Shedl scottish Higher Education Digital Library

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:

• American Chemical Society
• Cambridge University Press
• Springer

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

• Bloc payment mechanisms – findings

• No ‘magic formula’
• Six consortia using cost distribution models
• Size
• Expenditure
• Usage

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
• [e-mail]
• Tony Kidd, Vice-Chair
• [e-mail]
• 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/