Making the most of a "Big Deal"

532 views
469 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
532
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Making the most of a "Big Deal"

  1. 1. Making the most of a ‘Big Deal’ Building a consortial shared list to reclaim title-by-title eJournal selection for libraries Jason Price, PhD Life Science Librarian The Claremont Colleges (California) Table Talk Charleston Conference 2005 Issues in Book and Serials Acquisition
  2. 2. 3 types of e-access in Elsevier Big Deals <ul><li>to Subscribed titles (1) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Locked in 2yrs before original contract </li></ul></ul><ul><li>to Leased titles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject Collections (2) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>24? compiled by Elsevier </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique Title List (3) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All titles subscribed by ≥ 1 school </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(4)? Shared title lists </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Negatives of Subject Collections <ul><li>Forced decisions as to which departments to support and which to deny </li></ul><ul><li>Each contains a few high use journals and many low use journals making switching collections difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Paying 2x for overlap among collections </li></ul><ul><li>Paying 2x for all subscribed titles in the subject collections </li></ul><ul><li>Titles added/moved on an annual basis* </li></ul><ul><li>Pricing was being manipulated* </li></ul>
  4. 4. Elsevier offered a SCELC UTL <ul><li>Better titles? ........ </li></ul><ul><li>Wider subject coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Credit for overlap with subscribed </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent pricing (% of list) </li></ul><ul><li>Based on legacy subscribed titles </li></ul><ul><li>One size (LARGE) fits none </li></ul><ul><li>Cost greater for smaller schools </li></ul><ul><li>More high priced titles? </li></ul>
  5. 5. Most SCELCs not interested in UTL <ul><li>Elsevier’s Barbara Kaplan: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Any list will do’ – same terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need more than one list? ‘No Problem’. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our problem: What should be on the list? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every institution’s most highly used titles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simple, right? </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6.
  7. 7. Building it… <ul><li>**Remove each institution’s subscribed titles from their COUNTER stats** </li></ul><ul><li>Add remainder based each schools use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>+ Top X% of cummulative use by title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>+ All titles used more than X times per month </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deduplicate list </li></ul><ul><li>Cut deep, give schools a chance to veto some titles on cut list </li></ul>
  8. 8. Should the list be big or small? <ul><li>Yes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 groups of use profiles -> 2 lists </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How big and how small? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 small schools (1-3 subject collections) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 larger schools (4-8 subject collections) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject collections had been priced equally </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9.
  10. 10. Small list Background & Criteria <ul><li>3 smallest schools Sub Coll profiles </li></ul><ul><li># of titles # of Sub Colls </li></ul><ul><ul><li> 163 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>370 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>493 3 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All titles representing top 66% of use </li></ul><ul><li>Every title used at least once per month </li></ul><ul><li>Two added by request </li></ul><ul><li>New core list 55 titles  cost ≈ 1.5 SC </li></ul>
  11. 11. TITLE ISSN 2003use %TotUseinTitle Cum. Animal Behaviour '00033472 41 25.95%   .%use Epilepsy & Behavior '15255050 28 17.72%   Brain and Language '0093934x 13 8.23% 51.9% Contemporary Educational Psychology '0361476x 10 6.33%   Cell Biology International '10656995 7 4.43%   Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications '0006291x 6 3.80% 66.5% Journal of Experimental Child Psychology '00220965 3 1.90%   Religion '0048721x 3 1.90%   Biological Journal of the Linnean Society '00244066 2 1.27%   Brain and Cognition '02782626 2 1.27%   … .. … .. … .. … .. 158 100.00%
  12. 12. Large List Background & Criteria Values are percent of total use represented School (SC title #) >24uses (Ti) >12 uses (Ti) Western (579) 74% (78) 87 Claremont (855) 77% (146) 90 LomaLinda (688) 85% (133) 94 UOP (733) 85% (146) 93 LMU noESP (908) 40 64% (45) Pepperdine noP (790) 44 66% (117) USD (959) 57 74% (101) Average >>> (787) 76% (109)
  13. 13. Trimming the FAT <ul><li>Sum of high use titles 766; unique  400 </li></ul><ul><li>400 title list cost ≈ 5.5 Sub Colls </li></ul><ul><li>So Better titles, but not significant savings </li></ul><ul><li>2 nd Cut – High SCELC cost per use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>87 more titles cut (Median list price = $3570) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(see excel spreadsheet) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>313 title list ≈ 3 SC Cost (vs 4-8 original) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Adding some back <ul><li>-Requests ranged from cutting more to adding back a subject collection’s worth of titles </li></ul><ul><li>-We agreed on an intermediate value that each school could add back and worked cooperatively so that our add back lists didn’t overlap </li></ul><ul><li>END RESULT – 425 Titles at </li></ul><ul><li>cost of 5 SC </li></ul><ul><li>BUT… </li></ul>
  15. 15. STL vs SubColl: Costs decreased Inst # subscribed % credit for subs % saved vs sub coll (CompCore) (425) CLAR 169 48% 57% A 258 47% 42% B 72 18% 38% C 20 5% 35% D 18 5% 28% E 33 20% 12% F 13 17% -20%
  16. 16. Opting Out <ul><li>A smaller health sciences school </li></ul><ul><ul><li>– 2 Subject collections recently added </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>– Increasing 2004 use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>– SC sufficient to cover narrow range of needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A larger more general school </li></ul><ul><li>--some members of electronic acquisitions team could not be convinced that less is more (i.e. fewer higher quality titles is better than more with many 0 use); Future use </li></ul><ul><li>--had bought many Subject Collection backfiles </li></ul>
  17. 17. STL vs SC: Did it work? <ul><li>Users – No news is good news </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Will loss of access bring complaint? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prepared response–it was that or axe the deal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Libraries are happy, but </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Will average use per title be higher? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will price per use decline? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will we manage to truncate the use distribution or just shift it to the left? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can we activate PPV and still save money? </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Take home points <ul><li>Subject collections are a BAD deal </li></ul><ul><li>Vendors will allow US to build a Shared list </li></ul><ul><li>Collection development is OUR responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>Consortia should work as TEAMS to increase value </li></ul><ul><li>Caviats: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applies only to publishers who will price leased titles based on the size of the leased-title collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use 2 years data if at all possible!!! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>?’s -- jprice@libraries.claremont.edu </li></ul>
  19. 19. STL vs UTL: Are they different? <ul><li>UTL STL </li></ul>342 176 250 518 titles $878K Ave 1699 426 titles $750K Ave 1764
  20. 20. Why did Elsevier encourage it?
  21. 21. Why did we encourage it?

×