Steven Zink of the University of Nevada at Reno provided a background overview of the significant advances in technology since 1969 that have contributed to the current state of affairs in scholarly communication and publishing.

Zink noted that the library never has been the scientist's first stop for information. The first stop is one's own office, then guy next door (or on email); the last resort is grad student sent to library. We must also be aware of Ziff's law, which states that if it is easier to acquire, it will be preferred, even over more correct, authoritative information.

Scholars have been found not to be using the literature that has been produced as the result of federal research support. Studies have indicated that there is little evidence that millions of dollars worth of scientific literature is being used.

Zink has been doing consulting for publishers and has been an editor for 15 years. Scholarly journals have been rising in price and losing subscriptions. Eventually there would be one copy costing $1.5M. However, the publishers are beginning to see in themselves an apt analogy with the airline industry. The airlines have realized that they are better off at the bottom line if the discount seats sell so that they are filled rather than flying their planes with empty seats. It is a similar realization by the publishers that present us with an opportunity for making advantageous deals.

Publishers finding even [librus] negotiating like used car salesman; they saw consortium pricing as a way out, dealing with fewer people. NV had done a lot with consortia for awhile. It is believed that because of the advent of Internet2, NSF may have interest in seeing its EPSCoR libraries provide better access to information in order to better utilize Internet2 capacities.

It was also noted that the UK, Canada, and Australia have national deals for electronic access to significant segments of the scientific literature. This approach will probably not scale in the United States at the national level. However, a smaller and discrete group such as the NSF-EPSCoR libraries might learn from this model. There is also risk that the EPSCoR states, being the poorest in the U.S., could end up being the information paupers of the English-speaking western nations, further disadvantaging EPSCoR researchers and eroding the progress intended by the EPSCoR program.

It is evident that in order to influence science, libraries must get the relevant literature on to the scientist's desktop.

The UN-Reno library has more electronic journals than paper; MSU-Bozeman is fast approaching this goal as well.

Bruce Morton (MSU-Bozeman) stated that he did not envision it as being politically realistic to expect to ask NSF to fund journal acquisition or access per se. Rather, it would be far more practical and pragmatic to explore forming an EPSCoR library looking at a buying group.

As an example for what might be achieved, MSU has been spending $250k for 145 journals; for an additional $70k, it was able to provide access to the entire Elsevier package of 1200+ journals. MSU's average price for an Elsevier journal is now less than $300, this includes Brain Research. UNR has acquired 2000 titles in its heaviest research areas, worth $3.5M at list prices, for $138k.

There is always likely a point beyond which the per unit cost of a journal will not drop. The publisher just multiplies it out. However, publishers are finding the points at which they will not negotiate.

Discussion of Consortial Models, etc.

It was asked as to whether ARL's SPARC initiative has a consortial rate?

MSU used an infusion of new IDC dollars to leverage its Elsevier deal.

Imbedded in the NSF IDC formula is 2.7% for libraries.

Zink never lets university attorneys see agreements. They don't deal with copyrights at NV. Do patents, but no CR, licensing. At MSU, the attorney may or may not be involved on an ad hoc basis, at the request of the library.

LSU is part of a state consortium. It relied on eight years soft money before it could get state funding. Relieves stress on institutional budgets.

"Sustainable infrastructure" - Ariel networks. Back files that we could own and sustain. Several disciplines use back files.

There was discussion as to what would make an EPSCoR consortium different from any we are already in? Discussion then moved to questions about what needs to be archivable.

Administration of a consortium comes down to one person who has another job. Scenarios were explored where there might be an agency [mgt.] buyout from someone else? What should be the focus of this group?

UNM - every faculty member has an account with CISTI. He/she just pays the bill.

It was asserted that archived information would be needed for continuing access. There was some disputation of this, however. The thinking was that as long as someone is archiving then it is not necessary for everyone to do so. Is Ohio Link archiving Elsevier? The Center for Research Libraries (CRL) is considering archiving. B. Winters did licenses for Galileo in Georgia. Purchased core set for everyone. Then added things via tiered purchasing for academic libraries at the big four institutions. So, it would be possible to have sub-consortia to buy information in which the larger group is not interested.

MSU has been a member of part of SPARC as a matter of moral imperative. However, for FY02, it is rethinking this. We are in the midst of a sea change in scholarly communication. When happens, will happen quickly, but not necessarily soon. It was asserted that providing faculty with publishers e-packages will actually accelerate the transition to predisposition for e-publication; first as consumers of information and then as producers. It is a way--perhaps the most effective way--of making faculty e-aware.

There is a need to demonstrate a linkage between desktop delivery and research productivity; NSF should have an interest in this. Also, new graduates, new PhDs expect this; could negatively affect recruitment of new faculty.

The "EPSCoR" affiliation label may provide leverage for negotiation. "ARL" label, publishers know what to expect, i.e., $$. But EPSCoR designation implies limited means. Some aren't even able to talk to vendors. EPSCoR would be new customers' top publishers who have heretofore made little or no market penetration with this group.

There was discussion of publishers being under attack. It was noted that it might be politically as well as economically appealing to some publishers to do business with an EPSCoR group so as to blunt the criticism that they have been receiving from many in the library community.

There was discussion of the overhead cost of consortia. Some of us are already giving voluntarily to efforts like this. Are there ways to accomplish an EPSCoR buying group without the high overhead that is common with many consortia? Consortium overhead needs to be simple; mostly for bargaining, not administrative purposes. Be bold! Ask for moon, then back off. But publishers are getting wiser, seeing point they won't go below--but they seldom reveal what that point is.

Put full text out there, and researchers will use it. So, we should be very concerned that we supply quality information.

The cost for aggregator databases is high. Some still couldn't participate. It was mentioned that additional costs might be impossible for libraries with flat budgets. This provoked some discussion that flat budgets do not preclude the reallocation of resources to leverage additional resources. "If we want to do business differently, we must do business differently." It may not be necessary for everyone to be a player in every prospective deal; means and inclinations will vary and that is OK. Ultimately, there are two viable sources of serials funding--new dollars and reallocated dollars.

Adding e-journal packages, as UNR and MSU have done, can increase institutional reputation, help faculty recruitment and retention, and influence faculty and institutional competitiveness and productivity. MSU, from 1985-2000, was reduced by more than 1500 titles. In last 2 years, have added 2000 electronic titles.

The meeting moved to the discussion of potential strategies for an EPSCoR libraries coalition. A consensus evolved that, initially at least, a simpler approach would likely be more successful. Nevertheless, something could be accomplished to improve the perception of what library is doing. There exists here a real opportunity. How great an opportunity depends on us. We must keep libraries relevant to administration because administration will continue to have growing options.

If we are successful in doing something, our respective congressional delegations could/ would hear of it; it is believed that we could/would receive support for an EPSCoR libraries consortial initiative to level the STM playing field. EPSCoR congressional delegations are collectively quite influential.

The EPSCoR libraries concept has some powerful affiliations that might be leveraged: NSF name! Internet2 with lots of capacity unused; EBSCO now Internet2 vendor--perhaps I2 connectivity is one carrot for vendors doing business with this group. Internet2 is not being used very much. Congress not happy about Internet2 underutilization! CISCO, others, have been complaining that NSF should not be subsidizing it. A good use for I2 would be delivering information, including video stream, to EPSCoR researchers.

It was generally agreed that an EPSCoR library group would have attractive options and opportunities, but that we should proceed deliberately, at first keeping it simple.

Licenses will tend to be institution-based, not state or consortium-based. The question of support for health sciences was raised as a potential first target, since it was probably the single, general disciplinary area where there was the greatest commonality. Limited health sciences information is a multi-state problem.

Renegotiate contracts on basis of use.

No absolutes in licensing? Actually more flexibility than there used to be. Why should they care? They can fly with empty seats or they can fill the seats at discounted prices.

Afternoon session

At the outset of the afternoon session, a straw poll was taken to get a sense of which electronic journal packages and electronic bibliographic/abstract databases to which the EPSCoR currently have access libraries.



It is striking how little market penetration that these publishers have made in the EPSCoR library market. The analog of this observation is that EPSCoR researchers have limited access to the core scientific literature in many cases. Another interesting observation is that there is a prevalence of subscription to some of the primary scientific bibliographic tools, which without parallel access to the scientific literature itself serves to raise researcher frustration levels and jeopardizes productivity.

It was agreed that the aforementioned publisher suites and bibliographic databases have the makings of core target list. Those who get those might be able to reduce price if a deal were to be leveraged for the EPSCoR group.

It was the meeting organizers' sense that we are expected to preset EPSCoR with the outline of a plan--to go to EPSCoR offices in each state. There was, however, a question raised as to how EPSCoR is handled in each state.

Discussion turned to what is to be the strategy for the EPSCoR libraries group. Sources of funds were discussed in the categories of local library budgets, local institutional budgets, state (i.e., statewide consortial models such as those in Louisiana, Georgia, or Ohio), or state EPSCoR offices. In the case of the latter there is "technical assistance" money that may be available. NSF, of course, is another potential source as a grantor or supplementer. Another source of potential dollars is IDCs from local institutions. If the concept under consideration is implemented, there should then also be freed up some savings from new and/or renegotiated deals that can be reinvested. There was some agreement about the wisdom of avoiding dependence on soft money.

There was discussion about the need for the EPSCoR libraries to have a champion at each state EPSCoR office for our initiative, in order to blunt any adverse reaction from the research community, which may view EPSCoR dollars as an entitlement.

The poll above indicates how little market penetration these vendors have made in the EPSCoR states. Discussion moved to the question of priorities. There seem to be two strategies that might be pursued: 1. Negotiate for the ones we already have 2. Negotiate for the ones we don't have; in this case, we shall need to prioritize. It was also noted that we should consider pricing, which could affect which ones we could do. The consensus was that we want a quick win; but what constitutes a win-the number of participants, money saved, etc.? Should we focus on higher priced or mid-range journals? It is thought that it is important that we score a success soon in that it may prompt others to join us.

Kluwer/Plenum, based on what some have seems doable; 300ish Kluwer journals at cost of paper plus consortial fee. (about 5-8k or so) and have to cancel paper; however, ILL orders can be filled. Blackwell Science deal may be similar. Load locally, use own search engine, or use theirs. UNM is $2,800 more per year. This approach would bring a large medical/health sciences e-journal component which seems relevant across many of the EPSCoR institutions.

In a good contract, the smallest schools do best, but every participant should be a winner.

Academic’s Ideal is based on the common holdings of a buying group. What the EPSCoR libraries hold in common would be a lot.

Elsevier would make bigger splash: 1200 journals.

Elsevier moving profit center to electronic, away from paper. Elsevier is all or nothing, however; cannot reduce if price spikes nor can granular cuts be done. Will retain profit margin (as will any sensible publisher). Cutting paper ok but only if faculty are ready for it. Indexes are waste of time for most researchers; they want to go from a citation to full text to citations to full text, etc.

MSU (and others) has lower rate of increase every year for 3 years from Elsevier; this not only saves money but permits planning based on a one rate of inflation, which of and in itself has value. In case of catastrophe, look for a different model, e.g., document delivery. The notion that the publisher is holding all the cards is not true.

LSU has unmediated document delivery, but it has 12k electronic journals. Check those pages! LSU is not as concerned with archiving. Faculty want/need information on the desk top. They don't care about much else.

JSTOR - humanities, social science folks are coming around. Desk-top delivery is not just a science issue.

Some caveats/reservations mentioned: State $ problematic. Not all states have state network.

Some folks may have large investment in paper. It was reiterated that not everyone has to play all the time.

There was some discussion of the politics of involving non-research institutions. Non-EPSCoR schools on coattails, do as EPSCoR states. Tribal colleges would also make attractive political allies. Also, do legislatures have to match EPSCoR money? It could be a potential land mine if we were to go multi-type right away.

The consensus was that we should determine who among us has an attractive deal and try to expand it for the EPSCoR group; thereafter tier it up. Web of Science would make a big splash. However, one can link citations only if the library has the e-journals. Back files are a one-time expense; maybe ask for funds. Web of Science really is academic. Extreme costs. [01]: $75k/yr., $125k back file. It was suggested that the group put this off until there is new ownership.

Kluwer-Plenum is strong in health sciences.

Elsevier: MSU went from 145 titles to 1200; from paying $250k to paying $320k. Cluster fee? Fees for certain non changeable? Could cancel. Pay more. Inflation rate for 3 yrs. They dropped 143 paper titles.

Motion was made and passed to pursue a Kluwer/Plenum deal. The motion passed. Strategy was discussed, and it was decided that the EPSCoR group would attempt to work this deal through the Alliance in New Mexico.

Motion was made and passed to pursue a Blackwell Science deal, which is, again, primarily biomedical in its focus. Get a price quote, what to take to participate. Would the NM Alliance be the group’s agent? Will depend on who does negotiating. Alliance cannot promise anything, but Johann van Reenen will explore possibilities.

Participants were requested to get information regarding FTEs, current subscription lists to Johann van Reenen at the University of New Mexico.

Discussion moved to details and mechanics of consortial approaches. We do not want an unwieldy apparatus. Have to have cost quote for everyone to run by players. Unless there is an executive director to divide up costs, each player needs to be invoiced separately. It was asserted that we need an organizational structure to allow for rapid interchange of information. How much cost for structure? We should probably seek money to start up to run a prototype EPSCoR libraries group organization May be able to pay agency to get this going.

Barbara Winters, Ruth Jackson, Bruce Morton, and Mara Saule volunteered to work on writing a proposal to NSF.

It was decided that the EPSCoR libraries group here convened would henceforth be know as the EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG).

Bruce Morton will see that communication goes back to EPSCoR offices in the state to see if there is a desire to expand participation in ESIG. It is likely that this communication will occur via the Montana EPSCoR office.

Bruce Morton will explore doing a quickie grant to the EPSCoR Foundation to be used to set up interim structure; Barbara Winters will assist. Ed Abbott will contact the EPSCoR office in DC and provide information regarding appropriate contacts.

Karen Rupp-Serrano volunteered to poll for the top ten information resource title requests. Send her who is considered to be EPSCoR institutions, and who the contacts are.

It was noted that five states were not present at this meeting because they probably did not get word of the meeting. It was noted that word about this meeting went out through the various state EPSCoR offices. To this point, it has been EPSCoR-driven.

MSU will set up an ESIG listserv.

There was discussion about if or when to have another meeting of this group. Two alternative approaches were discussed: A meeting scheduled ad hoc and held at a participating institution or have participants come a day early or stay a day later at the summer American Library Association meeting. The latter would be less expensive since most ESIG participants would be attending the ALA conference anyway.

How do we keep in contact, how keep energy up? Listserv? Technical assistance funds?

There is some urgency if we wish to affect 2002 subscriptions, since most of us do serial renewals in September.

It was thought that a web page for ESIG was needed; it would have, at least, a list of members with links to library web pages. MSU committed to do this.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

The group reconvened for an informal dinner at John Bozeman’s Bistro in the heart of downtown Bozeman.

Participant's list