Shedl scottish Higher Education Digital Library


Download 443 b.
Sana01.10.2017
Hajmi443 b.


SHEDL

  • Scottish Higher Education Digital Library

  • Negotiating together: the present and future role of consortia in academic library purchasing

  • Tony Kidd

  • JIBS Workshop, York, December 2010


Context

  • Scottish HE tradition of co-operation

  • Manageable size

  • Separate funding arrangements

  • Competitive concerns

  • Research Pools

  • Examples of other consortia



History

  • Previous attempts to implement ‘Scotland-wide’ access too ambitious

    • Cross-sectoral funding
  • Continuing concerns over patchy access

  • Investigative funding from Principals of Glasgow/Edinburgh Universities



Investigative Study

    • May-October 2007
    • SCURL sponsored – Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries
    • John Cox Associates Ltd
    • Interviews
      • Libraries
      • University administrators/Universities Scotland
      • Academics/Research Pools
      • Stakeholders – Scottish Funding Council/JISC etc
    • Report launched Oct 2007
      • SCURL website: scurl.ac.uk


Relationship with JISC Collections/NESLi2

    • Strong consensus that SHEDL should work within JISC Collections framework
    • SFC and Principals expect SHEDL to co-exist with and complement JISC
    • But wish to fill in gaps, to move away from ‘opt-in’ arrangements, to ensure overall access for Research Pools
    • Plus possibility of wider range of deals (recognising NESLi2’s current work with ‘small/medium publishers’)


Structure & governance

  • SCURL

  • SCOPNet

  • SHEDL Steering Group

    • Interest groups (6), NLS
  • SHEDL Working Group

    • Buy-in from all 19 HEIs
  • Procurement – APUC



Phase 1

  • Steering Group & Working Group – collaborative working

  • Initial agreement to work with 3 publishers, covering a wide range of subjects

  • Agreements for 2009-2011 with:



Costs

  • Costs are fixed at the start of the contract, with agreed annual price caps

  • SHEDL institutions continue to fund their own subscriptions, and do not expect to pay more than before

  • Option to buy print at ddp

  • Reduced overheads – single payment and early payment where possible



Process

  • Verification of holdings and expenditure with each publisher

  • Confirmation of contract entitlement

  • Licence agreement, based on JISC Model Licence

  • Local consultation on print retention

  • Adjustments to holdings – link resolvers & opacs

  • Monitoring of usage – locally and centrally



Phase 2

  • Consultation across all 19 HEI’s

  • 40 nominations

  • 6 publishers approached, following consultation with JISC

  • 3 new publisher agreements for 2010-2012

    • Berg
    • Edinburgh University Press
    • Oxford University Press
  • Portico licensed across SHEDL



Phase 3

  • Consultation process completed

  • 46 nominations

  • 7 publishers identified for 2011

  • Agreements for 2011-13

    • Intellect
    • Project Muse


Phase 3 - Difficulties

  • Negotiations more difficult this year

  • Agreements with publishers with greater ‘market penetration’ already achieved

  • Publishers still expecting market growth

  • More difficult for libraries to commit

  • Collaboration more essential in world of funding cuts, but also more difficult



Benefits – HEIs

  • Institutional buy-in and support

  • Shift to e-only

  • Single payment

  • Cost containment

  • Proof of concept

    • widening access
    • increased availability of content
    • increased usage
    • efficiency gains
  • Shared services agenda



Benefits - Publishers

  • Reduced overheads – single point of contact for administration and invoicing

  • Wider dissemination of content

  • Improved compliance

  • Encourages adoption of e-only

  • Cash flow – protects market



Impact – the users

  • More content, accessible at the point of need

  • 1800+ titles available

  • Increase in usage across all Phase 1 publishers, and across all institutions

  • Usage increased by 41% from 2008 to 2009

  • Analysis shows that previously non-subscribed titles are being used



Issues

  • Impact on intermediaries and consortial purchasing agreements

  • Impact on institutional workflows

  • Monitoring – within and across institutions, changing patterns of use

  • Resource Discovery and findability

  • User expectations are raised – sustainability

  • Budgets – impacts on collection management decisions



Evaluation - RIN

  • Evaluating the impact of SHEDL

    • John Cox Associates/Frontline GMS
    • Usage data
    • Interviews – academics/librarians
    • Single year
    • http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/evaluating-impact-shedl
    • Launched November 2010


Evaluation - RIN

  • Impact of SHEDL

    • Confirmed overall usage increase of 41%, compared with 22% ‘average’ annual increase
    • Wide variation in increases – single year – whether or not titles already accessible
    • Some evidence that Research Pool participants benefiting
    • Heavy use of top 10 titles, but also long tail
    • Cost/use variable, and declining (by 20%+)


Evaluation - RIN

  • Impact of SHEDL – interviews

    • SHEDL accentuates existing trends
      • Access/convenience/power browsing
      • Student expectations/VLE/Google
    • Cross-institutional research
    • Marketing – variations
    • Large target list of publishers
    • Extend to e-books/databases/datasets/back runs


Evaluation – JISC Coll

  • Bloc payment mechanisms

    • Cost redistribution criteria
    • Albert Prior/John Cox
    • Not specifically SHEDL
    • Experience elsewhere/modelling
    • http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Reports/Bloc-Payment-for-online-journals/
    • Launched July 2010


Evaluation – JISC Coll



Evaluation – JISC Coll

  • Bloc payment mechanisms

    • Authoritative/credible data
      • JISC Banding
      • Institutional income
      • Research/contract income
      • Staff/student numbers
    • Not usage
      • Variable
      • Discourages promotion etc


Evaluation – JISC Coll

  • Bloc payment mechanisms

    • Use >1 variable
    • Transition period, from ‘current spend’
    • Maximum rate of change
    • Top-slicing…


Sectors

  • National Library of Scotland

    • Portico
  • National Health Service

    • Current discussions
  • Further Education

    • Scottish Funding Council
  • E-books - Springer



Funding

  • Scalability/viability?

  • Funding cuts?

  • UK countries/regions

  • ‘Journals as infrastructure’

  • Top-slicing – current climate??

  • Elsevier/Wiley negotiations in coming year



Questions/Discussion

    • Website – under development
      • http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SHEDL/index.html
    • Gillian Anderson, Chair SHEDL Steering Group
      • gillian.anderson@uhi.ac.uk
    • Tony Kidd, Vice-Chair
      • tony.kidd@glasgow.ac.uk
    • Kidd, T. Collaboration in electronic resource provision in university libraries: SHEDL, a Scottish case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15 (1), 2009, pp 97-119 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/7637/
    • Kidd, T. & Stevenson, L. SHEDL – the Scottish Higher Education Digital Library: an update. Serials, 23(3), 2010, pp 196-200 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/44955/



Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:


Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2017
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling