Abstract
The genesis for this session came from the speakers' experiences working with two recent innovations (SERU and Project TRANSFER) and their desire to understand conditions that foster the development and adoption of new and successful proposals. Where have our innovative ideas come from, what paths have they taken, what kinds of problems have they addressed, and what conditions were required for them to take hold? The context, of course, is serials and electronic resources in libraries, an area that has seen dramatic change in the ten years during which the speakers have been working in libraries. Not only were the speakers interested in the trajectory of successful innovations, they were also curious to know what had become of some of the most promising proposals of a decade ago, and, looking ahead, where the opportunity for future innovations might lie. The speakers structured the session into three parts. Selden Lamoureux took a look back at three innovations that were prominent in serials librarianship in the late 1990s. Beth Bernhardt then turned to three ideas currently being developed. Lastly, the audience was asked to discuss and report on the things in their jobs that seem to be chronic problems and to speculate about what the next innovations should attempt to solve.
A LOOK BACK
In recent years, it seems the “Wild West” atmosphere of e-publishing that characterized the scene a decade ago is settling down, and enough time has passed to make looking back a fruitful endeavor. For those who have had much longer careers with libraries, subscription agencies, or publishers, the view of the past decade will contain a different and undoubtedly broader perspective; for those newer to the profession, you will certainly have a different take on the recent past. We ask your forgiveness at the outset for what will be a somewhat personal take on “innovations.”
There is a lot to choose from when looking at all that has been happening over the past several years. For our look back, we have focused on three of the big “new ideas” that impressed us so much when we entered the profession in the late 1990s: SPARC, the John Cox Model License, and, coming a little bit later, LOCKSS.
The following six questions served as a framework when thinking about the innovations under discussion:
| • | What was it? | ||||
| • | What problem was it trying to solve? | ||||
| • | How was it trying to solve it? | ||||
| • | Did it succeed? | ||||
| • | If so, what contributed to its success? | ||||
| • | If not, why not, and what happened to it? | ||||
SPARC: Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (http://www.arl.org/sparc)
It was rare to attend a conference in 1999 and not hear mention of the serials pricing crisis. The ARL (Association of Research Libraries) Serials Pricing Chart that was so prevalent at conferences a decade ago demonstrated clearly and dramatically just how unsupportable the steep upward trend of serials pricing had become. The chart contained pricing information from 1986 through 1999 (and, in fact, continued on for several more years until it became too difficult to clearly associate cost with title once dual format pricing models were introduced). It traced the increase in price for monographic units (33 percent in the thirteen-year period) and journals (an astonishing 175 percent for the same period). It was clear to everyone that increasing journal prices were squeezing the ability of libraries to purchase monographs and creating unsustainable pressure on library budgets. And although publishers were incurring increasing costs in paper because of increased page counts, there was the perception that much of the high pricing was because journal titles were, in a sense, mini-monopolies; there was no true competition for Tetrahedron Letters, for example.
In 1997, at an ARL member meeting, Ken Frazier called for action. For several years ARL library directors had been talking about the “serials crisis,” although by then it had been going on so long it was, as it continues to be, more a “chronic condition” than a “crisis.” Toward the end of the meeting, Ken stood up and suggested that ARL libraries come together to solve the problem. He pointed out that if one hundred libraries contributed $10,000 each, there would be a million dollar fund that could provide the start-up funding to create alternative titles to the most expensive STM (scientific, technical, and medical) journals. Receiving only a modest response, he thought the idea had been rejected, but half a dozen library directors followed him out of the meeting and started a discussion that, within six months, had become SPARC. With the help of the director of ARL and Mary Case, Director of Scholarly Communication at ARL, they had launched SPARC, partnered with the American Chemical Society (ACS), and made plans to launch Organic Letters, an alternative to Tetrahedron Letters at one third the cost.
Was SPARC successful at curtailing the increase in serial prices? Most librarians and publishers would have to say no. In place of a single, very expensive must-have journal, there were now two must-have titles: one very expensive and one less so. The net result for libraries was far from budget relief. But few would say that SPARC had failed. It certainly succeeded in stimulating dialogue between libraries and publishers and raising awareness about the chronic budget shortfalls that necessitate a constant culling of subscriptions. It also signaled, especially for librarians, that collective and cooperative action could bring positive change. Thirteen years after SPARC was launched, it is still going strong. Still part of ARL, SPARC was the incubator for a number of quality resources, among them Evolutionary Ecology Research, PhysChemComm, BioOne, and Project Euclid. SPARC continues to be very active in the scholarly communication debate, lending support to the National Institute of Health's (NIH) call for open access, encouraging new publishing models, and engaging in outreach to students, the up and coming generation of scholarly content consumers and producers.
John Cox Model License (http://www.licensingmodels.com)
In 1999 it was not clear just how much risk a publisher assumed by putting journal content online, but the pervasive feeling was that a license (subject to contract law) afforded the publisher greater protection than reliance on copyright law. Creating a license to safeguard the publisher's investment and establish the behaviors surrounding the use of online content became, for many publishers, a necessity. Every license, however, had the potential to be a unique document with a highly idiosyncratic structure and content. Publishers and libraries were struggling to cope with the burden of negotiating such a wide variety of licenses. In addition, subscription agents, who played an essential role in the print subscription environment, were exploring ways in which they could facilitate the licensing process and remain relevant in the online subscription environment.
The leading subscription agents (Blackwell, EBSCO, Harrassowitz, RoweCom, and Swets) came together to support the development of a model license. With input from publishers and library groups such as ICOLC (International Coalition of Library Consortia), PA/JISC (the UK's Publishers Association, and the Joint Information Systems Committee of the Higher Education Funding Councils), and utilizing the Yale and ALA (American Library Association) licensing principles, John Cox, of John Cox Associates, drafted a model license that covered sections such as authorized users and sites, and offered a multiple choice selection of clauses to define them. While libraries and publishers alike would welcome standardization in licensing, laws that protect against collusion and the stifling of competition also limit the degree to which such standardization may be achieved. Competition and antitrust laws were, and continue to be, barriers to a standard license. The Cox Model License was an elegant solution. It created a template for the license structure and provided examples of language with which to build a contract. Although it did not create complete uniformity, it at least bounded the structure and the language choices within it.
There are actually four model licenses: one for academic libraries, one for academic consortia, one for public libraries, and one for corporate and other special libraries. For many reasons, largely having to do with university libraries' widespread inability to cede power of attorney to subscription agents, the subscription agents' ability to relieve libraries of license negotiation was never fully realized. However, the website that was established at the beginning of the project continues to be accessible, and publishers still take advantage of the freely available information. As John Cox recently remarked, the Model License is due for a review and update, but it continues to be a useful tool, free to the world, and inexpensive to support and maintain.
LOCKSS—Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home)
Electronic journals have many obvious advantages for patrons, but they do pose a danger to future scholars. Because libraries do not have physical possession of the content, as they do with print, their ability to serve as curators has changed. Who would, and more to the point, who could, take on that responsibility? For libraries of record (whose mission includes preserving scholarly content for future scholars in addition to making it available to current patrons) and for publishers who believe libraries should assume that responsibility, a means to make that possible was needed.
LOCKSS is low cost, low maintenance software that allows publishers to invite the harvesting of online content and allows libraries to harvest, archive, and refresh it. It differs from static storage in that content is collected by multiple sites that communicate with each other to repair and refresh degraded content. LOCKSS began with a partnership between four individuals at four different institutions: Vicky Reich, of Stanford University; Tom Robertson, of HighWire Press; David Rosenthal, of Sun Microsystems; and Mark Seiden, of Consult. The “alpha” test of LOCKSS was done in 1999 and funded by the National Science Foundation, Stanford Libraries and Sun Microsystems. The beta test was funded through a Mellon Foundation Grant. In 2004 LOCKSS was released into production. As of June 2008, there are 241 publishers, 174 libraries, and 1,981 titles that are participating in LOCKSS.
Has it been successful? LOCKSS software delivers on its promise to automate the harvesting, storage, and repair of online content. It does, however, require the support of both publishers and libraries, and a certain degree of effort, although minimal, to maintain the software and install the upgrades. Although LOCKSS has grown since its launch, it has grown slowly. And while the software is still available without cost, LOCKSS has shifted to a membership model allowing willing partners to create a sustainable financial base. There have also been some recent and unanticipated uses of LOCKSS. One spin-off of the technology has been the creation of CLOCKSS, a closed system using the LOCKSS software to preserve content from major STM publishers. Another imaginative and unforeseen use of LOCKSS software has come from library consortia, which are forming local or regional communities to preserve non-commercially produced materials. LOCKSS is, in a sense, at a crossroads, and it will be interesting to see where it goes from this point forward.
Lessons
Each of the innovative ideas described earlier addressed a problem that had been resistant to easy solution. The most obvious and encouraging lesson is that it does not take a think tank, it does not require start-up funding, and the proposal need not be fully formed at conception to take root. All these initiatives began with a pervasive and chronic problem (spiraling costs, insupportable management requirements, or the absence of appropriate technology) and a few individuals who were drawn together by a desire to act. Collaboration is key. It's also clear that none of these solutions was quick and easy to imagine or develop; perseverance pays off. Another common element essential to long term success is sponsorship; sustainability matters even for very low maintenance ideas like the Model License. And it may be necessary to reassess the dimensions of the problem and refocus. For instance, issues like serials pricing defy a single approach, but refining your understanding of the components involved and being able to expand and shift focus, as SPARC has done and LOCKSS is doing, can lead to unanticipated but valuable outcomes.
CURRENT INNOVATIONS
Project TRANSFER (http://www.uksg.org/transfer)
Project TRANSFER is an innovation that was started by Nancy Buckley, Journal Sales Director at Blackwell Publishing. She found it challenging to explain and negotiate title changes from publisher to publisher to her staff and customers who were affected by the addition and removal of journals from their Blackwell licenses. Nancy realized there were no standards in place to assist the publishers involved in the movement of journals and no guarantees of continued access for libraries. So in late 2005 she asked the United Kingdom Serials Group (UKSG) to support the formation of a working group to examine the issue, and in April 2006 Project TRANSFER was launched.
The working group had several objectives that they wanted to meet. The first objective was to identify and map the data and general information components that come into play when a title moves to a different publisher. The second objective was to develop and implement a set of high-level guidelines and a code of conduct that publishers would be asked to adhere to as closely as possible when involved in title transactions. The last objective was to create a central repository containing mandatory and optional fields that should be completed by publishers when titles move between them.
Phase One, the TRANSFER Code of Conduct, was launched in first draft in April 2007 at the UKSG annual conference. The Code has received praise from the library community, while some publishers had reservations about it. So the Code was revised and launched again at the April 2008 UKSG annual conference, but this time as the Code of Practice. The Code was then sent out for public response until May 31, 2008. The working group will then review all comments and finalize the Code.
There are several steps that need to follow the finalized Code. The first step is to continue to solicit buy-in from publishers. Librarians need to ask their publishers to support Project TRANSFER and comply with the Code of Practice. The second step is to identify the publishers that agree to align their procedures with the Code as “TRANSFER Compliant.” The third step is for the working group to re-establish itself officially under UKSG as the TRANSFER Working Group. Once formed, the working group will oversee implementation of a transfer alerting service to serve as a central location for basic details of journal transfers. The working group will also manage the compliance with the Code of Practice by conducting periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the Code and receive complaints of noncompliance. The working group will also consider future revisions to the Code of Practice and establish procedures on how any revisions will be made and approved.
SERU—Shared E-Resource Understanding ( http://www.niso.org/workrooms/seru)
At the 2005 ALA midwinter meeting in Chicago, a conversation occurred that led to a NISO recommended practice known as SERU (Shared E-Resource Understanding). The conversation between Selden Lamoureux and Judy Luther was about the fact that both librarians and publishers hated dealing with license negotiations for online resources. That fall at the Charleston Conference, Selden and Judy launched a discussion with several librarians and publishers on the problems of license negotiation. This discussion revealed a shared desire by both librarians and publishers to create a new approach that involved less work. So in March 2007 the first draft of SERU was released and on February 2008 SERU was launched as NISO recommended practice RP-7–2008. SERU has support from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), and the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SPP).
SERU is an understanding between the publisher and the library, not a license. It defines common understandings such as subscription and subscribers, appropriate and inappropriate use, confidentiality and privacy, online performance and service, archival access, and perpetual rights for serials management. There are over twenty publishers, forty academic libraries, and four consortia that have signed up to participate.
There are several guidelines that need to be followed in order to participate in SERU. First a library or publisher needs to register to participate at the NISO/SERU website. Then use SERU only when the process is agreed upon by both parties. If either party is uncomfortable with any part of the understanding then use a traditional license.
The next steps for the SERU working group include recruiting more publishers. Librarians need to ask the publishers to use this understanding when starting licensing negotiations. The SERU working group also needs to target highly regarded publishers and have them participate. Another step is to educate the library community that SERU exists and that they need to ask publishers to participate in the understanding. The SERU working group needs to work with platform providers such as Ingenta and HighWire to get the word out to smaller publishers that this understanding is available for their use.
SUSHI—Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi)
The last innovation that was discussed was the NISO standard, SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative). The idea for SUSHI came from a discussion at the Charleston Conference in 2004 with Adam Chandler and Ted Fons. In June of 2005 a project team was formed at a meeting at the ALA annual conference. Two years later the NISO standard was created and called SUSHI or Z39.93–2007.
The reason SUSHI was developed is to help deal with the problem librarians were having with gathering usage statistics for online resources. The success of COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) created a new problem for librarians in the amount of time they were spending retrieving, storing, and aggregating their COUNTER reports. For each supplier of COUNTER reports, a library has to manually connect to the supplier's website and download the Excel or CSV files. Once retrieval is complete, the librarian is presented with multiple data files from multiple providers, which then require significant manipulation and normalization of the data to generate reports. At the same time many libraries are creating or purchasing electronic resource management (ERM) systems to help them in storing and managing all this data. But the process for transferring the Excel or CVS data into the ERM has to be done manually or by custom programming. The SUSHI standard wants to solve this problem by automating the harvesting and managing the usage data from providers. SUSHI will be one of the requirements for the COUNTER Compliance Release 3 with a deadline for compliancy of August 31, 2009.
LOOKING AHEAD
In the last portion of the session, audience members were asked to form groups and discuss the following questions:
| • | What would make your job easier? | ||||
| • | What needs solving? (i.e., what makes you crazy?) | ||||
| • | What would you like to see developed in the next five years? | ||||
Nine groups, totaling nearly seventy participants, engaged in animated conversation about large and small problems and offered some rather creative suggestions for their solutions. Some reports from the breakout sessions described broad issues, such as increasing communication between libraries, vendors, and publishers; others were surprisingly specific, such as creating standard sets of icons to indicate a library's subscription rights to titles within a package (along with the ability to choose from among those sets in order to customize a library's look and feel). Increased standardization, in fact, played a large role in the discussion. Suggestions ranged from creating standards in the way journal package financial information is organized, interoperability between products, and, again, the standardization of icons to indicate the library's subscription rights to a title. Clearing communication channels also figured in several of the suggestions, as did greater automation leading to a reduction in data entry and an increase in data sharing.
Although some innovations will go further than others, the encouraging news is that the first step can begin with a few motivated, creative, persistent (and not infrequently, disgruntled) individuals willing to pose both the problem and a possible answer.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
1. Lauren W. Corbett, “Serials: Review of the Literature 2000–2003,” Library Resources & Technical Services 50, no. 1 (2006): 16–30
2. John Cox, “Model Generic Licenses: Cooperation and Competition,” Serials Review 26, no. 1 (2000): 3–9.
3. Jennifer McLennan, “Current Issues: New SPARC Campaign Engages Students on Open Access,” ARL, no. 256 (2008): 8.
4. Sarah C. Michalak, “The Evolution of SPARC,” Serials Review 26, no. 1 (2000): 10–21.
5. Oliver Pesch, “Sushi: What It Is and Why You Should Care,” Computers in Libraries 27, no. 4 (2007): 6–8, 47–48.
6. Judith L. Silva, “A Leap into the Future: Serials Literature of 2002,” Serials Review 30, no. 1 (2004): 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2003.12.003.
CONTRIBUTOR NOTES
Selden Lamoureux is the Electronic Resources Librarian at North Carolina State University. Selden has worked in serials and electronic resources for nearly ten years. She is active in regional and national library associations, and has spoken widely about the Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU). Selden is adjunct faculty at the University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science.
Beth Bernhardt is the Electronic Journals/Document Delivery Librarian at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She has her graduate degree in Library Science from the University of South Carolina. She is responsible for providing electronic journal access to all faculty, staff, and students at the University. Beth is a member of the Project TRANSFER Advisory Board. She is also the Principal Program Director for the annual Charleston Conference.