Jolanta Stepniak ELSEVIER CONSORTIUM - A New Access to E-journals
	Warsaw University Library
	This article was translated thanks to the grant received from the Open Society Institute

The Elsevier Consortium was organized between October 1999 and May 2001. Intensive negotiations between the publisher and the interested Polish institutions lasted for 20 months before agreement was reached on the technical issues and preparations for the launching of "ScienceDirect".The Consortium`s efforts concluded with the installation of this database in Warsaw. Was there enough time? And, did the results justify the considerable effort?

The "ScienceDirect" database functioned for 16 months (from January 2001 until May 2002). In total, the users in 50 Consortium libraries as well as a limited number of other registered users, who were only involved in a test period, downloaded two million full text articles. About 150,000 articles were downloaded per month. On the face of it, these numbers seem to indicate that the Consortium was quite successful and was worth the effort.However,since it was impossible to determine how these downloaded articles were actually put to use, one needs to be cautious in using the number of downloads as a quantitative measure for valuation purposes. There is a reason to be cautious since frequently, the number of articles downloaded from a particular IP address was so high that it suggested that users were stockpiling these articles, not to satisfy an immediate research need but rather to fulfill some atavistic need to POSSESS, a logical reaction after so many years without easy access to worldwide literature. In spite of the fact that all the downloaded texts would become a common archive for all Consortium members, users did not want to trust totally or rely on this archive. After all these downloads, one would like to be able to measure qualitative success such as a rapid rise of scientific achievement of researchers. In scholarly publishing, measurement of this success traditionally has been through tracing the level of citations to a scientist's published paper. Can we expect then a rapid rise of scientific achievement from the researchers and institutes who were especially active in their downloading practices? It is still too soon to know the answer to that question. In spite of these unknown factors, it is instructive to examine the organizational solutions that were adopted to supply the users with an ideal service and to review the situation to examine if the best access conditions were negotiated in the Elsevier Consortium.

It is worth pointing out what organizational solutions were taken to serve the users in the best way.

Here it is also necessary to explain the legal term consortium. Applying this term to any group of institutions commonly realizing any enterprise is a misuse from a legal and formal point of view. "The aim of every consortium is a fund concentration due to which the reach of the commercial aims connected with huge costs or material expenditure are possible"^[1] [and further] "...a consortium is a contractual product. So it can only be created by a contract".^[2] Functioning of the "library consortia" has been different so far.

For example, with the LINK Consortium as well as the IDEAL Consortium,there was no agreement between the libraries. ^[3] In each case one of the libraries took the effort to talk with publishers and /or the vendors of the e-journals. Having no official authorization but a complete acceptance by all interested parties,one library represented other libraries during the negotiations. In both cases most organizational matters connected with the "consortium" existence involved vendors of the printed journal version. The organizing library`s task was to negotiate the license agreement, organize access to the database, calculate and collect money, and maintain the current list of the members of a consortium. Officially every institution taking part in an agreement was independent in the relationship to the vendor - the publisher. Every library individually decided whether to join the consortium the next year and they paid for their service individually.

In 1999 Polish libraries had some experience in taking advantage of a consortium access to full text journals but few had any organizational experience in this matter. The first Polish consortium offering e-journals was launched only in 1999. The LINK Consortium was organized by the Main Library of the Warsaw University of Technology with SWETS Verlag as well as the Springer Verlag Publisher. It offered for the first time in large, accesss to e-journals belonging to one publisher (nearly 400 full text scientific journals). An agreement between the publishers, the vendor and the representative of Polish libraries described the conditions of current access to the database as well as the payment. From the point of view of an acquisition policy the agreement had a visible fault- it did not solve the property problem of purchase of data by the consortium. Unfortunately in Poland there was not any organization or consortium that owned the data. In fact there were some libraries that purchased, on commonly negotiated conditions and for a limited time, access to the same database.

The Elsevier Consortium from the very beginning accepted other organizational assumptions compared to earlier created consortia. First of all the partners in the agreement were defined in a different way, solving the problem of offsetting and archiving the data. Yet, this does not mean that we were successful in creating a formal consortium. A consortium agreement was never created, although it should have been, before the talks were started and surely before signing an agreement with the database supplier. While organizing the Elsevier Consortium, a formal consortium agreement was replaced by "letters of intent", sent to the Consortium organizers by all interested institutions, declaring acceptance of the conditions and the finance for participation. Some institutions sent in their intention letters something like an authorization to sign the Consortium agreement on their behalf. These letters did not include any tasks concerning the Consortium; they were rather some kind of a guarantee for the coordinators. It was assumed that the formal agreement could be signed for given sums of money (Consortium payment). At this stage the sums were not known. In the end, the agreements with libraries were signed a few months later, after signing the agreement with the database supplier.^[4] In spite of this, we use the expression "consortium" to stress the effect which refers to the concentration of capital to take the advantage. The basic difference compared to other Polish library consortiums is that the Elsevier Consortium defines current organizational tasks realized because of the accepted license conditions.^[5]

The first talks on the problem of launching the Elsevier Consortium were begun in the autumn of 1999. It is difficult to say now who the initiator was. The publisher representative met with academic librarians as well as these from the scientific institutes. The Warsaw University authorities represented by the Warsaw University Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling (ICM UW) and the Warsaw University Library`s staff took part in the negotiations.^[6] In a natural way the representatives of these two institutions took the initiative of the further negotiations, on behalf of other libraries.

The involvement of ICM UW in negotiations made the discussion, although theoretically, possible regarding two kinds of licenses: on-line (directly from the publisher`s server as in all other consortiums) or on-site. From the very beginning it was obvious that we would prefer to purchase the on-site license with an archive on the ICM`s server. An additional argument for choosing this option was the financial support from the State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN). Because of the huge costs of this enterprise this decision was crucial.The wait for the final and positive decision by the KBN concerning financing of 50% of the project ended in 2000.

The vendors of the printed journals did not take part in negotiations carried on with the publishers, which is a difference compared to other Polish library consortiums. It was the publisher's decision who does not sell journals through the agents. The effect of this decision was the necessity to calculate the payment, between others, for the access to the database differently for every member of the Consortium.

The Elsevier Consortium in Poland works on the basis of agreements signed in January 2001, between the Warsaw University, the publisher Elsevier Science, and between the Warsaw University and every member of the Consortium (at the beginning - 26, now 50 libraries). Immediately after signing the license agreement for (Science Server) software ICM UW installed the database. Installation lasted four months. During this time the Consortium participants had unlimited access to the database from the server in Frankfurt belonging to the HEBIS/Hessen Consortium. The installation of the database on our own server, although a big enterprise, will not be a subject of the analysis.

The three-year license agreement for the database "ScienceDirect" subscription and for the purchase and use of the licensed software -Science Server contained:

• A list of the members of the Consortium;
• A license scope-a complete title list of the Elsevier Science journals subscribed to the users of Consortium, the list is a base for access to the full text;
• The place of setting the database -(ICM UW);
• Updating and the rules of using the database (e.g. strongly limited for interlibrary loans);
• IP addresses-authorize to enter the database;
• Payment conditions and the time span of the agreement;
• Principles of collecting the statistics

In its crucial part the agreement license is a standardized legal text, used - as it seems to be - by the publisher for all consortia.^[7] The coordinators could hardly change the license. On demand of Polish libraries, in a 3rd part, the article 3.5 was included. This article incorporated a few changes concerning the acquisition policy for current journals subscriptions. All changes are included in an Attachment 3.1: Payment and the payment conditions, and they concern:

• Defining a stable price index concerning the printed version of journals which is used for subscription in the following year of Consortium. This index guarantees maintaining the lower then the catalogue rise of price and it counts only for the price to e-journal access, and is not taken into account when purchasing the printed version.
• Defining the percentage index of the Consortium member payment for access to the whole database, the Consortium property (titles subscribed by the Consortium members).
• Giving a guarantee to a free access to the archive, years 1995-2000, the property of a Consortium.

As a result of talks, Elsevier Science made concessions for the Consortium, and we are satisfied. The agreement text was the subject of an Internet discussion between the librarians. Thanks to it some crucial points have been discussed (e.g. the way to describe the database users; opportunity to have an access to the database by the patrons visiting the library).

The main part of the signed license was the necessity to maintain the same amount of money spent on printed version of journals as in the year prior to the launching "ScienceDirect". This point was not a question of discussion. So close connections of journal subscription of printed version and their electronic version is not very profitable for the Consortium. Even if we introduce correction to the license agreement to make possible match the subscribed journals list and the acquisition policy as well as purchase gradually more e-versions, it does not guarantee a free decision about removing printed titles. The policy of acquisition is based mainly on the sum of money so accepting this condition we realized all difficulties.

Theoretically the libraries are obliged to maintain only the subscription value, not the subscribed titles. So if one title is subscribed to 6-7 libraries, as often happens, only one printed version may be kept in one library. On the other hand it could be wise to purchase new titles so instead of 600 titles on the database list, we could have 1000 titles totally subscribed by libraries.

From June to September 2001 while preparing the subscription procedure for 2002, the participating libraries in the Elsevier Consortium exchanged many letters^[8] and the representatives held discussions in Warsaw. Unfortunately there was not any change on the journal title list. We should also keep in mind the fact that the academic libraries do not make decisions too often about changes in subscribing titles. It is because of the changes in the way of financing the foreign journals subscription in 2001. The decision about purchasing journals belong to the "sponsors" and "owners"- that is, faculties or institutes - who decide to pay for this or that journal title. From the formal point of view the journal belongs to the main library (the centralized procedure of subscription according to the Public Order Rule). So the faculties are interested in "their" journal titles familiar to represented branches, not in the advantage of other members of Consortium. For years the users used to read journals and now they still want "TO HAVE" a printed version, even if it is easier to have an access to e-journals.

The librarians did not decide to change the titles in subscription, possibly because of the short time of the existence of the consortia. In a good organization of a stock we take into account long years not just 2 or 3 years. Does it make any sense to cease current subscription only for the time when we have an access to ScienceDirect and subscribe to "something new" for a year or two?

There is also another question, if among Elsevier Science there are any other titles worth subscribing to, not already subscribed to the Consortium members. Polish libraries being in a difficult financial situation reviewed the title list many times. Only those that were very important were chosen. The only argument for any changes can be the statistics concerning the usage the titles not subscribed in a given library. It is very important for the libraries to think about Consortium, not only about a single library.

Adjustment of subscribed titles and the calculation of payment for access to the database is very hard work for the consortium organizers. Unfortunately some libraries do not know which journals are published by Elsevier Science. The publisher, based on the data from vendors, does not always correctly recognizes the single library. The Warsaw University Library mediates the procedure for both sides: the libraries and the publishers. This work, although it appears to be easy, it is very time consuming. The final report is sent to ICM UW where a membership fee is calculated. During the first year of the Consortium, these arrangements lasted all year long. Later, in May, we received data from the Elsevier database about registered consumers and their purchasing for a year 2002. Similar information will be available for the year 2003.

All organizational work is done as extended duty by three professionals (two from ICM UW and one from the Warsaw University Library). The users of Consortium are not charged for the maintenance or organizational costs - the only cost is the huge contribution of work done by the organizers of Consortium. All additional work, not realized by other Polish library consortia, result from the fact that database is situated in Poland (technical support). Also linking the conditions of access to e-journals with subscription of printed version creates additional, administrative work done without the participation of vendors of these journals. On the one hand to have the database in Poland, make possible archiving its scope-and it is a positive estimation, the others not, and the user cannot use the part of a database.^[9]

We have to remember about it while extending the agreement with Elsevier for a next year. The membership of the Elsevier Consortium has doubled during its 16 months in existence. Also the number of titles accessed in the ScienceDirect database has grown from 450 to 600. The Consortium is open to new members who are welcome in the first month of a term. The new libraries also have the possibility of a three month trial before they make a decision about entering a Consortium. Additional information is available at the home page of the Warsaw University Library http://www.buw.edu.pl/konsorc/elsevier-n.htm.

Footnotes

[1] L.Stecki: Konsorcjum Torun 1997, p.20

[2] Op.cit.,p.32.

[3] Academic Press Consortium, created in 2001 together with UMCS representing Polish libraries.

[4] Included in an agreement: "A consortium member is obliged to cooperate with the coordinator and other consortium members to plan the subscription of Elsevier Science printed journals to fulfill the requirements as far as the number of titles and value complete of printed journals are concerned. (The full text of Agreement is available):ftp://buwcd.buw.uw.edu.pl/BUWFTP/umowa.exe

[5] In 2001 EBSCO/EIFL Direct Consortium was created. Its organizer from the Polish side is Poznan Foundation of Academic Libraries(PFBN). It negotiates and settles accounts with EBSCO Publishing and OSI (belonging to the Soros Foundation ) which supports 27 East European countries.

[6] ICM UW - Warsaw University Interdisciplinary Centre for mathematical and Computational Modelling (one of five super computational centres financed by State Committee for Scientific Research and Warsaw University Library.

[7] Full text of agreement (database license and software) available:http://www.buw.uw.edu.pl/konsorc/liclok.htm and http://www.buw.uw.edu.pl/konsorc/licenss.htm

[8] The most interesting in the discussion was the opinion of Marta Kesik, a librarian from the Main Library of the Agricultural Academy in Lublin. She analyzed the usefulness of a few journals in some academic libraries (a letter from 19th June 2001). Changes in a subscription were also suggested by the librarians from the Medical Academy in Lublin. Both suggestions were not further discussed.

[9] The users of ScienceDirect database available from ICM UW do not have an access to full texts of all journals. The license limits our rights to the titles subscribed to the members of Polish Consortium. It is possible to view the table of contents of those titles that are not licensed. Totally there are registered over 1500 journals.

Translated by Jolanta Wróbel