NASIG Newsletter

22nd CONFERENCE 
STRATEGY SESSIONS, GROUP A

On Your Mark, Get Set….Talk!  The First Ever NASIG Speed Rounds
Yvette Diven, CSA
Reported by Gene Gardner

Organized around the principle of speed dating, this was a fun, informative session to discuss issues between publishers and librarians.  Participating publishers included: the UKSG Transfer Group, Alexander Street Publishers, Now Publishers, Accucoms, Elsevier, University of Chicago Press, Institute of Physics, Sage, World Society of Chemistry, Portland Press, and the American Chemical Society.

Non-publisher participants divided into small groups and moved from table to table when the timer rang.  In this way non-publisher participants were able to interact with each publisher.  Issues discussed ranged from an explanation of products offered by the publisher, electronic archival access, usage statistics, perpetual access, communication from publishers to subscribers, and other scintillating topics.  This was a pleasant, informal way to interact with people.

STRATEGY SESSION

Mountains, Valleys and Pathways: Serials Users’ Needs

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Office of Research; and Regina Romano Reynolds, Head of the National Serials Data Program at LC
Reported by Janet Arcand

Lynn Silipigni Connaway gave a presentation on the outcomes of a project, “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs”, which was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC.  The term “satisficing” comes from the writings of Herbert Alexander Simon on human behavior.  The project was designed to gain insight into the research-gathering activities of three groups of researchers: undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty.  Once the information is assessed, there will be a need to develop catalogs that meet user needs more closely. Ms. Connaway’s presentation focused upon the project’s focus group interviews and semi-structured discussions.  The library was not the first resource that came to mind of any of the researchers, who tended to use human resources (their parents, roommates, professors, colleagues), their personal library, or to search on the Internet.  When questioned about use of library services, undergraduates indicated the library homepage was difficult to use, but graduate students and faculty did utilize the library’s homepage and electronic resources.  However, this was often after familiarizing themselves with the topic first on Google.  Patrons wanted fast, full-text results and indicated the library catalog could use a recommender service like Amazon to enhance the discovery service.

Ms. Reynolds gave the second presentation, on the user-focused nature of both the Access Level Record for Serials and the revised ISSN standard.  Both projects deal with conflicting needs: in the case of the access level record, it was serials catalogers versus patrons, and in the case of the ISSN standard it was subscription agents versus OpenURL needs.   

The Access Level Record is sponsored by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and CONSER.  The objectives are to develop a single CONSER standard record, to favor access over description, to have it applicable to all serials in all formats, and to have it function in current and future environments.  It should cost less to train catalogers for this work and to create and maintain records based on this standard.  Core FRBR elements were identified by their ability to meet needs (find, identify, select, obtain), and a mandatory element set was created.  All access point fields but few descriptive fields were designated as mandatory.  The resulting cataloging guidelines are intended to be a floor, not a ceiling, for descriptive work, and judgment is left to individual catalogers to decide what is important.  The hidden issue is that users want the displayed information to be clearer and understandable.  The next step is to obtain approval from CONSER and the PCC.

ISO 3297 Revision Working Group worked on the ISSN standard.  The primary conflict is between identification at product level versus manifestation and title level.  Since the suffix solution is incompatible with EAN 13 and would be hard to implement, the Working Group decided to mimic Coca Cola and return to the Classic ISSN but to add the linking ISSN (ISSN-L).  The ISSN-L is the ISSN that enables collocation for linking among different media versions of a continuing serial.  It is a function or mechanism, not a new identifier.  The first assigned media-specific ISSN will also be designated as the ISSN-L.  It will retain its separate role as the ISSN for its manifestation, but add the role as the linking ISSN for all manifestations of a title.  All versions will have both an ISSN and an ISSN-L (it will be one and the same for one version of the title).  ISSN International Center will retrospectively designate the ISSN-L for existing serials.  Future designation of the new ISSN-Ls for new titles is to be determined, as is the MARC field.  If this proposal receives a positive vote, it should be published in the first half of 2007.

STRATEGY SESSION 

How Did We Ever Manage Without the OpenURL?

Nettie Lagace, SFX Product Manager, Ex Libris; and Janet Chisman, Head of Serials and Electronic Resources, Washington State University
Reported by Gail Julian

Nettie Lagace began the discussion with a brief history of the beginnings of OpenURL and link resolvers.  Linking research began at Ghent University in 1997/1998 and was acquired by Ex Libris in 2000.  In that same year, the SFX URL was submitted to NISO and is now referred to as the OpenURL.  The idea was to put linking research into the hands of librarians who are most familiar with users and their needs.  Lagace emphasized that linking is ubiquitous on the Web and users have come to expect it, making the use of a link server in libraries essential.  According to Lagace, “introducing a link server allows more comprehensive linking that is easier to manage,” thus allowing libraries to connect users with the appropriate resources.  The OpenURL allows the transfer of metadata in a standard way.   Over the past six years, a number of link servers in addition to SFX have been developed and marketed.  Lagace provided a list of those currently available.

Lagace went further to discuss the OpenURL standard (NISO Z39.88-2004).  The original version 0.1 had some limitations, specifically the inability to accommodate patents and dissertations.  The newer version 1.0 will be able to accommodate patents and dissertations and will be able to transmit in XML in addition to HTML.  The new version 1.0 also defines a citation metadata package called ContextObject.  See http://www.niso.org/committees/committee_ax.html for additional information.  Lagace provided screen shots detailing how a link server works and how various libraries have customized them for their local needs. Libraries can make screens simple or complex, can provide an intermediate page or a direct link to a target, and can be innovative in determining uses.   Lagace completed her presentation with a brief introduction to COinS (ContextObjects in Spans).  COinS provides an avenue for using OpenURL to embed citation metadata into HTML pages.  Lagace provided some COinS references for additional information, including the official COinS website at http://www.niso.org/committees/committee_ax.html. 

Janet Chisman discussed four applications used at her institution to move the library into the world of the user.  The first application discussed was Open WorldCat.  Open WorldCat allows a user to search for a title using Google or Yahoo and receive a results set prefaced by “find in a library.”  From there, a user may enter local information which results in a list of libraries in their area that own the title, with links to the library webpages and catalogs.  The second application discussed was the OCLC eSerials holdings pilot.  This service will become fully available on June 30, 2006.  This is a no charge service that allows holdings symbols to be added to ejournal records in OCLC by batch load from link resolvers and A-Z list providers such as Serials Solutions, TDNet, and EBSCO.  This project is designed to increase the visibility of full-text electronic journals available in libraries by allowing users to more easily locate them through Open WorldCat. 

The third application Chisman referred to is the Google Scholar Library Links Program.  Both the institution’s link resolver and holdings must be provided.  A user may be presented with full-text or with an intermediate screen providing other options such as interlibrary loan.  Google Scholar also directs users to library holdings through Open WorldCat   See http://scholar.google.com.  The fourth and last application mentioned was Windows Live Academic, a Microsoft product.  With Windows Live Academic, holdings are not provided but the institution’s link resolver must be registered.  See http://academic.live.com/librarians for additional information.  

Following the presentations, several questions were asked, particularly about the OCLC eSerials holdings pilot.  Audience participants were curious as to how lending restrictions on e-resources could be handled.  An OCLC representative in the audience contributed information concerning the OCLC policies directory and local holdings records.  Additional questions concerned titles available through multiple sources.  Some questions remain unanswered at this time.

STRATEGY SESSION 

The State of Scholarly Communications: Emerging Issues, Pitfalls & Opportunities

Lee C. Van Orsdel, Dean of University Libraries, Grand Valley State University
Reported by Kathy Carter 

Using a sophisticated PowerPoint presentation, Lee Van Orsdel described recent developments that led to the current tension-filled state of scholarly communication and identified emerging trends that will shape its future.  She set the stage by reminding the audience of some paradoxes.  As the Web removed barriers to access, new barriers appeared such as license restrictions and loss of fair use copyright protection.  While scholars give as many as ¾ million free articles per year to publishers, their institutions cannot afford to buy them all back.  The cost of Internet distribution is low and libraries have moved to cut print subscriptions, yet online-only prices have remained high.   

Van Orsdel enumerated changes in the market, in the academy, and more broadly, in public policy.  These include increased market elasticity achieved partly by library-led developments such as SPARC and cancellation of “big deals.” Additional changes include the growing awareness among scholars of copyright and publishing issues, the upsurge in Open Access (OA) and self-archiving, and worldwide political pressures to make publicly funded research freely available to all.  Publishers have pushed back on many of these shifts through bundling and multi-year contracts, content embargos, introducing hybrid OA practices while retaining control of content, and active lobbying at the political level to prevent or delay public policy change. 

Van Orsdel identified certain trends that will continue to force changes to scholarly communication, backing them up with statistics and examples.  The “desire for intelligent simplicity” is driven by Google and user perceptions that content is (or should be) free and easily accessible on the Web.  Public policy is playing an increasing role, taking different and often conflicting directions in different countries or within the same country.  For example, the U.S. Congress is currently debating both the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) and “net neutrality.”  FRPAA would require most taxpayer-funded research to be made freely available, while threats to net neutrality could introduce new barriers to universal access.  These trends, together with the increasing viability and credibility of OA and the growth of subject, institutional and national repositories, make it certain that the transformation of scholarly communication will continue.    During the short discussion portion of the session, Van Orsdel was challenged to give a more balanced portrayal of publishers’ views and actions.  She emphasized that all assertions in her presentation were based on factual evidence.   A comment was made that OA does not serve humanities scholars well because most humanities research is not grant funded. 

STRATEGY SESSION

Getting from Here to There, Safely

Roger C. Schonfeld, Manager of Research, ITHAKA
Reported by Rosella Thomas

Presented by Roger C. Schonfeld, this session was a multi-faceted look at the status of electronic publishing and its implications for libraries and publishers featured in his presentation titled “The Transition to Electronic-Only Format: Costs and Considerations.” Many large publishers have already made the transition toward primarily electronic formats with print as the add-on, and many libraries having already completed the process of moving to e-only for a large number of their subscriptions for both cost savings and to meet library user needs.  However, there are still many university presses and scholarly societies that do not have electronic format available.  This session presented an opportunity for dialogue between the presenter and the attendees – resulting in more questions than answers because both libraries and publishers are decidedly in a state of flux.  While libraries may be looking for cost savings and may make the move to e-only for the majority of their subscriptions, will they be truly inclined to get rid of their print subscriptions altogether?  Dramatic cost savings are evident, but many libraries may not yet be ready to rule out the print format.  How will the smaller publishers make the transition to the electronic if not by collaborating with large information providers such as BioOne, HighWire and Project Muse for their electronic content?  We have already seen the benefits of the electronic content that these providers have made available.  How will electronic archiving initiatives such as LOCCKS and Portico establish continuous and stable content? Understandably, all libraries may not have the resources to play a role in these processes.  Could libraries be persuaded to direct their cost savings from canceling print toward one of these electronic archives initiatives?  Admittedly, cost savings from print cancellations may ultimately have to be directed toward a library’s budget shortfall or to purchase new resources.  Can institutional repositories, repositories formatted by discipline, and informal blogs be used as a solution for the smaller publishers to get their information out electronically?  We are already seeing evidence that these methods are useful for making information available for research needs. 

This presentation ended with Roger’s three takeaways for the audience:

• That libraries need to consider with greater care how publishers will make the transition to an electronic-only environment.
• That a strategic format review, by an individual library or by groups of libraries, has significant advantages over a chaotic transition.
• That archiving must not be forgotten, for both electronic and legacy print collections.

It is still too soon to know where the world of scholarly publication and information access is heading.  There are many unanswered questions, but libraries will definitely need to take the lead through their strategic planning and leadership to assure that information and access are provided to meet their users’ needs.

STRATEGY SESSION

Journal Pricing 10 Years Later

Tina Feick, Vice President for Customer Relations, Swets Information Services Inc.; Bob Boissy, Manager of Agent Relations, Springer; and Leslie Knapp, Director of Client Relations, EBSCO Information Services
Reported by Michael Twigg 

Tina Feick, Bob Boissy, and Leslie Knapp presented an entertaining and informative review of the current journal pricing cycle and a discussion of the impact that electronic titles are having on publishers, agents, and libraries.  The presentation was an update of a similar session presented at the 1994 NASIG conference in Vancouver. 

In the traditional publisher model, journal costs were largely determined by paper, postage, binding, and other production costs.  Pricing was relatively straightforward with little negotiation required between publisher and library.  Steady increases in prices were mainly due to increased numbers of pages or changes in frequency. Publishers primarily kept their focus on the publishing side of the business with an emphasis placed on the quality of the journal and with relatively little invested in the marketing and sales side. 

The presentation made clear what a large volume of information subscription agents deal with, as many as 100,000-300,000 records from 20,000-78,000 publishers.  The core of most agents’ work revolves around approximately 75,000 journal subscriptions and the 50-60 largest publishers. 

The basic timeline for journal pricing has not changed since Vancouver.  Quality and completeness of information received by agents from publishers remains varied and somewhat inconsistent.  Electronic standards and transmission of information have yet to produce the improvements desired by publishers, agents, and libraries. 

Pricing by agents is still largely a manual process involving printing, stamping, and scanning publisher price lists.  Pricing for a single journal may also need to be broken down by other factors including geographical region pricing, institutional vs. individual rates, or special charges for shipping.  

Agents currently rely on publisher discounts and library service charges to arrive at their 5-10% profit window.  Library service charges are principally determined by the difference between the publisher commission and the 5-10% profit goal for the agent. 

Publishers are currently in a state of flux as the numbers of electronic titles increase.  It is now widely accepted by publishers that electronic will not necessarily reduce costs.  Publishers are hiring more technical personnel as well as more marketing and sales staff to deal directly with institutional customers.  Publishers continue to experiment with new licensing models to meet the demands of end users. 

Pricing models for electronic items are just as complicated from the agents’ perspective.  Agents must now deal with individualized pricing models for electronic titles.  The complex pricing structure can often lead to mistakes or misunderstandings.  Agents are discovering that some publishers are beginning to turn to the agent to handle the complexities of negotiating electronic deals with libraries. 

The audience and panel discussion at the end of the session revolved largely around continued price increases, the potential impact of open access titles, and communication problems between publishers and agents.

STRATEGY SESSION

STRATEGY SESSION

The UC/JSTOR Paper Repository: Progress Thus Far

John Kiplinger, Director of Production, JSTOR; Nancy Kushigian, Director of Shared Print Collections, University of California; Colleen Carlton, Director of the Southern Regional Library Facility, University of California; and Jeff Sundquist, UC Shared Print Librarian / JSTOR Repository Manager, Southern Regional Library Facility, University of California
Reported by Mavis Molto

The first of the four presenters was John Kiplinger.  He provided some context for the Paper Repository, recently developed by the University of California and JSTOR.  A JSTOR Paper Repository Advisory Group met in September 2002 to discuss the needed characteristics for the repository, and in late 2004, JSTOR signed agreements with both Harvard University and the University of California/California Digital Library to archive all JSTOR titles publicly released through October 2003 (353 titles).  It was agreed that Harvard would maintain a dark archive (belonging to JSTOR) and the UC Libraries would maintain a dim archive (belonging to UCL). 

The next presenter, Nancy Kushigian, talked about the shared print projects at the UC Libraries.  Several shared print pilot projects were begun in 2005-06, along with the JSTOR/UC cooperative project in 2005.  Some of the challenges include:  1) management and administration; 2) systems for collaborative operation; 3) re-engineering the service model and systems, including user studies; 4) maintaining collaboration and funding; and 5) getting unanimous agreement among the ten campuses.

Colleen Carlton followed with an overview of the Southern Regional Library Facility (SRLF), where the JSTOR volumes are stored, and a description of the OPAC displays for the SRLF items.  Holdings can be viewed in Melvyl, the UC OPAC, which provides a public note showing where the volumes came from.  Additional item-specific information is available to UC library staff via the SRLF website. 

Jeff Sundquist, the last presenter, was hired as manager of the UC/JSTOR Repository in January 2005, with the charge of developing, implementing and managing an operational plan for the project.  The original timeline was May 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2006, with the goal of recording and processing 13 million pages at the rate of 650,000 pages per month.  Fifteen students were hired for the project, with another six added later when a higher page count was determined (14.25 million).

Validation, a major part of the processing, consists of physically scanning each volume, page by page, to make sure the volume is complete and in perfect condition.  However, as work began, numerous marks were found on the pages, which had to be fixed or the volume would be rejected.  Because of the high rejection rate (60%), the project became a 23 million-page project, because of the additional validation required for the replacement volumes.  More students were hired, for a total of thirty-three, so as to complete the project on time.

Three mid-project dilemmas developed, including: 1) student turnover; 2) the need to fill a second library assistant position under restricted FTE conditions and 3) a continuing high rejection rate.  To deal with the rejection rate, standards were modified so more volumes would pass validation.  Also, the UCLA Conservation Laboratory was used to train students on intermediate-level repairs.  Another tactic was to begin using volumes from schools having potentially better copy than the volumes at the SRLF.  After these changes, the rejection rate was reduced from 60% to 10%.

Topics that came up for discussion included:  1) cost concerns; 2) ergonomics; 3) binding potential repository volumes incomplete or with reproduced pages; 4) discarding duplicate or damaged volumes; and 5) quality control.

STRATEGY SESSION

The Changing Landscape of Serials: Open Access Journals in the Public Catalog

Nancy Newsome, Head of Collection Development & Serials; and Krista Schmidt, Reference Librarian, both from Western Carolina University
Reported by Paula Webb 

Nancy Newsome began the discussion by explaining the possibility of alleviating the budget crunch by using the components of open access. “The serials crisis has been going on for thirty years or more. Libraries have a difficult time managing the serials budget without compromising other collections they have. In the year 2000, Hunter Library [at Western Carolina University] cut over 20% of their print titles.” “What we do or [do] not do in the future will depend on the direction of scholarly communication. When the embargoed journals become open access, there will still not be any relief. It is hard to say how this will affect our budgets. Currently, the existence of open access has not affected our budget, but it has made our holdings more robust.”   Krista Schmidt then talked about making serials holdings more robust. “When it comes to adding open access journals to the catalog, we thought about how it could include classes that we might find more important to spend the money on. We can pick and choose the most relevant titles needed.”  “How many of us are taking advantage of tracking open access journals? As for our library, we include individual recommendations, but we are not as proactive as we should be. There is a lack of communication between the librarian and the vendor. This makes it harder for librarians to find the free open access journals. We have to become more proactive in what our vendors are providing us.” 

Schmidt pointed out that another problem for many people is quality. “One way to verify a quality online journal is creating screening criteria. As for Hunter Library, they already have selection criteria that all open access journals have to meet. The selection criteria are based only on the journals they add individually.” Krista Schmidt and Nancy Newsome advised the use of LC subject headings when adding open access journals in the catalog. “Serials have always been problematic for LC in that the serial’s title should be as specific as possible. Perhaps a 690 field can be used or a genre field.”  Newsome then discussed maintaining open access serials, “The problem is that you do not have a relationship with the vendor and there is less incentive for them to tell us about changes. For assistance in keeping track of open access journals, librarians could use link checkers or you could use a service such as Serial Solutions or EBSCO’s A-Z list. However, they are always going to require some maintenance.”  In conclusion, Nancy Newsome and Krista Schmidt successfully examined both collection development and technical issues related to open access journals.

STRATEGY SESSION

Small and Medium Publishers in an E-World: Thinking Out of the Box

Zachary Rolnik, President and Publisher, now publishers; Sean O’Doherty, Vice-President of Sales, BE Press; and Ezra Ernst, CEO, Swets Information Services
Reported by Allyson Ard 

This session focused on the current role of smaller publishers since the development of and transition to electronic resources.   Ezra Ernst of SWETS began the panel discussion by noting the changes that both libraries and agents have seen since publishers have been evolving along with electronic resources.  E-resources have brought an increase in complexity both for libraries and the market in general with new pricing models, packages, license agreements, and more.  The impact of this changing market has produced a need for greater efficiency and transparency.  With local offices for libraries and relationships with thousands of these diverse publishers, agents are in a unique position to provide for these needs.  Lastly, Ezra noted that an essential role of agents is to create standards across publishers, libraries and other vendors.  These standards would facilitate better electronic data interchange (EDI), collection evaluation and usage statistics, among other things.   

Zac Rolnik of now publishers and Sean O’Doherty of The Berkeley Electronic Press (BE Press) followed with a focus on the state of small to medium publishers, noting some of the innovations that have been developed.  Zac first recapped the current state of publishing.  He noted that the private, smaller publishers are normally niche players with strength in a specific market.  With technical costs declining, they can offer services similar to those of the big publishers, for example, user-friendly interfaces.  He also explained that smaller publishers are often responsible for much of the innovation in the market since they are free to “think outside of the box” and try new technology, sales features, price schemes, etc.  For instance, now publishers has a product which answers clinical questions, is constantly updated and is available on a PDA.  Another resource allows the readers to update the content, pending author approval.   Speaking for another small publisher, Sean said they began BE Press to try to address the crisis in scholarly communication.  They developed institutional repository software and streamlined peer review by creating an efficient editorial management system.  They also implemented a quasi open-access model whereby a customer can view articles at no cost but each time is asked to complete an access form.  BE Press then contacts the readers and asks them if they want a subscription.  He noted that this has been a successful model thus far.  

Ezra closed the session with a brief look at standards development and usage statistics developments.  Overall, the session did shed light on the challenges these publishers face and how this impacts both libraries and vendors.  It is clear they have found innovative methods to carve a unique position for themselves to answer market demands.