8 minute read
Licensing for Libraries During the Pandemic
ADVISOR INTRODUCTIONS From Your Managing Editor
Licensing for Libraries During the Pandemic
doi:10.5260/chara.22.2.3
George Machovec (Managing Editor, The Charleston Advisor)
Libraries and the publishing community have a symbiotic relationship. For many years, the two were in somewhat of a steady state relationship where purchasing and licensing were being driven by local needs, available funding, changes in technology, and competition in the marketplace. The 2020 pandemic has caused a major upheaval for all library types with local needs and available funding radically changing. In academic libraries, the move to digital resources has been expedited as faculty and students have limited access to print material. Funding for both academic and public libraries has taken a dramatic turn as materials budgets are being slashed, causing havoc for not only renewals but also new subscriptions. Most libraries are not licensing new journal, book, or database packages due to limited funding and the need keep existing resources available. At the same time, substantial cancellations are taking place as libraries try to survive the downturn. This is affecting not only local libraries but also consortia as these cancellations are affecting group purchases with many libraries exercising financial exigency clauses to remove themselves from unaffordable subscriptions.
Since most libraries are experiencing some level of budget cuts, the annual inflation rates historically expected for most products and services are currently not tenable. At minimum, most libraries would like to see zero percent inflation rates on renewals for the next few years, if not downright reductions in base costs. Publishers and vendors must realize that this request is not to be difficult but libraries may not have the funding and are often being forced to spend additional money on pandemic related expenses, often being pulled from the collections budget.
Vendors and publishers are also feeling the financial squeeze as libraries cancel or reduce their spending for subscriptions and one-time expenses. New products or services, which often took years to develop, are seeing very little uptake in the library community unless they are crucial to an organization or perhaps related to managing the downturn. Pandemic related products are being introduced by many vendors and publishers. Those that are offered for free or low cost are welcome and appreciated (see review of the ProQuest Coronavirus Research Database in this issue as an example). Many publishers have provided custom portals to articles related to Covid-19 and the pandemic and made them Open Access. This move is not only welcomed by researchers and scholars but also the general public who might want to view research that has not been filtered through the lens of politics and interpretation by others. Google Scholar (<https:// scholar.google.com/>) has provided links on its home page to many of these free publisher portals as well as doing its usual indexing. <george@coalliance.org>) Librarians are employing many different tools to help in determining what to cancel or purchase in the downturn.
Unsub (<https://unsub.org/>), formerly called unpaywall, has been developed by non-profit Our Research (<https://ourresearch.org/>) to help librarians make better decisions on how to cancel or cut back on big deal journal packages (see review in this issue). The software has loaded subscription information from major publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Wiley, SpringerNature) and a library can upload usage data and perpetual access information to model costs for ILL if a subscription were reduced or eliminated. This can be done at the individual library level and the company has recently added a consortia dashboard for those that want to do group modeling. This software was originally developed for those working on negotiating transformative agreements to move publishers towards Open Access, but has found additional utility in the economic downturn if a library or consortium just needs to cut back or cancel. A very low cost service well worth the money.
Gold Rush Decision Support (<https://www.coalliance.org/software/ gold-rush>) was developed by the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries and has a journal comparison module. The service has over 1,700 title lists covering publishers, aggregators, and abstracting/indexing services to allow libraries to do title-level comparisons between packages. A unique feature is that it also includes abstracting and indexing services. It is possible to quickly model what would happen if a product were cancelled in comparison to other related products. Once again, Gold Rush is a very low cost solution being offered by a non-profit organization. ProQuest and some other vendors have also developed similar tools but these are often only accessible as part of larger packages to which a library must subscribe.
The Charleston Advisor (<http://charlestonco.com/>) and its sister database, ccAdvisor (<http://ccadvisor.org/>), are also useful tools in determining what to acquire, cancel, or retain. In addition to providing detailed objective reviews by experts in the field, each review provides a related products section where readers can be directed to other similar services, some of which may be Open Access.
Many economists have suggested that the return to “normal” will take many years or even fundamentally change how society operates. The economic impacts on libraries will continue to be a major issue with federal, state, and local funding being altered for years to come. As libraries economically struggle and alter their services to meet patron needs, the fundamental nature of what can be realistically licensed will adjust with lower expectations. n
Title of Product or Resource: The official product name. Reviewed by: Name, affiliation and email of the reviewer Original Date of Review: Date of the initial Charleston Advisor review of the product. Date Last Updated: If the product has been reviewed before this is the date of the latest version Composite Score: The arithmetic composite average of all of the elements in the score box Abstract: An executive summary of the key points of the review Pricing Options: Pricing options available to subscribers. Product Description: A narrative description of the product and its content. User Interface: A detailed examination of the user interface, navigation and searching within the product Critical Evaluation: Examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the product. Competitive Products: A brief description of other products or services that compete with the product that is being reviewed Contract Provisions: Detailed description of the options and features of the standard contracts offered by the vendor. Authentication: Description of the authentication and security options available to subscribers. References: Citations for other reviews of the product or related materials. Score Box: The composite “score” for each resource is based on four elements—Content, Searchability, Price, and Contract Options. Contact Information Box: Corporate address, phone, fax, e-mail, and URL. Metadata Box: This box includes elements assigned to each review for creating facets and better searching in the online Choice Charleston Advisor. Included are Free Text Keywords, Primary Category, Secondary Categories, Type of Product being Reviewed, Target Audience, Access (purchasing model) The Charleston Advisor © Copyright 2020
Charleston Advisor Rating Guidelines
As a critical evaluation tool for Web-based electronic resources, The Charleston Advisor will use a rating system which will score each product based on four elements: content, searchability, price and contract options/features. A Composite Score averaging these elements will provide an “at a glance” rating which will be prominently displayed near the top of each review. The rating system will be based on a five-star model (with one star being the lowest and five being the highest). As each of the four elements are rated they should be assigned a ranking with granularity no finer than one-half star (e.g., 3.5 stars). These will then be equally weighted and averaged for an overall Composite Score. It is realized that any ranking system is open to personal opinion and interpretation; however, it is recommended that brief evaluative comments be made following each ranking, especially in cases where a product or service receives less than the highest value in a category. TCA is meant to be a critical evaluation tool—not just a descriptive review of a product. Our reviewers are tough! They take great care in the ranking section of the review since this will be one of the most visible yet controversial components of TCA. The following brief guidelines will help in understanding the ranking process. Content Special attention is paid to the intended audience for which the product is targeted—does the product meet the intended user needs? The content should be compared with competitive products in the marketplace and any major omissions or special strengths will be factored into the rating.
Searchability The user interface and search engine are evaluated in terms of meeting the intended purposes. Is the product intuitive and easy-to-use? Are advanced searching features available if the product warrants it? Are graphics and other screen design features in keeping with the intent of the product and its audience? Is the search engine reliable and does it provide consistent results? Are there special features, installation requirements, plug-ins or other special software requirements? If so, is the product easy to use or more of a nuisance?
Price The value of the product in relation to its cost must be assessed. A high price alone does not necessarily mean a low ranking, but the product is evaluated in terms of content, user interface and value added features. However, vendors who resell duplicative content in different “packages,” with enough difference to force libraries into acquiring these different packages, may be marked down. Vendors who are flexible (or inflexible) in their pricing options will be noted.
Contract Options/Features The contract provisions that accompany a service will be viewed in terms of accepted national guidelines (e.g., those adopted by major organizations such as the International Coalition of Library Consortia, Association of Research Libraries, ALA). Factors which might be considered include: definition of acceptable users, archiving provisions (when appropriate), lease/ownership of data, Interlibrary Loan provisions, redistribution of information provisions, or other peculiar or interesting issues.
Composite Score This overall score will be calculated based on an averaging of the above four elements with equal weighting for each element. The Composite Score has been rounded up to the next highest quarter star when necessary (e.g., 3.625 stars).
In the case of Opposing Opinions, an Opposing Composite Score will be calculated, yielding a Combined Composite Score. Not all reviews will have an Opposing Score. n
