1 / 21

Leaving the Big Deal: Consequences and Next Steps

Leaving the Big Deal: Consequences and Next Steps. Jonathan Nabe Southern Illinois University Carbondale NASIG Annual Conference June 3, 2011. Why We Don’t Leave. Perceived value Anticipated reaction. Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

lenore-hancock
Download Presentation

Leaving the Big Deal: Consequences and Next Steps

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. Leaving the Big Deal: Consequences and Next Steps Jonathan Nabe Southern Illinois University Carbondale NASIG Annual Conference June 3, 2011

  2. Why We Don’t Leave Perceived value Anticipated reaction

  3. Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale SIU is a system, with a Law School, Medical School, Dental School, and a sister campus, SIU Edwardsville Morris Library is an ARL library, with a collection of 2.8 million volumes and a budget of $5.3 million

  4. Impacts Lost access ILL requests University reaction and response Budget Collection management

  5. Goodbye to all that: • Springer, 2009 (GWLA, 2005-) • Began as a Kluwer package • Wiley, 2010 (GWLA, 2001-) • With a nod to Blackwell STM (CARLI) • Elsevier, 2010 (SIU System, 2003-) • With a fond remembrance of the Academic Press Freedom Collection

  6. Lost Access Springer: 1100 titles Wiley: 597 titles Elsevier: 242 titles

  7. Springer 10,000 downloads from 1100 non-subscribed titles in year prior to departure 82% of titles received fewer than 1 per month (900 of 1100 ) 36% of titles received none (400 of 1100)

  8. Wiley 11,254 downloads from 597 nonsubscribed titles in year prior to departure 62% of titles received fewer than 1 per month (370 of 597) 10% of titles received none (57 of 597)

  9. Elsevier 19,452 downloads from 242 titles in year prior to departure 28% of titles received fewer than 1 per month (68 of 242) 2 titles received none

  10. Impact: Interlibrary Loans One year of data We do keep archival access Only one year of lost access

  11. ILLs, Wiley • From top 25% of nonsubscribed titles (=125) • 27% had ILL request in post-departure 12 month period (34 of 125) • 9% had more than one request (11 of 125) • Total of 71 requests, compared to 7770 downloads the previous year • Demand is 0.9% of downloads

  12. ILLs, Elsevier • From top 25% of nonsubscribed titles (=61) • 38% had ILL request in post-departure 12 month period (23 of 61) • 20% had more than one request (12 of 61) • Total of 46 requests, compared to 15,017 downloads the previous year • Demand is 0.3% of downloads

  13. Impact:Interlibrary Loans • Download statistics are not an accurate indicator of demand • Incidental use, repeated use, linking methods, convenience, etc. • Don’t fear the downloads

  14. Impact: Reaction and response Result: three complaints so far Due to University-wide grasp of budget situation?

  15. Impact: Reaction and response Response is minimal, manageable Leaving presents an educational opportunity Effective response: downloads/cost per download; alternatives even more painful

  16. Impact: the Budget $290,000 annually (including the cuts made as part of the cancellation project) (Over half of our FY10 mono budget)

  17. Impact: the Collection Flexibility to cancel by need, not by contract Flexibility to swap - by design, not by contract Protection of non-Big Deal publishers Protection of the mono funds Result: a collection that reflects the needs of the University community

  18. Moving Forward • Issues: • Content fees increased or added • Loss of price cap • Adjusted subscription price for titles • Pressure for new multiyear deal • Enforcement of ceased license terms

  19. Moving Forward: Springer and LOCKSS GWLA license included LOCKSS clause Springer declined to participate SIUC challenged this decision, with support of Legal Counsel, and eventually, GWLA and ICOLC Springer reversed its decision, and is now a LOCKSS compliant publisher

  20. Moving Forward • Questions: • How will base price be determined? • Is there a penalty for leaving? • Is a multiyear deal desirable? • Are there license issues to be addressed?

  21. Leaving the Big Deal… You can do it! Jonathan Nabe Collection Development Librarian, SIUC jnabe@lib.siu.edu

More Related