancellations – Goal: $500,000
  • 14. Groundwork• Compared usage statistics – Determined 200+ and 300+ were too few titles to retain – Compared options of 50+ and 100+
  • 15. Data Gathering, 2012• Usage Statistics – Gathered current data as well as date from the previous 3 years • 2011- 6 months of data (Jan. – Jun.) • Projected total 2011 statistics• Price – Previous year’s price – Projected price for upcoming year • Added 5% (contractual)
  • 16. Compilation of Data
  • 17. Options• Determined savings if we retained journals with – 50+ downloads per title – 100+ downloads per title• Considered multiple years in determining criteria for number of downloads
  • 18. Option Comparison
  • 19. Option 1• Retain journals with 50 or more downloads – Springer • 190 titles • Savings of ~$20,000 – Wiley • 230 titles • Spend an extra ~$60,000
  • 20. Option 2• Retain journals with 100 or more downloads – Springer • 75 titles • Savings of ~$225,000 – Wiley • 120 titles • Savings of ~$180,000
  • 21. Springer Comparison2012 Projected Package Total: $480,000 Option 1 Option 2 Cost: Cost: $460,000 $255,000 Savings: Savings: $20,000 $225,000
  • 22. Wiley Comparison 2012 Projected Package Total: $570,000 Option 1 Option 2$700,000 $450,000$600,000 $400,000 $350,000$500,000 $300,000$400,000 Cost: $250,000 Cost:$300,000 $630,000 $200,000 $390,000 Savings: $150,000$200,000 Savings: -$60,000 $100,000$100,000 $180,000 $50,000 $0 $--$100,000
  • 23. Decisions• Determined 50+ would not supply enough savings, but actually cost more• Examined information based on 100+ downloads for 2012 cancellations – Reported this data to the Library Administrative Council for approval
  • 24. Results• Determined cancellations based on 100 or more downloads would be the most cost effective – Cancelled overall license agreements for the “Big” packages • Retained approximately 200 titles • Saved approximately $400,000
  • 25. Consequences• Lost current access to over 2,800 journals• Many disciplines lost all of their titles from these publishers• Perpetual access only to paid subscriptions (and some consortia titles)
  • 26. Lessons Learned• Time permitting . . . – Use more than just usage statistics to determine final title list – Involve faculty in the discussions • Let them help choose titles to keep/cancel• Include the library liaisons in the decision making process (or evaluation method)
  • 27. Lessons Learned, cont.• Watch out for title changes• Look for usage from previous publishers
  • 28. Feedback• From librarians . . . – Mostly understanding, but disheartened about the impact to users – Wanted more information about the process of elimination of titles• From faculty . . . – Mostly negative reactions – Currently meeting with each department to offer options for swapping subscriptions
  • 29. Department meetings• Options for swapping – Individual title list, including Wiley and Springer titles (if any)• List of titles by subject via ScienceDirect and Sage• List of subject specific databases• Reiterating ILL access (24-hour turn around)
  • 30. • In short: – Learn from our mistakes…
  • 31. Questions? Mary Ann Jones mjones@library.msstate.edu Derek Marshalldmarshall@library.msstate.edu