SHEDL 23/06/2011. Context. Investigative Study. Scottish Higher Education Digital Library. Scottish HE tradition of co-operation.

Transcription

1 SHEDL Scottish Higher Education Digital Library Adding value through Collaboration Marian Miller UCISA Advisory & IT Support Symposium, Cambridge, June Context Scottish HE tradition of co-operation Manageable size Separate funding arrangements Research Pools Examples of other consortia, IReL, FinELib June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 2 Investigative Study SCURL sponsored Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries John Cox Associates Ltd Interviews Libraries University administrators/universities Scotland Academics/Research Pools Stakeholders Scottish Funding Council/JISC etc Report available on the SHEDL area of the SCURL website June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 3 1

2 Relationship with JISC Collections/NESLi2 Strong consensus that SHEDL should work within JISC Collections framework But wish to fill in gaps, to move away from optin arrangements, to ensure overall access for Research Pools Plus possibility of wider range of deals (recognising NESLi2 s current work with small/medium publishers ) June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 4 Structure & governance SCURL SCOPNet SHEDL Steering Group SHEDL Working Group June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 5 Phase 1 Initial agreement to work with 3 publishers, covering a wide range of subjects Agreements for with: American Chemical Society Cambridge University Press Springer June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 6 2

3 Process Institutional verification of holdings and expenditure with each publisher Negotiation by JISC Collections Licence agreement based on JISC model licence Adjustments to holdings link resolvers & OPACs Monitoring of usage locally and at consortium level June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 7 Costs Costs are fixed at the start of the contract, with agreed annual price caps SHEDL institutions continue to fund their own subscriptions, and do not expect to pay more than before Option to buy print at ddp Reduced overheads single payment and early payment where possible June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 8 Phase 2 WG consultation resulted in 40 nominations 6 publishers approached, following consultation with JISC 3 new publisher agreements for Berg Edinburgh University Press Oxford University Press Portico licensed across SHEDL June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 9 3

4 Phase 3 Similar consultation process resulted in 46 nominations 7 publishers identified for 2011 Agreements for Intellect Project Muse June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 10 Phase 3 - Difficulties Negotiations more difficult in 2010 Agreements with publishers with greater market penetration already achieved Publishers still expecting market growth More difficult for libraries to commit Collaboration more essential in world of funding cuts, but also more difficult June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 11 Phase 4 Continuation of the difficult scenario of 2010 UK-wide deals for Wiley-Blackwell and Elsevier content due to be renewed Renewals of phase 1 deals Decided on one definite, one possibility and one reserve publisher Awaiting outcomes from JISC June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 12 4

5 Benefits the HEIs Shift to e-only Single payment Proof of concept widening access increased availability of content increased usage efficiency gains Shared services agenda June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 13 Benefits the Publishers Reduced overheads single point of contact for administration and invoicing Wider dissemination of content Encourages adoption of e-only Cash flow protects market share June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 14 Benefits the users More content, accessible at the point of need titles available Analysis shows that previously non-subscribed titles are being used Increase in usage across all Phase 1 publishers, and across all institutions Usage increased by 41% from 2008 to 2009 June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 15 5

6 Downloads 23/06/2011 Springer usage at QMU 2000 Springer usage jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 16 Evaluation - RIN Report evaluating the impact of SHEDL John Cox Associates/Frontline GMS Usage data Interviews academics/librarians Single year of the Phase 1 agreements RIN report June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 17 Conclusions of the report Evaluation - RIN Confirmed overall usage increase of 41%, compared with 22% average UK wide increase Wide variation in increases single year whether or not titles already accessible Some evidence that Research Pool participants benefiting Cost/download was variable but all institutions achieved savings June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 18 6

7 Bloc payment mechanisms Cost redistribution criteria Evaluation JISC Collections Albert Prior/John Cox Not specifically SHEDL JISC Collections report Launched July 2010 June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 19 No magic formula Authoritative/credible data JISC Banding Institutional income Research/contract income Staff/student numbers Not usage Not SCONUL stats Evaluation JISC Collections Not data from the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 20 Review of activities a year to consolidate SHEDL model Allocation of costs Types of format procured Expansion to other sectors Further Education? NHS? NLS? Next steps June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 21 7

8 Further information Website under development Tony Kidd, Acting Chair, SHEDL Steering Group June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 22 Thanks Tony Kidd Glasgow University Library Barbara Houston Queen Margaret University Library June 2011 UCISA,Cambridge 23 8