|
CENDI PRINCIPALS AND ALTERNATES MEETING |
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA
April 7, 1998
WELCOME
Tom Pedtke, CENDI Chair, began the meeting at 9:10 a.m. He thanked NTIS for hosting the meeting. Introductions were made.
WORKING WITH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PUBLISHERS IN THE NETWORKED PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENT
The CENDI agencies are producers, managers, and consumers of published information. As publishing and budgets are changing, many agencies are looking at new relationships with primary and secondary publishers and a change in their missions regarding these activities. This session is intended to stimulate conversation regarding the relationships with primary and secondary publishers by looking at the possibilities from the publisher, the library, and the agency information manager points of view.
Models for the Exchange of Content
Between Agencies and Publishers in a Digital World
Dr. Ellis Rubinstein, Editor, Science Magazine
Dr. Rubenstein began by describing the traditional/historic view of the information world. This included a library of core literature, primarily commercially published and gray literature in hardcopy, journals with news, gossip, research and new research results, and a community brought together through physical meetings and conferences. Through the 117 years of Science, this model has remained the same. However, the paper media locked Science into this model for its readers. While many communities have asked Science to provide more emphasis and coverage in their areas of interest, they have been bound by the physical size of the magazine and the broad audience they are trying to serve. It has been impossible to do special services in print.
However, in a web environment, it is possible to serve narrower areas less expensively. It is also possible to link communities in interesting ways. Science Online is available for $12 per year to AAAS members and Science subscribers. Dr. Rubinstein showed several aspects of Science Online that demonstrate these possibilities.
The connection between PubMed and Science allows users to locate a relevant Science article via Science Online; to display the abstract for the article in PubMed; and then to ask PubMed for documents that are similar to it. The connection between Science, PubMed and the full text of articles on publisher servers allows users direct access to the full text for some publishers without paying. In such cases, the user is often restricted to this one full text article, and is not allowed to browse through the journal's holdings. While this is still restrictive, it begins to open up the bridge between abstracts and full text.
Dr. Rubenstein gave an example of the new features in the area of genetics. With the availability of gene sequence information, it is possible to provide both novice and expert users with information that is helpful to them. The Human Gene Map project has been linked to informative text that is valuable both to the lay person and to the researcher/medical professional. The left side of the web pages present the lay person's view and the right side the more scientific view. There are also links to the actual genetic sequences in the GenBank database and to support organizations such as the Altzheimers Foundation.
Science has also linked to researchers in other countries. Science Online is also located on a server in Beijing. A national license was negotiated which provides Science free of charge to Chinese scientists without having to subscribe to the print product. AAAS believes that eventually Science will be available via the free market, as the number of users grows, but, for the present, this is the only way to reach the Chinese scientific community with Science. There have been 22,357 visits to the Beijing site since January.
Organizations are licensing Science for their web sites. For example, it is being translated into German by a German organization that is actually owned by a competitor of Science.
ScienceNow is a daily news feature that highlights the most important stories from other journals. Enhanced Perspective is done in cooperation with Highwire Press at Stanford. This product emphasizes a single topic every week. The Stanford librarians and the authors work to provide more in-depth coverage on a single topic.
Science is in the process of discussing a virtual library in the physical sciences with key players. The National Academies of Science hosted the major publishers in the physical sciences, like Nature, Wiley, etc. at a meeting recently. They agreed in principle to do this kind of virtual library. A letter has been sent by NAS to Dr. David Lipman (NLM) asking if PubMed can host this physical sciences library as well as its biomedical one. Dr. Lipman has expressed interest in principal already.
Dr. Rubinstein believes that in order for this type of library to work, the publishers need to develop a pay-per-view model. Right now, the rights have to be negotiated with the publishers on a free-basis. Some publishers still have firewalls and accounting systems that are cumbersome because they block access.
Discussion
Dr. Rubinstein was asked if the librarians were involved in the discussions about the Physical Sciences library. He indicated that it was not the case at this initial meeting, because NAS was unsure whether the publishers would even be willing to talk. It was suggested that the librarians, who must deal with the users and the final product, should be involved in the development of such a virtual library. All agreed.
The question of the structure of the links that are used was discussed. The structure of the URL has not been negotiated with the organizations to which Science links. However, the possible lack of persistence of these URLs is an issue of which AAAS is keenly aware.
Dr. Rubinstein was questioned about the indexing performed on the database content. It does not have controlled indexing applied. The searching can be done across the entire database, but it is a free text engine developed by Highwire.
The question of privacy and "cookies" was raised. Dr. Rubinstein indicated that Science subscribers don't seem to mind. There is a "cookie" acceptance screen when they first sign on. Science specifically mentions that it will be using "cookies". Some people are signing up for e-mail alerts. Within a year, there will be a sophisticated personalization service that requires "cookies". .
As Dr. Rubinstein has demonstrated, the model of the information environment and scientific communication is changing. The journals are becoming electronic and the library is a digital, virtual library. There are also ways in which the Science Online environment can promote the development of electronic communities, including virtual conferences and the inclusion of collaboration tools. In association with Highwire Press (Stanford Univ.), Science has received $1.7M from the Pugh Foundation to do a demonstration project of a "Knowledge Environment". The project will be in the area of cell signal transduction. This topic is common across many disciplines and across many journals. However, it is discussed in slightly different ways across these domains. The writers will write text to help explain the information across the various communities. A second project will be in the area of ecology. They will be trying to link the policy and research people, particularly related to the gray literature. In addition to the direct outcome of the projects, the Pugh Foundation is interested in tools that can be exported to other organizations and other subject areas. They are also interested in how such a "knowledge environment" impacts the communication between the previously disparate groups.
Dr. Rubinstein discussed the future of the Science site. There are plans to include pop-up dictionaries and encyclopedias, push technology, and more personalization of the information and its presentation. A web site is also being developed for young scientists -- new scientists and post-docs. Unlike Science Online, this product could be site-licensed to facilities and government agencies.
Licensing Principals and Developing Publishing Alternatives for Scholarly
Publishing in a Networked Environment
Mary Case, Director, Office of Scholarly Communication, Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
Research libraries have been negotiating electronic access agreements with publishers for many years. Several library associations realized that there were rather restrictive terms in some licenses that their members were signing, as well as a lack of understanding about the meaning of the agreements. This led ARL to establish a two-day licensing workshop and licensing guidelines. The whole idea with the license guidelines is to provide a starting point for negotiations and a check list for those discussions. The aim is to get the best deal for the library realizing that the information provider also has rights and requires economic compensation.
The licensing principles, still in draft, were completed in July 1997. ARL is asking for feedback in order to establish the final guidelines. The work was completed by five library associations. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has since endorsed it.
A major concern is license agreements that result in the libraries and users losing rights that they now have under copyright and fair use. ARL believes that copyright still applies in the digital environment. The workshops have shown that people did not realize what they were signing. There is also concern about when the agreement can be terminated. Some licenses could be terminated based only on a suspected breach of the agreement. The guidelines encourage libraries to work toward wording that will inform the libraries of the problem and allow them to use established practices for dealing internally with these infringements. Other areas of concern are access rights to previously purchased material. Preservation/archiving is a major issue for discussion with publishers. Historically, the research libraries have considered preservation to be their function. It has never routinely been the responsibility of the publisher. Now there must be something in the license that covers this preservation and continued access should the license be dropped or the publisher go out of business.
Privacy and confidentiality with regard to usage statistics is another issue to be considered in license negotiation. The issue of the definition of a site must be worked out with the publisher. Indemnification practices must be carefully considered, since most public institutions, including government libraries, cannot provide indemnification for someone else. This is a key issue for publishers who are concerned about hackers.
There are several guidelines or principles that have been published for electronic resources. The Dutch/German Principles were written by several libraries in response to the numerous mergers of Dutch and German publishers. The Internet Chinese Librarians Club (ICLC) is the newest one. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently included an article about the ICLC guidelines. Both these documents are more specific then those of the ARL and include some pricing issues. The ARL guidelines have been submitted to the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) for discussion as the basis of a single world-wide guideline.
The second electronic journal project within ARL is the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). The aim is to assure that academic organizations that often create the material, sign away rights, and then buy the information back get a fair deal from publishers and can have reasonably priced access to their own and related material. They are trying to create a more competitive marketplace. They want the publishing environment to be part of the solution and to create an alternative to current impasses. This has been difficult in the print environment, but they now believe that alternative models are available. Another aim is to develop resources to help smaller university presses develop technologically. There is support within the faculty community for this effort. To date over 65 ARL libraries have joined the SPARC project. They are in the process of doing a business plan and hiring a full-time manager for the project. Non-ARL libraries would be welcome as well. While there has not been a lot of involvement with government agencies, ARL recently had discussions with NIST.
Discussion
Ms. Case was asked whether there is evidence that the SPARC model would be cheaper than the traditional publishing model. Ms. Case indicated that they do not yet have cost data that will allow them to verify which model is actually cheaper.
Some agencies indicated that there have been similar projects in specific subjects. For example, the pre-prints in some fields have been bypassing libraries and publishers by publishing on the web directly. Some libraries are working directly with scholars in their publishing.
Ms. Case indicated that depending on how the consortia is organized, there may be large bureaucracies and many signatures needed to get an agreement in place. Her vision is that the consortia could act as nodes to electronic collections.
FEDLINK's Experience in Consortium Negotiations
Stephanie Publicker, Electronic Resources Team Leader, National Institutes
of Health Library; Chair, FEDLINK Task Force on Consortium Purchasing
There is much interest within the federal library community in purchasing electronic journals and other electronic resources. However, FEDLINK does not have a business model that readily supports the procurement of these services by a consortia of federal libraries. Last year, FEDLINK's Information Technology Committee organized a task group to look at the issues related to this type of procurement. They were also asked to work with one or more publishers to develop a model that would work within the federal library community through FEDLINK. The task group has developed a list of the issues and concerns (both pro and con). Many of the issues were the same as those expressed by Mary Case. Several members of the task group have negotiated for their individual libraries and had lessons learned to share.
There are major difficulties for federal libraries when it comes to the publishers' definition of a site. Federal libraries tend not to be centralized but distributed throughout the country. However, many publishers want to define a site based on a physical location or geographic territory. Many users are in the field and the concept of "nomadic computing" is needed. It is also difficult to determine whether a "reasonable" price is being negotiated, because it is often difficult to determine the number of subscriptions that a particular government agency is currently purchasing. Many subscriptions may be held by individual offices or projects as well as by the library. Sometimes publishers are not able or willing to give subscription information. There may also be difficulty with the term of the agreement, since government agencies are only funded year to year. The concept of option years is often not included in the vendor's standard agreement. It is also difficult to get the money to the vendors from several libraries. Often the agreements must be reviewed by multiple legal counsels.
The task group recently polled its members to determine which publishers would be of most interest. Several publishers gave presentations to the group about their services and pricing models. A meeting is scheduled for April 15 with subscription agents. The group will learn what kinds of agreements these agents can provide for consortia.
Discussion
There was significant discussion about the various distributed environments among the agency libraries. NTIS has negotiated several agreements with publishers for government sponsored journal material, and NTIS has found that the most commonly acceptable model is simultaneous access.