I.R.N. Goudar Information Centre for Aerospace Science and Technology National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 560 01

1. Library Consortia for E -Journals: A New Wine in Old Bottle I.R.N. Goudar Information Centre for Aerospace Science and Technology National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore – 560 017 goudar@css.nal.res.in

2. Consortia Consortia is a Strategic Alliance of Institutions that have Common Interests

3. E-journals stakeholders User/Author Publisher Library Commercial/ Learned Society Intermediary Subscription Agent Consortia ingenta/Catchword/OCLC etc.

4. My E-Journal System Must Have or Provide: • Comprehensiveness • Privacy • Accessibility • Flexibility • Current Awareness • It Must be User Friendly • It Must Improve Overall Performance

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

6. E-Journal Consolidators • Benefits for e-journal users • Only one search engine, not many • Only one, easy source for articles • Ability to customize • May offer archiving services (OCLC, Stanford’s HighWire only, so far) • BUT: no consolidator offers one single license for all journals

7. Some E-Journal Consolidators • Blackwell Navigator: http://navigator.blackwell.co.uk/ • About 700 titles as of late January • EBSCO Online: http://www.ebsco.com/online • About 1200 titles as of early January • Dawson’s Information Quest: http://www.informationquest.com/ • About 1400 titles as of February • Ingenta Journals: http://www.ingenta.com • OCLC: http://www.oclc.org.oclc/menu/eco.html • About 1200 titles according to web site, but probably higher • Ovid: http://www.ovid.com • 300? titles, going to 400 soon • Swets: http://www.swetsnet.nl • 1212 titles available as of January

8. 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

9. Consortia Goals ….Cont • 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

10. Consortia Services • Ø  Union catalogues • Books, Journals, Technical Reports and Conference Proceedings • 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 ….contd.

11. Consortia Services ….Cont • 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      Development of enabling technologies • IR systems, Portals and other web interfaces • Evolve standards for techniques, hardware, software and services .

12. 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

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

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

15. Consortia Values Libraries Vs Publishers

16. Pricing Models “No universally acceptable pricing models, but ongoing experimentation with lot of scope for negotiation”

17. 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…

18. Pricing Models in Operation …Continued • Licensee Membership Fees • Usage based pricing • FTE users • 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…

19. 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 + Pay-per-view

20.  Consortia Issues Contd…

21. Consortia Issues Contd…

22. Consortia Issues

23. Strong Links make Strong Consortia Funding Geographical Coverage Strategic Mission Library Types Consortia Issues Payment Programs Practical Staffing Service Technology Governance Tactical

24. Indian Consortia Initiatives • INDEST • Consortia of IIMs • CSIR Consortia • FORSA (Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics) • ICICI- Knowledge Park • ISRO Initiative • INFLIBNET Initiative • RGUHS- HELINET

25. CSIR Initiative • Access to >1300 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 • Springer, Kluwer, Blackwel, T & F, ACS, Etc

26. The UGC Model • INFLIBNET • Universities have a poor subscription base. • Traditional consortium models therefore do not apply. • Electronic access only models. • These should prove to be attractive to users as well as suppliers.

27. 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).

28. DEMO

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

30. 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 DL • Inadequate funds • Single point payment • Rigid administrative, financial and auditing rules • Problems of defining asset against payment

31. Consortia Constraints Specific to Indian Libraries • Pay-Per-View not yet acceptable • Uncertainty about the persistence of digital resources. • Lack of infrastructure for accessing electronic sources • Unreliable telecom links and insufficient bandwidth ( But lot of developments in pipeline) • Lack of appropriate bibliographic tools • Lack of trained personnel for handling new technologies • Absence of strong professional association • Big brother attitude

32. FEW SITES LISTING CONSORTIA OF LICs • Michigan Electronic Library • http://mel.lib.mi.us/ • National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) • http://www.nnlm.nlm.nih.gov/ • Oakland Library Consortium (OLC) • http://www.library.cmu.edu/OLC/index.html • Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) • http://www.oclc.org/ • PALINET • http://www.palinet.org/

33. FEW SITES LISTING CONSORTIA OF LICs • Pennsylvania Academic Library Connection Initiative • (PALCI) • http://www.lehigh.edu/~inpalci/ • Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) • http://www.rlg.org/ • SOLINET The Southeastern Library Network • http://www.solinet.net/

34. Summary • Library consortia are a growth industry • Consortial models are different, but they share many • common interests • Consortia increasingly will work together • Becoming a potent economic and political force • Areas of concern: •  Reduce the unit cost of e-information • Facilitate or build technology infrastructures • Improve overall resource sharing among members • Provide an effective information infrastructure

36. 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)

37. Thank You