Post-Cancellation Entitlement Registry Scoping Project Final Report by Jisc Collections

JISC COLLECTIONS Post-Cancellation Entitlement Registry Scoping Project

Introduction Definition Why is post-cancellation access important for libraries? Why an Entitlement Registry? Current practices regarding post-cancellation access rights in libraries Post-cancellation access rights data fields: lack of standardisation Publisher record-keeping: need for standardisation Verification Current or historical data? Key findings from the Entitlement Registry scoping study Recommendations Appendices

Introduction In the beginning, when the only option was to subscribe to a journal in print form, that was it! Postcancellation access (PCA) rights didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t exist and what you did with your paper copy was up to you. But when electronic versions of journals were made available, things became more complicated. At first the electronic version was seen merely as an accompaniment to the subscription, but in no time e-journals became more and more significant in library collections. The commercialisation of e-journals has brought with it electronic features, access types and subscription business models (mainly packages, licences and deals). In libraries, the introduction of e-journals to collections has been accompanied by a certain degree of scepticism from librarians. Some of the main concerns were and still are: 1

The consistency of their collections Issues of perpetual and post-cancellation access Loss of control of their holdings New requirements in such areas as cataloguing and providing access for library users

Despite these concerns, some librarians recognised the advantages of e-collections, including the amount of space saved and the fact that they increased the number of available resources and gave users more independence. However, a number of librarians remained over-protective of their libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s print collection (as far as their budget(s) allowed them to be). Whatever the librariansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach, the truth is that integrating e-journals into library collections has overloaded library staff. Over the years, periodical librarians have learnt to juggle the growing amount of work associated with acquisition and the demands of managing the journals within the limit of available resources, which have decreased continuously in terms of both staff and budgets. Those who have worked in a library know that it is impossible to do everything at once to the point that certain tasks (most of them tedious and time-consuming) are left unattended until a quieter moment arrives, even though this may be very seldom as far as the periodical librarian is concerned. One of these pending tasks seems to be the establishment of a process for recording PCA rights, the subject of this report. Of course, decisions regarding PCA rights have been (and are) made by most libraries, based on their priorities or on an ad-hoc basis. However, most libraries seem to lack clear and complete processes. Publishers are not doing any better. Their creativity and innovation are reflected in their subscription business models and in the products they make available, but not in the way in which they keep their records. As mentioned above, since e-journals were first introduced into library collections, PCA rights and perpetual access have been a concern for librarians. Perpetual-access concerns are being addressed by initiatives such as LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, PORTICO, etc. The same cannot be said for PCA rights. We havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t yet seen any commercial, institutional or community initiative and work directed at addressing the problem.

It is within this context that the JISC Collections (JC) Post-Cancellation Entitlement Registry Scoping Project has been designed and implemented. It has explored in some detail what would happen if an institution wanted to ascertain from a publisher what its PCA rights were. We worked with two test publishers, identified in this report as Publishers A and B. We made use of feedback and collaboration from 19 libraries. We ran a survey on the current practices of PCA entitlement in the libraries, we requested data for all the PCA entitlement for most of the participating libraries and we designed two verification workflows and drafted a verification agreement. In addition, we prepared and standardised the data, sent it to the libraries for verification and carried out the subsequent follow-up. Finally, we ran two workshops, one in London and one in Edinburgh, in association with EDINA1. Twenty library representatives from 19 universities from the Nesli2 and SHEDL members participated. This scoping project is the first documented experiment regarding PCA entitlement in the UK.

Definition Post-cancellation access entitlements specify the conditions that allow ongoing access to the journal volumes a subscriber has paid for. They are “...most commonly associated with e-journal licence clauses designed to provide assurance of continued access to subscribed material in certain circumstances, including post-cancellation…” (After Morrow et al 2008). Since 2000, post-cancellation access rights have been included in most NESLI2 agreements. The clauses are not standard but vary from publisher to publisher and have also changed over the years. This diversity means that interpreting the clauses requires time and effort and can be seen as a contributing factor in libraries’ lack of understanding of their PCA rights. As an example, a number of clauses specifying post-cancellation access rights are presented below. Access to all licensed content published during subscribed-to years only. Access to the rolling archives covering non-subscribed-to years will be lost after termination. However, since 2007 institutions have been

The Entitlement Registry Scoping Project was closely aligned with a separate and parallel strand of activity (PECAN 2) led by EDINA (http://edina.ac.uk/projects/pecan2_summary.html) .

accruing perpetual access, i.e. 2007 to 2010, to which access would be retained after termination. IOP Nesli2 2011-2012 Access after termination provisions would only apply if an institution cancelled their ScienceDirect access completely. At this point, access to subscribed titles, covering the period for which they were subscribed, would be available via ScienceDirect for an agreed access fee. Elsevier, Nesli2 2012 Post-termination access, via SAGE Journals Online, is given to all titles in the licensed material for the subscribed volume (rather than to just ‘subscribed’ titles). There is no post-termination access to the additional Backfile material (to 1999) unless a full-rate subscription was taken for those years. Sage, Nesli2, 2012 Access after Termination in the NESLi2 Licence: Post-termination access is granted to T&F subscribed journals only (whether print plus online or online-only), starting from the point when your institution first started subscribing to the title. Taylor and Francis, Nesli2, 2012 As of January 2007, post-termination access is available to content subscribed to during the ‘supply period’ (and to any other periods granted to the institution under previous licences as will be outlined in your NESLi2 licence agreement) but not to the backfiles that accompanied that content (the four-year rolling archive referred to in Section 7)….NPG would be willing to offer an incentive offer on the permanent postcancellation rights to these 4 years at the time of adding a new title so these can be added as firm years in the catalogue. This has not been taken forward further at this point. We shall consult with institutions at a later date on this matter. Nature, Nesli2, 2012

Why is post-cancellation access important for libraries? The libraries consulted gave the following reasons why PCA is important: Libraries must have something tangible to show for the years they subscribe to the big deals or to an individual title. Libraries have a responsibility to demonstrate the value of the resources they pay to access. Therefore, maintaining access to the additional value of the subscribed content, for the years the big deal was taken, is the minimum required for them to be demonstrating good stewardship.

Libraries need to have firm control of their holdings in order to take confident acquisition and stock-management decisions (i.e. weeding the paper collections) or if they want to participate in national initiatives such as UKRR. Libraries need to be prepared for any change that may occur in publishing patterns that could affect the consistency of their collections e.g. the current publishing trend seems to be toward discontinuing print copies, leaving online as the only version available for subscription. Libraries need to be able to respond to audit requests, demonstrating understanding of what has been paid for and what has been received (or entitled) in return.

Why an Entitlement Registry? The proposed Post-Cancellation Entitlement Registry (ER) would provide authoritative records of entitlement, which will be increasingly important when, as a result of the economic situation, libraries cancel journal deals and when the journals of societies and professional bodies (and their backfiles) move from one publisher to another. An authoritative record of entitlement would have the benefit of: Saving libraries time and duplicated effort. Providing an authoritative record and proof of a libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entitlement. This may be used to authorise access to archival runs of journals, whether that content is held on a publisherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s platform or in a preservation solution such as Portico. Providing access to an authoritative record to support a move from print+electronic to electronic only. Providing a data source for Knowledge Bases or a shared UK Knowledge Base. Developing a methodology for quality assurance and verification of entitlement records. Once operational, a central Entitlement Registry should also benefit publishers, as it should simplify library-publisher interaction.

Current practices regarding post-cancellation access rights in libraries 5

As one of our first activities, we ran an exploratory survey to enquire about the librariesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; current practices in recording PCA entitlement. We asked: when they verified their PCA entitlement; how the entitlement information was stored locally; and which sources of information they used to find out their entitlements and PCA rights. We sent these questions by email to Lis-Nesli-Reps and SHEDL mailing lists. In response, libraries gave different situations in which they implemented PCA rights management: As part of the subscription or renewal process At the moment of evaluating whether or not to move to an online-only subscription (if there is not perpetual [long-term] access, the subscription will remain in print or in print+online). When a library is subscribing or renewing a deal, it gets the lists of subscribed titles from the publisher, although these are checked only if time and resources are available. As part of the cancellation process When a library cancels or loses access to a single title for any reason, it will check if it has PCA. When a library cancels or changes a deal, it will if possible record PCA entitlement for the titles to which it is losing access. In most cases, the library staff will assume that they keep access and verify PCA for specific titles on an ad-hoc basis. As part of the general management of the collection When a title moves between publishers (information about this movement is found on publisher websites or on mailing lists, such as the TRANSFER mailing list). When a library is managing its collection e.g. weeding the printed copies. When there is a specific issue or on an ad-hoc basis. PCA rights are recorded locally: On an ERM system, where one has been implemented In spreadsheets In files, where a list of subscribed titles is filed with a copy of the licence.

The sources of information used by libraries are: Regarding entitlement holdings Libraries receive entitlement information from the publisher or agent. When possible, they check this information with their own records, though some simply assume that the information provided by the publishers is correct. Libraries handle their own investigations title by title (especially in the case of single titles). Regarding PCA rights Libraries look for perpetual-access information in LOCKSS, PEPRS, Portico, publishersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; websites and licences (some publishers include specific information about PCA rights in their licences, though in most cases the wording is vague).

Post-cancellation access rights data fields: lack of standardisation There are no specific standards for PCA rights. For this reason, as part of the project, we have elaborated a data field list (see appendix), whose purpose is to group together all possible data that an ER would need to contain. To prepare this list, we consulted existing serials standards (KBART, ONIX for Serials, Project Transfer) and continuing access services (Portico). The data categories are: Journal-descriptive metadata Entitlement metadata Access-management metadata Publisher metadata Service provider metadata Institution metadata Verification metadata 7

This list was sent to the participating publishers to serve as a guide as to which data fields they should provide if at all possible. Libraries were not involved in the design of the data field list.

Publisher record-keeping: need for standardisation A participation agreement was signed with Publishers A and B, who agreed to provide PCA data for all HE NESLI2 members (up to 160). Before providing the bulk data, both publishers ran trials in which they produced data for 8 libraries (Publisher A) and 17 libraries (Publisher B). The provision of this data turned out to be a time-consuming and complicated task. Some of the problems the publishers encountered were: They had a number of internal record systems: publication information, accounts information and subscription information were held in different systems, sometimes including Excel spreadsheets. These various record systems were often disconnected and manual work was necessary to extract the data. Regarding entitlement start and end dates: Publisher B split entitlement right into different rows according to year, so that for an entitlement lasting from 2006 to 2010 they provided five rows of data. In the case of Publisher A, the entitlement dates were nearly impossible to decipher. Explanations from the publishers have not yet resolved all ambiguities. In most cases, entitlement data could be provided only from 2005. For these reasons, JC had to standardise the data provided by the publishers before sending it to the libraries. When possible, files separated by libraries were merged and entitlement dates were grouped. In the case of Publisher A, EDINA helped in creating human-readable files. The publishers started providing the data in October 2011. The data fields provided were: Publisher A

Journal-descriptive metadata: Publisherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Code, Title, ISSN, EISSN, URL, Alternate URL, Frequency, First Info, First Year, First Month, First Volume, First Issue, Last Info, Last Year, Last Month, Last Volume, Last Issue Institution-related metadata: Account Number, Institution Name Entitlement metadata: Title, ISSN, EISSN, Start Year, End Year, URL Publisher B Journal-descriptive metadata: Journal Code, Current Title, Print ISSN, Online ISSN, Frequency (2011), Primary Title, Old EISSN, Old ISSNs, Last Year of Title Variant; Month OA Option Started; Year OA Option Started; Month OA Stopped; Year OA Option Stopped Publisher-related metadata: Former Publisher, Transferred?, Year of First Publication by Publisher B (where known), Last Year of Publication, Publisher B Published/Ceased/Moved, Entitlement metadata: Subscription Code, Pack?, Sub Start Year, Sub End Year Institution-related metadata: University, Ringgold

Verification One of the aims of the ER scoping project was to identify workflows and costs for the verification process. Our assumption was that the data in the ER needed to be verified in order to produce a reliable source of information and the project was designed to include a verification phase. Verification workflows After the data was standardised it was sent to the libraries to be verified against their own records. We suggested two possible verification workflows, which we called scenario A and scenario B (see figures below). The difference between the two was who was doing the verification. In scenario A, the work is carried out by the libraries after receiving the standardised data from JC. In B, JC does the verification after receiving the data from the publishers and the institution. Of the 18 libraries consulted, 17 chose to work with scenario A and 1 with B.

Verification from the libraries’ perspective Ten libraries reported back on the verification (2 with data from Publisher A; 8 from Publisher B). The following is a summary of their comments and observations: All the libraries claim to have PCA rights prior to 2005. Some libraries used their subscription agent’s records. However these records couldn’t provide data prior to 2007. One library, created by the merger of several others, didn’t hold records for individual institutions prior to the merger. Some cancelled titles were found to be in the lists as current subscriptions. A small number of titles couldn’t be found in the libraries’ subscription records. In the case of ceased and transfer titles the libraries were unsure where to go for access. Some libraries claimed to have entitlement to more titles than appeared in the data provided by the publisher. There were two extreme cases of libraries that received a very short entitlement list (one with 5 and another with 8 titles), when they claimed to have far more entitlements. One library said that the verification would require far too much effort because of their complex structure (they have 103 sub-libraries). They would need delivery addresses for every year of every journal in order to verify. One library said the verification would require an unjustifiable amount of time and wouldn’t have sufficient benefit.

Verification from the publishers’ experience We sent back to the publishers the data verified by the libraries with their comments and corrections. The publishers followed up and solved most of the queries, but there are still outstanding replies concerning a few libraries. Some of the results of the verification exercise for the publishers were: They identified some anomalies in the way they process and report data. 12

One publisher affirmed that in some cases it can no longer go back and verify pre-2005 entitlements. If an institution cancels a current subscription and therefore loses the historical entitlement, the publisher always honours claims for the period 1997-2005. In cases such as this, they either take the libraries’ record and update their own, or update all the records on the assumption that if a library held a subscription in 2005 it also held it in 1997.2

Verification outcome The experience of both publishers and libraries during the verification workflows helped us to identify an important problem. To recap, when the data received from the tester publishers was standardised and sent to the participating libraries for verification, not all the libraries could carry out the verification of the publishers’ data. This was mainly because it was a costly exercise, but some libraries couldn’t do it because the lists provided included only a few titles. Others couldn’t rely on their own records. From the verification that was carried out, discrepancies occurred in at least 50% of the titles. The problem that emerges, therefore, is that, on the one hand, the verification process is timeconsuming for libraries but, on the other hand, it has been revealed that the data needs to be verified. This problem is crucial because the approach we take will directly affect the feasibility and costs of the proposed ER. This was the subject of discussion during the workshops that were organised in London and Edinburgh. A complete set of notes can be found in the appendix.

A summary of the outcomes is:

Libraries are convinced that PCA data needs to be verified. Unverified data will be considered meaningless and the ER that contains it will be another source of conflicting information.

The main cost of the ER will be time. Library time, from both experienced and inexperienced staff, will be particularly sought after at the first stage of data population. Lots of time-consuming manual 2

Three of the libraries participating in the scoping study were affected by this policy. Two were really pleased with the outcome, the third expressed concern about some titles dating back further for which he was sure he should have access.

intervention will be necessary. In general, libraries are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand most of them will find it difficult to provide the necessary resources to perform each task and on the other they recognise that costs will increase more and more, as the problem will only worsen if it is not tackled soon.

It is interesting to note that today, if a library’s entitlement is not clarified, it will face additional costs (related to print-subscription management, such as the provision of space and the checking-in of publications). In addition, the main value of the ER will be found in the time- and cost-saving that it will represent, as much as in the improved quality of the libraries’ holdings for end users.

Some suggestions for reducing costs are:

To concentrate primarily on the most important publishers To work in partnership with subscription agents3 To divide the verification process between the libraries (community work)

Libraries who performed the verification reported that they felt isolated. Neither JC or EDINA was able to help them effectively, since the libraries themselves were the only ones with access to and understanding of their data. It has, however, been pointed out that the national framework that JC gives to libraries is positive.

As mentioned above, the lack of standardisation seems to undermine the publishers’ capacity to provide data and the libraries’ capacity to verify it. However, the effectiveness of a standard lies in its being adopted consistently; and getting publishers to adopt a standard approach is recognised as an uphill task. However, participating publishers appear to have appreciated the opportunity they have had to identify problems in their systems and subsequently to have taken measures to solve them.

Furthermore, flexibility seems to be a key point when approaching the verification of PCA entitlement. Libraries need to have the choice of different verification workflows. It seems that both proposed

As part of the scoping project we explored the possibility of obtaining the entitlement data from one subscription agent and held various meetings and exchanges of information with them. In the end, however, the agent decided not to provide the data in their possession..

scenarios could work, as they can be adapted to the different capacities of the libraries. However, libraries need to be given more guidance on how to carry out the verification and on potential sources of information.

Current or historical data?

Another issue encountered during the verification phase was: publishers participating in the scoping project were unable to supply consistent data before 2005 because their current fulfilment systems do not provide this information. Some participating libraries have provided data for as far back as 1997.

This issue was one of the subjects discussed during the workshops, in which we asked the following questions:

How far back do participants think data in the Entitlement Registry should go (should it include current or/and historical data)? If only current data, what should be done with the historical data? Is there any other kind of data that might be useful and less demanding in time and effort: for example, title lists of old deals? How can the recording of entitlements be done in a sustainable way?

Going back to the past is challenging in itself, but when talking about PCA entitlement the task seems even harder, since libraries and publishers are confronted with their own limitations. There is also a common belief that it can only get harder for them to carry out this task if we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take action now. To capture old data will involve a series of one-off exercises, which can be done centrally (crowd-sourced), and thus avoid a duplicating of effort among libraries.

What is clear is that gathering historical data will be useful only if it is accurate. A suitable strategy will also need an established starting point. Although the starting point will vary from publisher to publisher, some of our proposals are:

The most recent year of the backfiles package The first year when the PCA clause was included in the NESLI agreement 15

2005, as being the main year from which our sample publishers were able to provide data The current year4, and then, over time, work backwards

Furthermore, for libraries the importance of having PCA after cancellation could be influenced by the journal subject: with medicine, for example, it is crucial to be up to date; with philosophy perhaps less so.

Reconstruction of past entitlement will require working with unstructured data in different formats (old invoices, paper title lists, etc). For this reason, to perform this task libraries will need other data, such as:

An authoritative list of title transfers and title changes A list of publishersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mergers and acquisitions Licensing information. A link to the licence comparison tool ELCAT http://www.jisccollections.ac.uk/News/elcat-beta/ could play a useful role.

Key findings from the Entitlement Registry Scoping Study

The study found evidence that the approaches, strategies and capacity regarding PCA entitlement varied considerably among UK HEIs and publishers. While this could be attributed to the relatively low level of activity in this area, it raises the issue of whether or not a more centralised and streamlined approach would help improve the process and encourage publishers and libraries to invest resources. Findings also included: Libraries would be ready to explore a community work approach. Libraries are aware of the problems regarding their PCA entitlements and will appreciate guidance and help to define a suitable strategy when dealing with them. Librariesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approaches to dealing with PCA are and will be influenced by their current collectionmanagement strategies.

As part of the scoping study we asked two publishers to participate in the project by providing the 2012 holdings for their NESLI2 subscribers. Unfortunately neither publisher signed up to our proposal. No explanations were given.

Libraries are aware of the costs involved in the clarification of their PCA entitlements and not all of them are ready to face these costs. If nothing is done, the current problems over PCA entitlement will only get worse. Libraries expect JC to play a role in the coordination and provision of old data. Publishers know that their systems are failing to provide accurate information.

Recommendations

Gathering of data Libraries should be involved in the definition of the required fields.

Standardisation and verification These two processes should be automated. Partnership with EDINA is recommended. Libraries and publishers should be encouraged to adopt good practices in their record-keeping.

Workflows The Entitlement Registry will need to be designed in the context of current workflows in the libraries. For example, it might be possible to use the Entitlement Registry to assist with the renewal/cancellation process. It will not be possible to have only one strategy. The implementation of the ER will require a set of strategies. Collaboration with subscription agents should be explored in more depth. More detail about PCA entitlement should be incorporated into the licences. Incorporation of PCA entitlement data in tools such as Knowledge Base+ (KB+)5 should be explored. Costs

Over the course of 2011-2012 HEFCE will be investing ÂŁ600,000 in the creation of a shared service knowledge base for UK academic libraries to support the management of e-resources by the UK academic community. JISC Collections has been appointed by HEFCE and JISC to lead this work, drawing on its own knowledge and experience in the field of licensing, negotiation and electronic resource management. (http://www.jisccollections.ac.uk/KnowledgeBasePlus/)

Library management and staff should be informed about the problems of their current PCA practices and encouraged to consider suitable strategies to start minimising the consequences.

APPENDIXES

ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY FIELDS Prepared by JISC Collections Field No

Element Name

Definition and Notes

Type*

Req?*

Length

Permissible values,

Examples

where appropriate

JOURNAL DESCRIPTIVE METADATA 1

Journal title

Title of a journal as defined by the publisher.

255

Economic and industrial democracy

Print ISSN

The International Standard Serial Number for the journal.

0143831X

e-ISSN

The International Standard Serial Number for the journal.

02589423

Print & electronic ISSN

The International Standard Serial Number for the journal.

0143831X

Frequency.

Or ISSN L

Frequency

1=quarterly

Quarterly

2=weekly 3=monthly

4=etc, etc

Previous title

Previous title of a journal as defined by the publisher.

Previous title (S) ISSN, e-ISSN, ISSN L

Previous title identifiers.

Open access hybrid

Code to indicate is the journal is or has been a hybrid open access journal.

Star date defining open access material accessible.

20100131

20101231

Open access hybrid model start date

This field need to be repeatable is needed for the cases of more â&#x20AC;&#x201C;than-oneprevious title(S). 1=Yes 2=No

Date in CCYYMMDD format

Open access hybrid model end date

End date defining open access material accessible. Date in CCYYMMDD format

Start volume open access hybrid model

First volume number for the period covered by the open access hybrid model.

End volume open access hybrid model

Last volume number for the period covered by the open access hybrid model.

Start issue open access hybrid model

First issue number for the period covered by the open access hybrid model

End issue open access hybrid model

Last issue number for the period covered by the open access hybrid model.

Code to indicate whether the entitlement right relates to a backfiles purchase or a current subscription or post cancellation access

1-3

ENTITLEMENT METADATA 15

Background access type

1= Backfiles 2= Subscription 3= Post cancellation

Note: Need to define in a glossary

4+free backfile

License (package, deal)

Code the package the title is related to (license)

1-3

2= SAGE

Possible: Link to elCat

Subscription period start date

Start date for the period covered by the entitlement (at the title level)

1= ScienceDirect premium collection

20031006

20041005

Date in CCYYMMDD format Note: Use in conjunction with background access type where appropriate.

Subscription period end date

End date for the period covered by the entitlement (at the title level) Date in CCYYMMDD format Note: Use in conjunction with background access

type where appropriate.

Backfiles start date

Start date defining backfile material accessible under the terms of a backfile purchase. Date in CCYYMMDD format

20040101

20081231

20080101

20101231

at the title level Note: related to background access type where appropriate.

Backfiles end date

End date defining backfile material accessible under the terms of a backfile purchase. Date in CCYYMMDD format at the title level Note: Use in conjunction with background access type where appropriate.

Post cancellation access start date

Start date defining post cancellation material accessible under the terms of a backfile purchase. Date in CCYYMMDD format Note: Use in conjunction with background access type where appropriate.

Post cancellation access end date

End date defining post cancellation material accessible under the terms of a backfile purchase. Date in CCYYMMDD format Note: Use in conjunction with background access type where appropriate.

Start volume

First volume number for the period covered by the entitlement.

End volume

Last volume number for the period covered by the entitlement.

Start issue

First issue number for the period covered by the entitlement.

End issue

Last issue number for the period covered by the entitlement.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT METADATA

Method of access

Flag to indicate whether access will be via the publisher's system or another route.

1 = Main publisher

Use in conjunction with online service provider where appropriate

Access fee

Format

0 = Service provider

2 = Secondary publisher

Flag to indicate whether the publisher charge an annual fee for the access.

Flag to indicate in which format archival access is distributed.

Y= Yes N= No

0= Online 1= CD 2= Other

Type of access

Flag to indicate whether the access is provided by User-ID and Password OR IP address.

0= User-ID and Password (Shibboleth) 1= IP address

Number of IP ranges

Number of IP ranges declared in an optional accompanying IP Address.

Single, multiple or ranges of IP addresses associated with an institution.

501

Range record or message.

IP address(es) or range(s)

Federation access management scope

Federation access management scope.

Athens access

Athens access ID/password.

Agent name in charge of the subscription.

AGENT METADATA

Agent

PUBLISHER RELATED METADATA

Publisher

Publisher name.

Publisher title

Identifier assigned by the publisher to the journal concerned.

An identifier assigned by the publisher to a particular entitlement.

reference

Publisher entitlement reference

Sage

Note: Two possibilities: 1) whole licence for an institution or 2) title level entitlement for institution

Institution-ID and password flag

Flag to indicate whether or not an institution has requested a user-ID and

Y = Yes N = No

Password. Note: 3 possibilities: a) Institution has requested an admin password for publisher site or b) institution has set up global authentication for all users within their institution or c) institution has requested user id for Entitlements Registry.

Institution- ID assigned by publisher

Password assigned by publisher

Publisher transfer

An institution ID assigned by the publisher to enable access.

An institution password assigned by the publisher to enable access.

Flag to indicate whether or not the title has been transferred to another publisher.

Y = Yes N = No

Note: Important to record at the title level and also link between licences / packages so that institutions can see annually or more frequently what has changed within packages. Need to check with Project Transfer whether any other metadata is required?

Previous publisher

Name of the previous publisher.

Use in conjunction with Receiving publisher.

Receiving publisher

Name of the receiving publisher. Use in conjunction with Previous

publisher.

Date of the transfer

Date in the CCYYMMDD format.

Publishers merge

Flag to indicate that the publisher has merged with another publisher.

20041005 Y = Yes N = No

Mergee/merger publisher

Name of the merge/merger publisher.

Date of the merge

Date in the CCYYMMDD format.

20041005

Portico

SERVICE PROVIDER RELATED METADATA 48

Online service provider

Name of an online service provider in the context of access to a journal. Use in conjunction with method of access where appropriate Note: if there are limited providers it could be a code field (ie. Portico, Lockss, Springerlink, Metapress, etc)

Service provider title reference

Identifier assigned by the service provider to the journal concerned.

Service provider entitlement

An identifier assigned by the service provider to a particular entitlement.

Flag to indicate whether or not an institution has requested a user-ID and

reference

Institution-ID and password flag

Y = Yes N = No

Password.

Institution- ID assigned

An institution ID assigned by the service

by service provider

provider to enable access.

Password assigned

An institution password assigned by the service provider to enable access.

by service provider

INSTITUTION RELATED METADATA 54

Institution name

Name

Institution identifier

Format to be agreed.

Flag to indicate that the institution has merged with another institution.

Possible identifiers: ringgold, federation members identifiers, etc

Institutions merge

Y = Yes N = No

Mergee institution

Name of the mergee institution.

Mergee institution identifier

Format to be agreed.

Date of the merge

Date in the CCYYMMDD format.

New name of the institution after the merge.

New name of the institution.

Link to the new institution identifier

Format to be agreed.

Possible identifiers: ringgold, federation members identifiers, etc 20041005

Possible identifiers: ringgold, federation members identifiers, etc

Institution administrative

Free-text element to transmit an institution's administrative contact name.

Free-text element to transmit an institution's administrative email address.

Free-text element to transmit an institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s administrative phone number.

Free-text element to transmit an institution's administrative fax number.

contact name

Institution administrative email address

Institution administrative phone number

Institution administrative fax number

Licence administrative contact name

Licence contact name as this is often a different person.

License

Free-text element to transmit a licenseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s administrative email address.

Free-text element to transmit a licenseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s administrative phone number.

Free-text element to transmit a license's

administrative email address

License administrative phone number

License

administrative fax

administrative fax number.

number

VERIFICATION METADATA ( fields repeatable: 1st ingestion and update) 70

Verification- Publisher

Verification- Institution

Verification Agreement

Flag to indicate whether the data have been verified by the publisher

Flag to indicate whether the data have been verified by the institution

1= Yes 2= No

Attached PDF of the agreement of verification signed by the publisher and the institution

Use in conjunction with VerificationPublisher and Verification- Institution where appropriate

Date of the signature of the verification agreement

Date in the CCYYMMDD format

20041005

OTHER METADATA 74

Notes

Free text area to enable messages about entitlement.

Unused area

Reserved for future use.

281

Key: * N = Numeric field; A = Alphanumeric field; D = Date field

**M = Mandatory field; R = Recommended

field; O = Optional field

ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY - PECAN WORKSHOP, JISC Headquarters, London Monday 12th March 2012

Module 1. User requirements Describe a situation in which you would come to the PECAN entitlement registry. Include any problems, questions, or information that would cause you to want to visit.

When considering cancelling a subscription or big deal. The goal is to identify the titles an institution would lost access to when cancelling a subscription. When considering disposing of print stock (submitting a list to UKRR). When carrying out an annual review of subscriptions to see what has changed. The most important information is confirmation of post-cancellation access. Information on the package or subscription deals is less important. Next list your goals for visiting the entitlement registry. That is, what would you like to accomplish in coming to the site? What information would you want to obtain form the site? How would you know youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve achieved your goal?

The registry should allow both publishers and libraries to upload lists Downloading a file of differences (from the publishersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lists) Export of the entitlements to other systems (not a top priority) It should be possible to view (and search) by title, year and volumes. A live link checker: some service to prove that post-cancellation entitlement was working as promised. A probe would visit the content and report on access. To cross-reference entitlement and big deal packages with usage statistics eg. JUSP. Finally describe how you think you would go about completing the task using a registry service. How would you want to achieve this? What key fields of information do you need to see? What key problems does the registry need to avoid in recording and maintaining information?

There is a need of a common structure: o So that concentration is on the content rather than the format (for example it was said that a library might use one row for an individual titles whereas a publisher might use more than one row) o A library will be able to quickly and easily identify differences between pub/lib list.

It should be possible to export this to other systems (eg. Link resolvers / knowledge base). The main obstacle to success is that we are trying to make publishers more accountable according to our wants and needs: there is little incentive for them to do this (it goes against the possibilities for publishers to sell the back files packages), and indeed one library goal is to reduce subscription costs.

Other comments:

The RLUK Affordable Subscriptions for Periodicals Initiative (UKRR ASPI, http://www.rluk.ac.uk/content/affordable-subscriptions-periodicals-initiative-aspi) did some work to identify access following cancellation for certain publishers. Some librarians would not trust the subscription agents to provide this information, feeling that the information would not be accurate enough. Module 2 Old data vs New Data If only current data what should be done with the historical data? How far back do participants think data in the entitlement registry should go (current data or/and historical date)?

There should be data for every year of a deal but that in reality a starting date of 2004 is more realistic. We need to make clear to publishers that it is not that library staff does not care about the earlier subscriptions. Supplying data from before 2004 would be very difficult for many publishers. In terms of starting a registry off, the most pragmatic approach would be to take data for the current year (2012) and then over time work backwards towards 2004. To agree with the publishers a year zero without giving up the past. How far the registry can go. It will depend on how far the libraries can go and it will differ publisher by publisher. “As far as, we can go but we will accept as far as we can get”. The starting year in the registry should be the first year when the PCA clause was included in the NESLI agreements. Is there any other kind of data that can be useful and less demanding in time and effort as for example titles lists of old deals?

An authoritative list of title transfers and title changes. Capturing title transfers needs more attention: TRANSFER is a good start but not yet comprehensive. Some publishers issue ‘Title Alerts’ that provide the required information, but this is not being captured into a central source. A list of publisher’s mergers and acquisitions. The licence comparison tool ELCAT http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/News/elcat-beta/ could play a useful role. A-Z lists for particular historical packages should be collected where possible. This would be a useful first step to help institutions identify what their entitlement ought to be, as both pubs and libraries have a starting record of entitlement to build upon. What year was the first NESLi2 deal negotiated with PCA clause? Track history and see whether JISC Collections have a list of subscribed titles associated.

Other comments

It was mentioned that data from link resolvers could be used. They contain, for example, closed information although it was recognised that ‘closed’ might refer to a transfer to another publisher not that a subscription had been cancelled. In general, their completeness and quality of the information is questionable. How should the recording of entitlements be done in a sustainable way?

Local changes are the responsibility of libraries but JISC Collections should take on responsibility for global changes. It might be possible to use ‘Entitlement Registry’ to assist with the renewal/cancellation process: a publisher uploads information on deals to the registry. A library selects/highlights the titles they wish to subscribe to. This can then be the basis for their title list the following year. A challenge would be maintaining the title list over time. This would mean that in following years, libraries would just need to verify changing titles. Module 3. Verification Scenarios What has been the experience with the selected scenario? After the experience will they change their selection? Do you think the workflows need to be redefined? How? Scenario B was preferable because it is within the control of the library as to when a list(s) are produced it however both scenarios should be offered. Producing lists would be easier and more straightforward for some libraries than others. Scenario A is preferable because it takes lots of time to get the information to do the verification. It makes more sense to do the verification internally “we know our subscriptions” After the differences report had been created it was suggested that the library/publisher negotiations should take place ‘off-line’ and then that the publisher should be responsible for uploading the corrected and agreed entitlements. Verification Is there a cost benefit to do the verification? What is the internal cost of the verification? How will we need to support the libraries performing the task of verification? Do libraries really need verified PCA data? Given the evidence we have gathered should our effort be looking to try to get publishers to adopt standards for gathering data? 32

The initial verification would be a major task for the first phase and it was recognised that the need for doing this work was not necessarily immediately recognised. It was one of the issues which would not be recognised as a problem until a problem with access to a ceased subscription arose. Not all libraries would have the staffing resource to carry out the necessary checking work involved. In addition, it is difficult to justify the necessary staff time for the verification “we do it now because in 5-6 yys it may be important for us” Verified PCA data is useful when taking management decisions. It gives confidence. It is better to start now than wait until the cancellation. In addition, the publisher’s trend seems to be to stop the print copies leaving the online only as the only copy available for subscription. Main cost is time. However it will depend on the staff’s experience and the library record keeping. It is not possible to quantify the costs but however it is clear that the costs will increase more and more. PCA data is meaningless if not verified. Verification need to be agreed with publishers. Publishers will get it easier if they treat it as claims than to try to figure out the entitlement for a list of hundreds of titles. The workload could be reduced by initially concentrating on the most important publishers. There is a need for publishers to improve their record keeping. The licence agreements should make specific reference to this requirement. JC could help as it is doing now, given a national framework to the institutions. Institutions don’t feel isolate . The information from publishers and from libraries should be in a standard format so that the identification of differences would be one of content contained therein and would not be to do with structure. It was mentioned that libraries would use a single row in a spreadsheet for a title whereas some publishers would use multiple rows. Regarding standards, contact with EDItEUR (compilers of the ONIX for Serials message formats (in association with NISO) could be useful. The verification could really only be done on an annual basis and that the agreement should be time stamped. ALPSP or the Publishers Association could be approached to get their advice and support. There already exist standards in this area, the problem is getting publisher adoption. On adoption of standards, approaching NISO was suggested.

ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY - PECAN WORKSHOP held in EDINA on Monday 19 th March 2012

Some initial comments What does SHEDL have access to? To try to answer this question it won’t get any easier. Will KB+ help to clarify this? Some institutions are discarding print through the UKRR project: what do the institutions have secure archival access to? There is an interest in sourcing and producing data for SHEDL to develop internal knowledge bases. Library’s capacity to provide PCA data is related to good “housekeeping” practices. Entitlement data should be included in the institutional license. Entitlement and journal information is used in many contexts. While there would be a significant cost and resource effort in correcting a central source, it would be very useful to make correct information available. There are currently three versions of the record: the library, the publisher, and the SWETS record. The records often disagree. In addition to entitlement information, simpler access to specific agreed licenses would also be useful. Module 1. User requirements Describe a situation in which you would come to the PECAN entitlement registry. Include any problems, questions, or information that would cause you to want to visit.

When discarding print, and to identify subscribed vs. unsubscribed titles. When publishers change platforms. (For example, when publishers intellect moved to a new platforms, they lost their record of whom should have access) When information in the A-Z title list does not match the access available. When a move to e-only was being planned. When institutions change subscription agents (who therefore no longer provide them with entitlement information). When institutions change LMS: examples were given where it had not been possible to transfer all the relevant records from the old to the new system. In addition, to move data between systems it would be useful to have an authoritative reference point. When institutions merge –the merging institutions often used different systems bringing the information together into a single system could often mean information was ‘lost’. In the case of title changes or titles moving between publishers.

The existence of an entitlement registry would be of benefit to publishers once it was established. With the availability of an authoritative central registry the number of direct library to publisher interactions should be reduced.

Next list your goals for visiting the entitlement registry. That is, what would you like to accomplish in coming to the site? What information would you want to obtain form the site? How would you know youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve achieved your goal?

Title, ISSN, Start date and End date would be required. Package information (name, year etc.) would be required. Package is a useful concept, especially to distinguish between subscribed and unsubscribed titles. Title change information (proceeding, succeeding etc.) would be most useful. The data needs to cover more than NESLi2 and SHEDL deals: also pre-NESLi and pre-SHEDL individual subscriptions with publishers. Different systems (publisher, library, link resolver) all have different records containing data from different sources. A successful registry needs to be authoritative. Unfortunately, the data must be comprehensive; otherwise it becomes another conflicting source of information. Resources are needed to make this work. Relationship between the registry and the KB+ need to be clear. Finally describe how you think you would go about completing the task using a registry service. How would you want to achieve this? What key fields of information do you need to see? What key problems does the registry need to avoid in recording and maintaining information?

Collection management (print rationalisation) is a shared priority. One requirement is to understand title changes over time: how a titleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name and publisher has changed. Subscriptions can change through the year: one way to manage this is to make sure the information is up-to-date at the end of a given year (as part of the renewal process for the following year). SHEDL has partly simplified the subscribed vs. non-subscribed titles issue, as SHEDL deals make no distinction between subscribed and non-subscribed titles. However, SHEDL still find it difficult to be clear on holdings info. How much information can we source from subscription agents? The customer can access the last three years of information. There may be more information available but the quality and extent is unclear. We need to make sure we have comprehensive data: when dealing with publishers ask for more rather than less. Consider how we might form partnerships between publishers/libraries/subscription agents. It is a good time for this activity, as (Scottish) libraries are looking at this in order to prepare for print consolidation. Module 2 Old data vs New Data If only current data what should be done with the historical data? How far back do participants think data in the entitlement registry should go (current data or/and historical date)?

Old data is required although it was noted that there sometimes can be subject differences. For example, in medicine, users were really only interested in current material whereas in arts/humanities the older material was much valued and used. It would be desirable to go back to 1997. Taylor and Francis required the purchase of back files for material before 1997 and that Elsevier would provide access to material back to 1993. Information on NESLi deals could go back to 2003 at best. Gathering historical data would be useful, as long as it is accurate It is harder to capture old data, but capturing it will involve a series of one-off exercises. There is significant reward once this has been done centrally, as individual librarians don’t need to duplicate and repeat the work. Publishers data should be the starting point and then to go back. Conflicting interest (back files packages) can affect publishers’ data provision. The registry should aim to have everything. If it doesn’t have everything it will become another conflicting source of information. Is there any other kind of data that can be useful and less demanding in time and effort as for example titles lists of old deals?

Title lists of old deals would be useful even though that information would only help to a certain extent. The number of titles in the NESLi deals would be from 10,000 to 20,000. There might be the possibility of funding being made available for the keying of the title lists although it was noted that early records could be quite brief and sometimes did not include an ISSN. Must also look at subscriptions that are not part of a deal, for example individual Elsevier subscriptions. When looking at older entitlement lists, it will also be necessary to look at licensing information. There is nothing less demanding even though title lists or other data. How should the recording of entitlements be done in a sustainable way?

Can components be crowd sourced (eg. By capturing A-Z lists from a point in time)? Where collaborative work between libraries/publishers/subscription agents might take place. Once information has been captured, libraries could undertake an annual verification each year to catch changes: less daunting task when performing year on year changes. The registry can be associated to the renewal/cancellation process.

Module 3. Verification Scenarios What has been the experience with the selected scenario? After the experience will they change their selection? Do you think the workflows need to be redefined? How?

It had not been absolutely clear what had to be checked. The work of checking was very time consuming. It was unclear if the checking should be against the journal A-Z list or the SFX Knowledge base or the LMS or data held by subscription agent or publisher. The Sage list had been easier to check than the Taylor and Francis list and there was a greater equivalence with the data obtained from the local knowledge base. When looking at T&F data, the library immediately knew the data was wrong. Taylor and Francis data often had an earliest Start date of 2005 whilst the local knowledge base had an earlier Start date. Not all the columns supplied by Taylor and Francis would be required. Discrepancies had been reported to the publishers but to date no response had been received in the library concerned. The workflow did not need to be redefined. The workflows can include the subscription agents. Verification Is there a cost benefit to do the verification? What is the internal cost of the verification? How will we need to support the libraries performing the task of verification? Do libraries really need verified PCA data? Given the evidence we have gathered should our effort be looking to try to get publishers to adopt standards for gathering data?

There would not be a cost benefit unless the work of validation could be shared out. It would be possible to respond more quickly to inquiries. The internal costs for verification would be high. The checking work to date had taken some weeks of a library assistantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time. The importance of sharing information was stressed. When thinking about the cost of the work in producing this information, also need to take into account the cost of keeping stuff on shelves. How can we make use of subscription agents, who have detailed information on payment and collection histories? Can subscription agents be involved in the process? What service can they provide to assist with this? Agents have a lot of data: can they make more information or a service available, at cost? Libraries negotiate terms with subscription agents, so this might be negotiable. Subscription agents and publishers can carry out the first checking and then the library can verify. The verification process can be divided between the libraries (community work). Libraries want to be able to respond to audit requests, demonstrating understanding of what has been paid for and what has been received (or entitled) in return. Some licence agreements contain complicate PCA clauses i.e. Nature. 37

The value of the registry will be the time saving (even though it will require lots of time at the beginning). It will contain PCA data. It will make easier to populate the local ERM. It will help to empty the shelves and to have good holdings for the library users. Neither EDINA nor JISC could supply support and that it was really up to the staff in libraries. Creating a database with following information would be a start: Publisher / Year / PCA included w Subscribed / PCA included w unsubscribed. PCA data was required but there were concerns about the costs involved in carrying out the required work. Publishers should be encouraged to adopt standards for data gathering but recognised that this would be an uphill task. Publishers systems are not good. They donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the resources or willingness to improve them.