From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 03:05:03 +0000

Ann: It's a set of fair questions, and a constellation of issues that
are not particularly easy to addresss.

This represents one of those annual housekeeping tasks I consider too
important to pass off to anyone else.  I do it myself. Perhaps it's
just being overly concerned on my part, but I want to know what is
happening with our titles (no, publishers, they are not YOUR titles).
Publishers do not manage our serial list, we do.

So each year, I look at takeover and startup titles for each major and
many minor publisher "deals". For some of the publishers we need to
make an annual decision as to whether the "new" titles are worth an
additional sum above the annual license fee. It depends, and that
takes as much effort figure out as any other analysis of journals.
What information do we have of the takeover journals?  Do we have use
data from their previous status (other publisher or stand alone)?  How
important are the titles to our situation, or do we need to do
something to maintain them.

What about titles leaving a package? The questions are the same. Are
these important to my institution, either presently or historically?
What does usage look like? What about campus needs in the field. It
takes as much work to figure out which titles to target for additional
information on titles moving out of packages as it does for any
decision about new journals or cancellations. The techniques are about
the same, the library doesn't need to wake up sometime in the first
quarter of the new year to hear researchers questioning why important
title(s) are no longer available!

I have to tell you I am a bit astounded at providers that move titles
in or out without notification as to the specific title changes. Its a
big no no to me. I can never figure out how to tell exactly which
titles have become part of JSTOR's Current Journal Scholarship Online
offerings. At least in the past they have just presented the "total"
list and I've had to go through and pick out the new ones. Maybe I
miss the email, but their website hasn't been helpful at picking out
JUST the new titles. Which are in essence, takeover titles for me. And
often critical.

I'm committed to checking removed, or take over,  titles, either one
going in or out of packages, against our holdings PREVIOUS to the
particular title(s) being part of "deal" packages. I won't let our
collection be vitiated by removal of titles the campus needs.

As far as negotiating about removal and cost, I have to say the "new"
titles and move "In" titles usually make this kind of consideration a
wash. I've never seen a publisher not "grow" when there's a loss. And
generally the "deal" is strong enough in terms of Cost Per Use or per
title cost  because we've already weeded out the deadwood or
renegotiated, or are in the process of "resetting" the base in case of
packages that have become weak or so unrecognizable as to not meet
many current needs for the campus.

We recalculate CPU every year as a separate part of the annual
evaluation of publisher packages for most of our major packages. And
make decisions appropriately. It may take a few years to implement
decisions, but ultimately the weak packages or those inappropriate for
my campus get caught and either dismantled or cancelled.

I consider this yearly  accounting, which is at least a two part
process (and counting CPU analysis a 3 part), as part and parcel of
responsible management of serials in today's environment.

Why would you put at risk mission critical titles because a publisher
decides to change their offered mix? Why would you miss what are
generally relatively inexpensive title additions when offered as
"package" add ons- on annual "new for the year" lists if they meet
local needs?

Regards

Chuck Hamaker

________________________________________

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:41:33 -0500

Hello, dear list members:  I'd like to revive the question I posed to
this group back in mid-December, for some additional or clearer
answers, and with thanks to those who did reply initially.  The
question was, in short, do changes within a scholarly journals package
matter?  Do librarians analyze titles coming in and out of their
scholarly journals packages (aka "big" or "medium" deals) in light
of their contractual arrangement?  Or doesn't this matter so long
as the agreed-upon numbers of titles are delivered?

One respondent suggested that thinking about titles in scholarly
journal packages was perhaps old-fashioned library collections
thinking and a legacy type approach -- for surely use would matter
more.  No doubt usage is an important metric for what is already
delivered within a package, but this wasn't exactly an answer to
my question.

Others opined that, yes, content does matter and if important
journals leave the collection (or not useful titles are added), this is
Not A Good Thing.

So -- I'd like to dig a little more -- for those who think that the
journal content does matter, what is the process that libraries and
their consortia follow to do the analysis, and once the analysis is
done, how do you get back the titles your users need?  And if
you can't get them back, what do you do? Do you break the deal,
get price reductions?  Just how does this work in practice?

Thank you, Ann Okerson


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Subject: Question: Modifications to Titles in Journal Packages
To: [log in to unmask]

From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:15:48 -0500

Dear liblicense-l readers.  Your listowner/moderator (me) has a
question for you.  I would very much welcome the views of anyone on
this list, whether publisher or librarian or someone in the scholarly
communications chain.  There's no right answer; in fact, I'm not sure
there is even an answer, but I was in a group that started discussing
this matter and we felt caught short.  And we felt we should have a
reasoned opinion, when we did not.  Please read on.

Most many big deal journal packages contain language [such as that
below] re. modification to "portions of the Licensed Materials."  The
contracts say that if any of the changes make the materials less
useful, the institutions may seek to terminate this agreement for
breach.  And, there will likely be language of this sort: "If any such
withdrawal renders the Licensed Materials less useful to Licensee or
its Authorised Users, Licensor shall reimburse XX for the withdrawal
in an amount proportional to the total Fees owed."

My question is this:  if my library has a "big [or medium] deal,"
let's pretend it's 300 or 500 or 1000 or 2000 titles, what is a
reasonable expectation for the numbers or percentage of content that
will leave the package before the library or consortium would either
seek reimbursement (more likely) or total termination (less likely)?

Do libraries (or consortia) review the big-deal lists each year to look
for changes?  Every 3 years? If there were a loss of previous titles
in the amount of 5%, would it be a concern? How about 10%?

Of if not a percentage "bright line," then what would cause a review
of the list and a concerned conversation with the big deal publisher?
Would it be the loss of a couple of absolutely key titles?  the loss
of a particular smaller publisher's journals list?  a disciplinary
impact? a dollar impact?  If "it depends," what does it depend on?

Do libraries care very much about what's actually in these large
packages, or are we too busy to pay attention to their changes? What
would it take to get libraries' attention?

Thank you, Ann Okerson


*******

"Notification of Modifications of Licensed Materials. From time to
time, Licensor may add, change, or modify portions of the Licensed
Materials, or migrate the Licensed Materials to other formats. When
such changes, modifications, or migrations occur, the Licensor shall
give notice of any such changes to Authorized Institutions as soon as
is practicable, but in no event less than thirty (30) days in advance
of modification. If any of the changes, modifications, or migrations
renders the Licensed Materials substantially less useful to the
Authorized Institutions or its Authorized Users, the Authorized
Institutions may seek to terminate this Agreement for breach pursuant
to the termination provisions of this Agreement.