1 / 33

Consortia Models for E-Journals

Consortia Models for E-Journals . and Indian Initiatives. Prof. M.R. Kumbhar Memorial Lecture. 16 April 2003. I.R.N. Goudar Head, ICAST National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 560 017 ( E-mail: goudar@css.nal.res.in ). Definitions.

jean
Download Presentation

Consortia Models for E-Journals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consortia Models for E-Journals and Indian Initiatives Prof. M.R. Kumbhar Memorial Lecture 16 April 2003 I.R.N. Goudar Head, ICAST National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 560 017 ( E-mail: goudar@css.nal.res.in)

  2. Definitions A Strategic alliance with institutions that have common interests Consortia are all about sharing resources and improving access to information These resources are shared among libraries that have common missions, goals, and clients (users) and act on those commonalties

  3. Library Cooperatives • Inter library lending •      Cooperative acquisition •       Cooperative cataloguing •       Shared library system •       Physical storage facilities • Seminars/Training Programmes

  4. E-Journals Major Players • Primary publishers • Aggregators • Vendors • Document delivery agencies • E-print systems

  5. Consortia Goals • Increase the access base – More e-Journals • Rational utilization of funds - A little more pays a lot • Ensure the continuous subscription • Qualitative resource sharing - Effective document delivery service • Avoid price plus models - Pay for up-front products not for R&D • Improved infrastructure • Enhanced image of the library - Visibility for smaller libraries • Improve existing library services - Boosting professional image • Harness developments in IT - Facilitate building digital libraries • Cost sharing for technical and training support • Increase user base – Access from desktops of users

  6. Consortia Services • ØUnion catalogues: Books, Journals, Technical Reports, and Conference Procs. • Ø      Shared library systems – Hardware, Software and other infrastructure • Ø      Shared professional expertise – Develop and realize consortia goals • Ø      Human resource development – Training staff and users • Ø      Electronic contents licensing for providing access to • - Bibliographic databases, e-Journals, Full test reports, Conference Proceedings etc. • Ø      Inter Library Lending and Document Delivery • Ø     Electronic content loading – Contents generated by members and acquired on common server. • Ø      Physical storage for archiving – Old back volumes and less used documents. • Ø      Seminar/training programmes – Professional development to serve user community • Ø      Devept. of enabling technologies – IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces • Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services for the benefit of consortia members .

  7. Consortia Models Participants Oriented Models • Geographical location linked: Ex: - Bangalore Special Libraries Group • Libraries in the same discipline: Ex: - Aerospace Libraries Group • Libraries belonging to the same parent organization: Ex: - CSIR LICs • Libraries of academic organizations: Ex: - INFLIBNET • Types of Libraries: Single type / Multi type / Specialized

  8. Consortia Models Purpose Oriented Models • Consortia for avoiding duplicate collection • Consortia for accessing electronic journals • Consortia for training and library workshops

  9. Consortia Models Client Oriented Models • Clients according to their educational background: Ex: - Technical, Professional • Clients according to their age: Ex: - Children, Senior Citizen • Clients according to their interest: Ex: - sports, game

  10. Consortia Values Libraries Vs Publishers

  11. Pricing Models

  12. Pricing Models • No Universally Acceptable E-journals • Pricing and Licensing Models • Ongoing experimentation • Negotiation possible • Charge for content • Delivery format optional • Increasingly will be based on usage

  13. Pricing Models in Operation • Bundled – Free with print • AIP, APS, AMS, Elsevier, Wiley • Print as base + surcharge on electronic • Premium payments range from10-25% • ACS (20%), OSA (25%) • Electronic only • Small increase (ACS 105%) • Same price (OSA) • Discount from print (AIP 80%, AMS 90%) • Totally unbundled – No discount for both • JBC (P- $ 1600, E- $1200, P+E- $ 2800) • Free e-version only • Charge for print if required • British Medical Journal Continue…

  14. Pricing Models in Operation …Continued • Membership Fee • Usage based pricing • Concurrent users • Site population • All titles of publishers with print optional • Subject clusters • Pay – per – view • Free completely – Differently funded • Extra fee for software Continue…

  15. Pricing Models in Operation …Continued • Extra for value added services • Consortium discount • Number of sites • Consortium surcharge • Access to all consortia titles • All titles of publisher •  Subscription to core titles – Rest pay-per-view • Pricing based on FTE, Concurrent users

  16.  Consortia Issues Contd…

  17. Consortia Issues Contd…

  18. Consortia Issues

  19. Archiving: Key Issues • Perpetual access to bibliographic databases • Perpetual access to e-journals • Who does the archiving? • Consortia, third party • How do we preserve publishers’ interests? • Incorporate archiving terms in agreements • How the data is acquired? • How do we create the access architecture from this data? • Are there software solutions?

  20. Licensing Issues National Site Licensing Open Consortia Walk-in-User’s Rights Who will sigh MOU

  21. Indian Consortia Initiatives • Consortia of IIMs • CSIR Consortia • FORSA • Consortia through MHRD (INDEST) • ICICI- Knowledge Park • ISRO Initiative • INFLIBNET Initiative

  22. CSIR Initiative • Access to >1700 E-Journals • Elsevier’s ScienceDirect • 40 CSIR Laboratories • IP Enabled Seamless Access • Central Funding • Price based on Print Subscription • Certain % of US $1.3 M

  23. The UGC Model • Universities have a poor subscription base. • Traditional consortium models therefore do not apply. • Electronic access only models are being considered. • These should prove to be attractive to users as well as suppliers. • This stream will allow suppliers to tap revenue which exists but is presently inaccessible, through a couple of hundreduniversities and thousands of colleges.

  24. FORSA • Members of FORSA : IIA, IUCAA, NCRA, PRL, RRI, TIFR, SO and CASA-OU.. • Facilitate e-access to journals • Actively participate in resource sharing • Document delivery (e-mail, fax and speed post) • Database merging of all libraries holdings • We have gone into two consortia formation, viz. • Indian Astrophysics Consortium- with (KLUWER); • FORSA Consortium for Nature On - Line – with (Nature Publishing).

  25. DEMO

  26. COMSAC • Publisher – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts • Consortium Leader – NAL • Open Consortium • Consortium For Material Science And Aerospace Collection • 25 - 40% Discount

  27. Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries • Lack of awareness about consortia benefits • Slow acceptance of e-information by the users. • Difficulties in changing the mind setup of librarians • Maintenance and balancing both physical and digital library • Inadequate funds • Single point payment • Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules • Problems of defining asset against payment

  28. Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries …Contd • Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable • Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources. • Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources • Unreliable telecommunication links and insufficient bandwidth • Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools • Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies • Absence of strong professional association • Big brother attitude

  29. ICOLC: International Coalition of Library Consortia • Consortial leaders with a set of common interests (directors, coordinators of consortia) • Founded spontaneously in early 1997 following discussions by a few people at other national meetings • First meeting 2/1997, Missouri, 30 consortia • Meets twice a year, 12 meetings to date • No dues, no staff -- purely a volunteer effort

  30. ICOLC Documents • Public Web site: <http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia> • Documents are developed by volunteer committees and working groups • Documents are widely distributed • Statement of Preferred Practices & Update • Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage • Privacy Guidelines

  31. Tail Piece “ Man can live individually, but can survive only collectively. Hence, our challenge is to form a progressive community by balancing the interests of the individual and that of the society. To meet this we need to develop a value system where people accept modest sacrifices for the common good” From Vedas – As quoted by Mr. Narayanamurthy (IFOSYS)

  32. Thank You

More Related