Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library
Identifieur interne : 000134 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000133; suivant : 000135Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library
Auteurs : Patricia Hellriegel ; Kaat Van WonterghemSource :
- Interlending & Document Supply [ 0264-1615 ] ; 2007-06-05.
Abstract
Purpose This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described. Designmethodologyapproach The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature. Findings The article advocates better cooperation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work. Originalityvalue A resource for those not completely familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/02641610710754060
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title><author><name sortKey="Hellriegel, Patricia" sort="Hellriegel, Patricia" uniqKey="Hellriegel P" first="Patricia" last="Hellriegel">Patricia Hellriegel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Wonterghem, Kaat" sort="Van Wonterghem, Kaat" uniqKey="Van Wonterghem K" first="Kaat" last="Van Wonterghem">Kaat Van Wonterghem</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/02641610710754060</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000134</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title><author><name sortKey="Hellriegel, Patricia" sort="Hellriegel, Patricia" uniqKey="Hellriegel P" first="Patricia" last="Hellriegel">Patricia Hellriegel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Wonterghem, Kaat" sort="Van Wonterghem, Kaat" uniqKey="Van Wonterghem K" first="Kaat" last="Van Wonterghem">Kaat Van Wonterghem</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Interlending & Document Supply</title><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-06-05">2007-06-05</date><biblScope unit="volume">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="66">66</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="73">73</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno></series><idno type="istex">3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754060</idno><idno type="filenameID">1220350203</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1220350203.pdf</idno><idno type="href">02641610710754060.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described. Designmethodologyapproach The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature. Findings The article advocates better cooperation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work. Originalityvalue A resource for those not completely familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Patricia Hellriegel</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Kaat Van Wonterghem</name><affiliations><json:string>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Purchasing groups</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Document delivery</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Digital libraries</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Electronic journals</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Belgium</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>case-report</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described. Designmethodologyapproach The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature. Findings The article advocates better cooperation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work. Originalityvalue A resource for those not completely familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.824</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>609 x 788 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1010</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>5668</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>34594</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>152</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title><genre><json:string>case-report</json:string></genre><host><volume>35</volume><publisherId><json:string>ilds</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>73</last><first>66</first></pages><issn><json:string>0264-1615</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Collection building & management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library & information services</value></json:item><json:item><value>Consortia</value></json:item><json:item><value>Stock revision</value></json:item><json:item><value>Document delivery</value></json:item><json:item><value>Lending</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Interlending & Document Supply</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/ilds</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/02641610710754060</json:string></doi><id>3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126</id><score>0.3656546</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Patricia</forename><surname>Hellriegel</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Kaat</forename><surname>Van Wonterghem</surname></persName><affiliation>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Interlending & Document Supply</title><idno type="pISSN">0264-1615</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/ilds</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-06-05"></date><biblScope unit="volume">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="66">66</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="73">73</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754060</idno><idno type="filenameID">1220350203</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1220350203.pdf</idno><idno type="href">02641610710754060.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described. Designmethodologyapproach The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature. Findings The article advocates better cooperation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work. Originalityvalue A resource for those not completely familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Purchasing groups</term></item><item><term>Document delivery</term></item><item><term>Digital libraries</term></item><item><term>Electronic journals</term></item><item><term>Belgium</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-CBM</label><item><term>Collection building & management</term></item><label>cat-LISE</label><item><term>Library & information services</term></item><label>cat-CONS</label><item><term>Consortia</term></item><label>cat-SREV</label><item><term>Stock revision</term></item><label>cat-DOCD</label><item><term>Document delivery</term></item><label>cat-LDG</label><item><term>Lending</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-06-05">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="case-report"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ilds</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/ilds</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Interlending & Document Supply</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0264-1615</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/02641610710754060</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">1220350203.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">1220350203</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">case-report</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Case study</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CBM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Collection building & management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CONS</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Consortia</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-SREV</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Stock revision</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISE</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information services</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-DOCD</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Document delivery</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LDG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Lending</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Package deals unwrapped … or the librarian wrapped up? “Forced acquisition” in the digital library</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Patricia</given-names> <surname>Hellriegel</surname></string-name><aff>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</aff></contrib><x></x><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Kaat</given-names> <surname>Van Wonterghem</surname></string-name><aff>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>05</day><month>06</month><year>2007</year></pub-date><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>66</fpage><lpage>73</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2007</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="02641610710754060.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>The article advocates better co‐operation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>A resource for those not (completely) familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Purchasing groups</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Document delivery</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Digital libraries</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Electronic journals</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Belgium</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>Package deals as acquired by library consortia worldwide offer access to large numbers of electronic journals from one particular publisher. The attraction of these deals that offer vast numbers of high quality publications for a modest increase in price dazzled research libraries and the research community they represent. Flanders (Belgium) was no exception.</p><p>By outlining the history of package deals in Flanders we illustrate how libraries became wrapped up in package deals and are now struggling to get out. In the past few years it has become increasingly clear that package deals harbor a number of negative consequences: hidden costs, fickle license agreements and spiraling prices. Package deals even play an important part in the advancing monopolization of the information market. Libraries feel as if they are gradually losing grip on their budget and collection development.</p><p>The moment has come to collectively put into action the alternatives that have been within reach for sometime. Will the librarian then finally be able to say no to the bundling of e‐journals and will they refuse to agree with what one could call “forced acquisition”?</p></sec><sec><title>Consortia boost acquisition of e‐resources</title><p>The Vlaams Overlegorgaan inzake Wetenschappelijk Bibliotheekwerk (VOWB) or Flemish Council of Research Libraries founded in 1984, is a non‐profit organization (NPO) that unites the research libraries of Flanders (Belgium). One of its main functions is to facilitate the joint acquisition of electronic resources. VOWB members comprise all six Flemish universities, the 22 Flemish schools for higher education and a number of independent scientific research institutes.</p><p>One of the most important VOWB achievements has been the Elektron project. This project started in 1996 and gave an enormous boost to the acquisition of electronic resources by Flemish research libraries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Bosmans and Peeters, 1996</xref>). The aim of Elektron was to set up a network for digital information. The feasibility was investigated during a three‐year study and test phase (1996‐1998). The pilot project ended in a one month demonstration during which access to a set of 50 databases – library catalogues, bibliographic and full text databases – was offered free of charge to universities, schools for higher education and public libraries (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1220350203001">Figure 1</xref>).</p><p>During this demonstration it became clear that a significant demand for digital information existed in Flanders. As a result the Flemish Government has provided an annual budget of €2,000,000 for the acquisition of electronic research resources. In 2000 ISI's Web of Science was officially launched in Flanders. In the same year another five major bibliographic databases were jointly acquired (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Bergé, 1999</xref>). In the following years the subsidy budget also made the acquisition of several e‐journal packages possible. Meanwhile Elektron has developed into an NPO, but is still closely linked to the VOWB that handles all the negotiations with publishers.</p></sec><sec><title>Splintering of consortia threatens smaller institutes</title><p>In 2004 it was decided to allocate the subsidy received for Elektron directly to the participating institutes. This meant more autonomy for each institute but impeded joint decision‐making.</p><p>This decision was closely linked to the reform of the Flemish higher education landscape. Universities and schools for higher education have formed associations that have resulted in the creation of two very powerful ones and others much smaller.</p><p>Since the budget for each institute is linked to its size, bigger institutes/associations are capable of independent purchases. Smaller institutes are still dependent on the advantage of participating in the Elektron consortia. If this trend continues the financial pressure on some small institutes will increase and will make it hard for them to keep their collections up to a competitive level.</p><p>To counter this trend, VOWB cooperates with library consortia on a national (the Walloon BICfB) and international level (the Dutch UKB). They are, after all, negotiating with the same publishers. Worldwide the same information, in the same packages, is offered to users of research libraries.</p></sec><sec><title>Impact factors fortifying package deals</title><p>Scientific information is a peculiar product. In the prevailing publication model the information published in a particular journal tends to be monopolistic. The information in each article is unique. Whoever wants to acquire that information cannot choose from a range of similar products, as is the case in the normal market situation. In addition publishers are merging and creating a quasi monopolistic industry. All this is accentuated by the fact that end users do not pay for the product they “consume”.</p><p>Furthermore there are “must‐have” journals in each field on which the scholarly community focuses both to read as well as to be read in. This is closely linked to the fact that the measured impact of publications in these journals is being used as a basis for scientific evaluation and financing research.</p><p>It is undeniable that an instrument like the Web of Science is of great value to researchers. The linking of bibliographic records via citations is a definite advantage when searching for relevant literature. For long this was a unique feature of Web of Science but by now the functionality is finding its way into other bibliographic and full text databases. In 2004 Elsevier launched Scopus, inevitably a direct rival to Web of Science. In line with free market principles Thomson ISI made improvements to its own product: a new release makes indexing of pre‐prints and technical reports possible and the researcher is encouraged to deposit their work in an institutional repository.</p><p>Few research libraries in Flanders are considering a switch to Scopus because of the way in which Scopus is being linked to Elsevier's Science Direct in one big deal.</p><p>At the heart of the problem of using ISI impact factors lies the fact that when compiling a database selection is unavoidable. This problem is compounded by ISI not disclosing its selection process. In each domain a certain number of top journals are selected. This number is never exceeded, when new titles are added others are deleted. The obscure selection criteria should be cause for more concern amongst researchers than it does especially since ISI is a commercial organization.</p><p>An example which we came across ourselves, illustrates how easily distortions can occur in the calculation of impact factors: until recent the journal Nuclear Physics B (NPB) was placed by ISI in the subject category “physics, nuclear”. On their website this category is described as:<disp-quote><p>Physics, Nuclear includes resources on the study of nuclear structure, decay, radioactivity, reactions, and scattering. Resources in this category focus on low‐energy physics. High‐energy physics is covered in the physics, particles and fields category.</p></disp-quote>This does not correspond to what the publisher states to be NPB's subject category:<disp-quote><p>Nuclear Physics B focuses on the domain of high energy physics and quantum field theory, and includes three main sections […] (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505716/description#description">www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505716/description#description</ext-link>).</p></disp-quote>The citation culture in both domains differs and a distortion emerged by placing NPB in the wrong category: the journal was allotted an unusually high impact factor (IF) while the impact factor of the other journals in this category dropped, thus discriminating unjustifiably against the researchers involved.</p><p>The widespread use of ISI impact factors gives rise to more and more criticism. Alternative methods for measuring impact are being proposed. During the OAI4 Conference in Geneva for instance, it was advocated that the current use of citation data is too limited. Only usage of articles in ISI listed journals is measured, while the same article may be made available via multiple channels (e.g. in open access/open archives repositories). A framework was presented that determines impact by looking beyond citations and which includes aggregated user data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">Bollen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005a</xref>). In a more recent article they elaborate on this idea (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Bollen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005b</xref>):<disp-quote><p>The ISI IF's reliance on citation data, and its specific definition as a normalized citation frequency determined over the course of two years, implies a number of specific biases. Its use of citation frequencies clearly positions it in the domain of frequentist metrics which rely not so much on the structural position of an item in a network of relationships, but on the frequency with which the item has been preferred over others. In the case of the ISI IF, the community for which citation data has been collected is limited to scholarly authors and it therefore does not take into account readership or usage.</p></disp-quote>For the time being the ISI system of evaluation remains dominant and reinforces the libraries' budget crisis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Guédeon, 2001</xref>, Chapter 6):<disp-quote><p>By placing a core set of journals into sharp relief, ISI [ … .]. managed to skew a quest for excellence into a race for elitist status. […] the transformation of a quest for excellence into a race for elitist status bore important implications for any research library claiming to be up to snuff (sic): once highlighted, a publication becomes indispensable, unavoidable. The race demands it. It must be acquired at all costs. There lies a crucial phase in the transformation of scientific publishing and it also lies at the heart of the serials pricing crisis.</p></disp-quote>There is another disconcerting consequence of impact factors in direct relation to package deals; studies are showing that the immediate availability of full text online is having an influence on usage and the consequent citation rate of resources. The consortia purchases of the same big packages of electronic journals is said to be influencing the citation behavior of researchers world wide so profoundly that the impact factors of the journals in these packages are rising in an unbalanced fashion (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Tenopir, 2003</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>Information as a commodity</title><p>The increasing concentration of ownership of “must‐have” titles gives cause for concern. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1220350203002">Figure 2</xref> illustrates the rapid growth of some publishers based on some remarkable transactions. For instance the take‐over of Harcourt General by Elsevier Reed, which in 2001 led to an investigation by the UK Office of Fair Trading (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">OFT, 2002</xref>). This take‐over was approved but the final report stated a number of serious concerns – also the bundling of journals in packages was mentioned in particular (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">OFT, 2002</xref>):<disp-quote><p>The main concerns noted by the OFT are: price increase above inflation; substantial price disparity between commercial journals and non‐commercial journals; high level profitability for commercial STM publishers; bundling of a large selection of their journals by commercial publishers possibly hindering others from entering the market.</p></disp-quote>Another merger which caused upheaval amongst libraries was the take‐over of Bertelsmann‐Springer and Wolters Kluwer by Cinven & Candover. In an interview Ross Atkins of Cornell University Library warns of the danger in this shift in ownership from traditional publishers to companies like Cinven & Candover, which are described as the “leading European buyout specialists” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Duranceau, 2004</xref>):<disp-quote><p>Cinven and Candover are not publishers – they are investment companies. They buy businesses that make money. Scholars who rely heavily on Kluwer and Springer journals for their work must now understand that such journals exist for one purpose only and that is to make the maximum profit possible – in the shortest possible time frame. I expect to see prices for Kluwer and Springer materials increase very rapidly; we may well also see Kluwer and Springer quickly sold again, once those profits have been made, so that Cinven and Candover can purchase other companies that promise fast, short‐term returns.</p></disp-quote>The year 2007 has started with the merger of publishers John Wiley and Blackwell. The main concerns – as also stated by the Information Access Alliance in a letter to the US Department of Justice – are yet again that this merger will result in increased prices and the indivisible bundling of the journals from both publishers into one big deal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Information Access Alliance, 2006</xref>),</p><p>The fact that e‐journals and e‐journal packages are frequently changing owner has a considerable impact on the subscribing libraries. License agreements rarely offer perennial access guarantees for titles which migrate to other owners and to other packages. Even previously paid for access to the respective journals' archives may well be denied by the new owner. In consequence the value of some packages decreases – the price however never does.</p><p>Even if the ownership does not change it can be hard for subscribers to keep track of the changes made to license agreements from year to year. In the beginning (around 1999‐2000) most journals were offered as print plus free e‐access, to introduce users to the advantages of e‐journals. This was followed by ever increasing prices for e‐versions as the usage went up.</p><p>Another complicating factor is access to back‐issues. For years they were offered for free but when the time is ripe payment is charged. The recent renewal of one of our package deals gave new meaning to “less is more”: a sudden cancellation of access to back‐issues was topped up by an overall price increase for access to the current issues only.</p></sec><sec><title>The hidden costs of packages</title><p>E‐only subscriptions are offered frequently now. However in Belgium e‐only subscriptions to package deals are not popular for several reasons. When electronic journals are offered in combination with a print version and subsequently are viewed as a free by‐product they are taxed at 6 percent VAT‐rate. Separate e‐subscriptions to journals are taxed as luxury products, which in Belgium amounts to 21 percent VAT‐rate. This leads to the absurd situation that an e‐only subscription to a package deal will be taxed at 21 percent. If the institute keeps a few print subscriptions it is taxed only 6 percent. Discounts offered by publishers for going e‐only are nullified by these increased taxes.</p><p>One could argue that this extra cost for opting for e‐only is compensated by lower administrative costs: the print journals do not have to be handled and costs for storage are, in effect, nil. However this remains theoretical for now, library software is often not ready for e‐journals and the specific handling of package deals, which require extra flexibility to keep track of changes in access, license agreements etc. increases costs. Development or purchase of software means a substantial investment, meanwhile managing e‐subscriptions – and in particular packages – remains a time‐consuming undertaking.</p><p>Belgian libraries would at this moment be taking considerable risk if they went e‐only. They are dependent solely on commercial publishers for continuing access to paid for titles since e‐journals have ushered in a shift from ownership to usage. The electronic archives remain in the hands of the commercial publishers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Guédeon, 2001</xref>).</p><p>As a consequence most libraries are still hesitant to go e‐only because of the lack of sufficient guarantees to perpetual access. Since in Belgium there are no national initiatives to solve this problem VOWB will be initiating a Flemish depot service for print versions (initially focusing on biomedicine, and subsequently applied sciences and social sciences – after a pilot). At present we are considering the purchase of one print copy of each journal in a certain package deal. The costs and the holdings of the prints would be spread between the universities in the consortium. Cross‐access to all titles could then in theory be achieved through document supply. This solution would guarantee an archive copy – albeit in print – being available in Flanders. The overall cost of these subscriptions and the hypothetical costs for document supply will have to be weighed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Barwick, 1997</xref>).</p><p>In The Netherlands an important step towards a permanent solution for archiving electronic journals has been made by the Dutch Royal Library (NKB). Agreements between the NKB and several publishers were made to transmit e‐archives for eternal storage. This depot can in future function as a back‐up for previous subscribers (e.g. if a publisher goes bankrupt). But just how this will be put into practice if the situation occurs is still unclear and realistically there will have to be extra charges for access; after all the indispensable measures for preservation that have to be taken come at a high price (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Hedstrom, 1997</xref>).</p><p>The foundations of the current power balance between libraries and publishers that is expressed by license agreements were laid by Elsevier in 1991 with The University Licensing Program (TULIP) project (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Arbor, 2000</xref>).</p><p>Since the introduction of e‐journals, librarians have had to climb a steep learning curve and coping with new technology seemed to be the main challenge. Looking back this could explain how libraries, in the midst of the excitement about amazing new opportunities have made license agreements which often offer little solid guarantees to future access to paid for titles and leave the window open to fluctuations in the assembly of packages and access to back‐issues.</p><p>But the information expert has by now learnt to tackle legal issues. Many libraries and library consortia (e.g. VOWB) are presenting their own model license agreements to publishers. Hopefully these initiatives can counter the inconsistency of package deals and help to bring some continuity back to the collections.</p></sec><sec><title>The “big deal” in action: all or nothing</title><p>An important aspect of most package deal license agreements is that in practice they restrict downsizing and often amount to an all or nothing offer.</p><p>The model that many publishers typically use for licensing package deals is in the first place based on the titles currently subscribed to by the institutes involved. On top of the annual price increase, fees might be charged for electronic access to the cross‐access titles (the sum of all subscriptions of the participating institutes), access to the additional titles in the package and access to back‐issues. All these additional fees are solely for temporary access; once the deal comes to an end access to these extra titles is lost. Only the titles in the respective institute's base package give a right to continued, perennial access to paid for years.</p><p>An example will illustrate the problem: by purchasing a package in year X, 1,500 titles are electronically available to the participants in the consortium comprising institutes A, B and C. In the year X‐1, institute A had a subscription to 350 titles, now included in the package deal; institute B in turn subscribed to 150, institute C to 250 titles. The overlap of titles to which each institute previously subscribed with titles represented in the package, are the basis for calculating the price for each individual institute (their base package). In addition the size of the cross‐access collection is taken into account (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1220350203003">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>So in this model the price for the individual institute depends on the number of titles to which it subscribed prior to the package deal. This means an advantage for an institute with a relatively small overlap with the titles in the package (e.g. institute B), in contrast to an institute with a larger overlap (e.g. institute A).</p><p>When opting out of the deal, institute A will in theory still have e‐access to the paid for years of the titles in its base package. So there is an advantage, but while the deal is on the total price which has to be paid for access to the same number of titles will be higher for institute A than for institute B and the number of “new” titles in institute A's collection is smaller.</p><p>The license agreements in their current form strongly discourage cancellation of any subscriptions: the base package has to be retained or there is no deal. Getting out of a deal does not however mean a return to the former status. When our consortium considered this option in 2003 for one particular package we were presented with the following situation: opting out of the deal would make it possible to cancel subscriptions to individual journals and extra consortia related fees would not have to be paid. However the consortium advantages would be omitted meaning the average journal price would increase by 10 percent and e‐access to all other (cross‐access and freedom collection) titles in the package would of course be cancelled. As a consequence keeping access to just your base package would be as expensive as staying in the deal. Only by decreasing the number of subscriptions substantially could any savings be made.</p></sec><sec><title>Document supply under consideration</title><p>In the aftermath of the reluctant renewal of the package deal described above we considered several other alternatives that would enable us to do without bundling deals or at least lower the price for the whole of the consortium. One option was to divide the licenses to packages over the institutes; the gaps in the collections of the respective institutes would be filled by document supply. This idea met with several problems:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>Looking at the usage statistics this would be a very labor intensive endeavor: due to copyright restrictions the electronic articles have to be printed, scanned again and mailed. Belgian copyright law contains no special exception for document supply. Reproduction on paper for research or educational ends and means is possible (be it by scanning printed e‐articles) but under certain terms: the reproductions have to be non‐profit and may not harm normal publisher expectations. The use of document supply in this way is not a sustainable solution and above all, one never meant to be the mission of this service in the first place. If libraries start following this approach, it could lead to publishers taking measures to ban document supply altogether. They would have a viable argument in claiming that it was harming their normal expectations.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>The cost of document supply based solely on the usage statistics of the electronic journals which would no longer be available when a package deal was cancelled by one or more institutes, would turn out to be higher than the price of the package deal.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>If any consortium partner withdraws from the deal, the price for the remaining institutes would go up.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>And maybe above all the wide variety of document supply clauses in license agreements – if there are any at all – complicate matters: “because the terms of the contract proposed by the provider trump copyright law and do not have to be in agreement with it” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Croft, 2004</xref>).</p></list-item></list>All these calculations are hypothetical since the use of freely (to the end user) accessible e‐journals would probably not all translate into document supply demand. A more thorough preselection based on the abstracts would probably be made by users before making a document supply request instead of a quick click through to the full text.</p></sec><sec><title>Collection management in the area of package deals</title><p>When budget cuts are necessary – not the least to deal with package deal price increases – “smaller” titles, not belonging to package deals, are more easily sacrificed.</p><p>Because of the size of the packages, the evaluation of the journals in them differs clearly from evaluation methods applied in the past. The ideal would be a thorough investigation of the whole package in co‐operation with subject specialists to check how unique certain titles are in their content and how they fit with the rest of the collection (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Tattersall, 2003</xref>).<disp-quote><p>There is even more that has changed in the librarian's responsibility. He or she cannot choose what electronic journals to buy anymore. It is the publishers who decide what goes into the package and librarians are gently forced to take the whole. The price for part of the package can sometimes even be higher than the price for the whole package once you try to be creative and think for yourself. Users' statistics make clear, at the end of the year, that a lot of journals are not or hardly ever used. But they are in there and they remain there. Of course presenting a package instead of offering the possibility of choice, gives the publisher less administrative work and an easier electronic set up. In short “choice” is a waste of time for the publisher (…) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Van Peteghem, 2005</xref>).</p></disp-quote>In practice, pressured for time, decisions for the purchase of a package are often based on quantitative data: the cost of and the number of titles already subscribed to, the number of new titles and the cost of purchasing them individually are weighed against the price of the package deal as a whole. This quantitative approach often results in a positive evaluation. The input of the end‐users which has always been an important guide in building the collection is now lost. Ways have to be found to involve end‐users again in this process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Van Kiel and Van Wonterghem, 2005</xref>).</p><p>Year after year libraries put in extra efforts to follow the demands of publishers, sometimes at the cost of other valuable parts of the collection. The effect of rising journal costs is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1220350203004">Figure 4</xref>.</p></sec><sec><title>Saying no</title><p>It is hard for libraries to account for the cancellation of established subscriptions; especially when their patrons are not aware of the dynamics of the information market. Because of this external pressure it is the consortia themselves who keep the information monopolies alive. If keeping the deal at all costs remains the goal, no leverage will be left in the negotiations with publishers.</p><p>That there is another way was proven in 2002 by Cornell University that eliminated 200 titles from their Elsevier package followed by Harvard and the University of California. And in early 2007 the Norwegian University libraries rejected the e‐journal offer from Blackwell Publishing due to unacceptable conditions.</p><p>Libraries who take these bold initiatives underline the importance of good communication with their own research community to explain the reasons for canceling subscriptions. In an open letter the director of the Harvard University Library explained the decision to break the Elsevier deal by declaring that it was a choice for quality over quantity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Verba, 2004</xref>):<disp-quote><p>Although this will cause some inconvenience, experience has shown that withdrawing low‐use materials is often barely noticed. We know, for example, that more than 20 percent of our Elsevier titles are used less than two times per month, while 10 percent are used less than once per month. Bundling has created an artificial environment that sustains journals that might otherwise not be viable on their own. By canceling these little‐used materials, funds will become available to acquire resources that are in higher demand.</p></disp-quote>From our own experience and as described above, we know this would not automatically lead to any savings without canceling a substantial number of subscriptions, next to losing all the perks of being in the big deal. Harvard cannot offer any definite information about the full impact of this decision since so many factors – managing the changes induced by this choice, the monetary cost and near unquantifiable factors such as changes to the collection – are involved. But we can imagine other long term advantages could have made this a profitable choice, e.g. a stronger position in negotiations with publishers and a better informed and understanding scholarly community to support the library in making these tough decisions. After all, as reported and in contrast to what many fear, these libraries could count on a lot of understanding. A decision like this is the best stimulus for the whole community to develop alternatives that are sustainable in the long‐term (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Gibbs, 2005</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>Alternatives with a future</title><p>In 1998 the Erasmus University of Amsterdam organized a symposium titled “Book or homepage”. Are libraries spending too much? The main issue discussed was whether e‐publishing could be the answer to the “serials crises”. Three alternatives were identified: universities (and university libraries) would themselves publish new e‐journals, pre‐print‐servers would be used and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) an organization wanting to reorganize the publication model could be supported. Eight years on, the “serials crisis” is more than ever a fact of life. The alternatives are the same but are meanwhile named: open access (OA) and open archives initiative (OAI). The technological barriers have fallen, other obstacles remain.</p><p>Open access is here to stay. The fact that publishers are also convinced of this shows in their efforts to gain more control over the phenomenon. For instance Springer Choice and many others now offer authors the option of paying for their articles to be made open access via their own portals, thus increasing visibility and as a consequence probably higher citation rates for the author. Taylor and Francis for example, charge the author a one time fee of $3,100 for this service. For the institute as a whole this system of course only brings extra costs with it since a subscription has to be retained to gain access to all the articles in the respective journals.</p><p>Many publishers allow authors to deposit articles in institutional repositories and this is becoming a requirement as many funding bodies require it as a condition of funding. However they emphasize the importance of the peer review process in order to maintain their dominant position. But then again there are those who do not see peer‐review as the holy cow of scientific publishing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Harnad, 2000</xref>) and ways other than the publisher orchestrating peer‐review can be found. Peer review is after all carried out by – again – the scholarly community themselves.</p><p>A more logical solution than paying publishers to make an article publicly available lies in the institutional repositories based on Open Archives Initiative Protocol on Metadata Harvesting (OAI‐PMH). Self‐archiving of their own scientific output in these institutional repositories is possible in an increasing number of institutes worldwide. The added value of individual repositories will only be fully realized when the systems are linked globally. This can in the long run trigger an evolution towards repositories functioning as independent document supply service kernels. However respecting standards and continuous co‐operation are central to the success of such a vision.</p><p>The major impediment for most repositories today is lack of content that has to be delivered by the research community. While technological development proceeds at high speed a JISC survey in the UK revealed that while there is willingness to self‐archive, few knew if their own institute has a repository (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Sparks, 2005</xref>). Other factors holding the scholarly community back from self‐archiving are the procedures that are regarded as time consuming and complicated and insecurity because of inadequate information about copyright protection of the deposited publications. To give repositories a real chance it is essential that libraries take the responsibility of (re‐)educating researchers and the broader user community, but also to thoroughly inform policy‐makers outside the institute.</p><p>The same can be said about other serious issues sustaining the serials crisis, such as the findings described in this article and new ideas about measuring impact, which after all have far reaching consequences for the whole of the scientific community. Consciousness of these issues is rapidly spreading amongst information professionals but the information flow often halts there. Sensitizing users and creating awareness about these issues should be an important task for the “new” librarian – the information specialist (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Van Kiel and Van Wonterghem, 2005</xref>).</p><p>As we have argued in this article, big deals, whilst offering more content, do not relieve the cost burden of libraries. Publishers continue to price highly at their peril. The continuing crushing hold of the big deal license agreements is accelerating the development and deployment of alternative business and publishing models. Well‐populated and linked institutional repositories are a real threat to the conventional commercial model. Costs and price will continue to grow for libraries and will fuel the drive for non‐commercial open access solutions.</p><p>From what we see (in Flanders) at this moment, the one thing lacking to empower these alternatives, is the essential and coherent co‐operation between libraries and between libraries and the scholarly community as a whole (research departments and funding bodies included). Although a first impulse towards it was given on the 13th of February 2007, when Belgium has signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. That same week, VOWB contributed to the policy debate on the scientific publication system during the EC conference in Brussels.</p><p>In the end, the scholarly community holds the key to future change in the accessibility of research output. Undoubtedly an important and new role in uniting forces and thus strengthening standardization and co‐operation lies with the library consortia, since they are the axis of collaboration between libraries.</p></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1220350203001"><label><bold>Figure 1<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>VOWB and the Elektron project</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1220350203001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1220350203002"><label><bold>Figure 2<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>The rapid growth of some publishers</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1220350203002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1220350203003"><label><bold>Figure 3<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Total number of titles available through package deals</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1220350203003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1220350203004"><label><bold>Figure 4<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>The effect of rising journal costs</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1220350203004.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Arbor</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Peak and Elsevier Science</italic></article-title>”, paper presentated at PEAK conference, 23 March, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.si.umich.edu/PEAK-2000/hunter.pdf">www.si.umich.edu/PEAK‐2000/hunter.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barwick</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Interlending and document supply: a review of recent literature – XXXII</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>126</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>32</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bergé</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Elektron: Elektronische informatie voor Vlaamse Wetenschappelijke bibliotheken</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Mediagids</italic></source>, No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>37</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>57</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bollen</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van de Sompel</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rick</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005a</year>), “<article-title><italic>A framework for assessing the impact of units of scholarly communication based on OAI‐PMH harvesting of usage information</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI4), 20‐22 October, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?confId=0514&view=standard&showDate=all&showSession=all&detailLevel=contribution">http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?confId=0514&view=standard&showDate=all& showSession=all&detailLevel=contribution</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bollen</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van de Sompel</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rick</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Processing and Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>41</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>1419</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>40</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bosmans</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Peeters</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>Overheidssteun onmisbaar bij de ontwikkeling van informatiebeleid: wetenschappelijke informatievoorzieningen in Vlaanderen?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Th@ma</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>36</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>40</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Croft</surname>, <given-names>J.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>electronic document delivery and the interlibrary loan workflow</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at the Northwest Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Conference, Portland, Oregon, September 16‐17.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Duranceau</surname>, <given-names>E.F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cornell and the future of the big deal: an interview with Ross Atkinson</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>127</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gibbs</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Walking away from the ‘big deal’: consequences and achievements</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>18</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>89</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>94</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guédeon</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>In Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing</italic></article-title>”, <italic>proceedings of the 138th Annual Meeting, Association of Research Libraries</italic>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html">www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harnad</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>The invisible hand of peer review</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Exploit Interactive</italic></source>, No. <issue>5</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/">www.exploit‐lib.org/issue5/peer‐review/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hedstrom</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Digital preservation: a time bomb for digital libraries</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Computers and the Humanities</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>31</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>189</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>202</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Information Access Alliance</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Letter from the Information Access Alliance to the US Department of Justice</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.informationaccess.org/wiley.blackwell.pdf">www.informationaccess.org/wiley.blackwell.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>OFT</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>The market for scientific, technical and medical journals: a statement by the OFT</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oft.gov.uk">www.oft.gov.uk</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sparks</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>JISC disciplinary differences report</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc">www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tattersall</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Big deals: reflections on electronic journal acquisition 1996‐2003</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>201</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tenopir</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Electronic publishing: research issues for academic librarians and users</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Trends</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>51</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>614</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>20</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van Kiel</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van Wonterghem</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>To a new balance of forces: how can librarians and researchers work together to regain control on the dissemination of scientific information?</italic></article-title>”, <italic>ELPUB 2005, Conference Proceedings</italic>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van Peteghem</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Online reference works/the librarian's point of view</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Brake</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Demoor</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Reference Works in the 21st Century</italic></source>, <publisher-name>KVAB</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Gent</publisher-loc>, p. <fpage>9</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Verba</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>A letter from Sidney Verba</italic></article-title>”, Harvard University Library notes, no. 1317, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/hul_notes_1317/verba.html">http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/hul_notes_1317/verba.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further Reading</title><ref id="frd5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Case</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information access alliance: challenging anticompetitive behavior in academic publishing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>C&RL News</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>65</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="frd1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dobreva</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Engelen</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>From author to reader: challenges in the digital content chain</italic></article-title>”, <italic>Proceedings of the 9th ICCC International Conference on Electronic Publishing ELPUB, 8‐10 June</italic>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.elpub2005.elpub.net/">www.elpub2005.elpub.net/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="frd2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hansen</surname>, <given-names>M.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>King</surname>, <given-names>D.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Comparing library and user related costs of print and electronic journal collections: a first step towards a comprehensive analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> No. <issue>10</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/montgomery/10montgomery.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/montgomery/10montgomery.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="frd3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morrison</surname>, <given-names>H.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The dramatic growth of open access; implications and opportunities for resource sharing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, p. <fpage>23</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>Corresponding author</title><p>Patricia Hellriegel can be contacted at: p_hellriegel@hotmail.com</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Patricia</namePart><namePart type="family">Hellriegel</namePart><affiliation>University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kaat</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Wonterghem</namePart><affiliation>Flemish Council of Research Libraries, Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="case-report" displayLabel="case-report"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-06-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose This paper sets out to give an overview of the history of electronic journal package deals in Flanders and the role of consortia. The influence of package deals on libraries' budget, collection management and their role in the advancing monopolization of the information market are highlighted. The article also seeks to clariy why package deals were so attractive in the beginning but turned into a poisoned chalice for many. As an illustration of why it is so hard to get out of a deal, an average package deal license agreement is described. Designmethodologyapproach The paper uses personal experience and views supported with background literature. Findings The article advocates better cooperation between libraries and directed communication with the scholarly community which hold the key to making alternatives work. Originalityvalue A resource for those not completely familiar with package deals and their wide influence. The available alternatives and the remaining obstacles are described.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Purchasing groups</topic><topic>Document delivery</topic><topic>Digital libraries</topic><topic>Electronic journals</topic><topic>Belgium</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Interlending & Document Supply</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CBM">Collection building & management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LISE">Library & information services</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CONS">Consortia</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-SREV">Stock revision</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-DOCD">Document delivery</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LDG">Lending</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0264-1615</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">ilds</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/ilds</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>35</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>66</start><end>73</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754060</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">1220350203</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">1220350203.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">02641610710754060.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000134 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000134 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Belgique
|area= OpenAccessBelV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:3B0DC65F83A5FB65519CAAAF5EE7BA530307F126
|texte= Package deals unwrapped or the librarian wrapped up Forced acquisition in the digital library
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |