Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2004
MRS LYNNE
BRINDLEY, MR
PETER FOX,
MR FREDERICK
J FRIEND AND
MS DI
MARTIN
Q220 Dr Iddon: Have you estimated
the shortfall in percentage terms?
Ms Martin: If I could quote some
figures from a survey to illustrate this, there was a 58% increase
in journal inflation over a five-year period and an 11% increase
in RPI. In the same period, the information provision spend per
FT student across the sector increased by 12%, so more or less
in line with RPI rather than in line with journal inflation. That
reflects the changing balance in that information spend towards
journals rather than books.
Q221 Dr Iddon: Can you tell us whether
it is true that there are different practices between the major
publishing houses on the way they operate bundling? Can you confirm
that, and if it is right can you tell us something about best
and worst practices by the different publishing houses?
Ms Martin: One of the things that
we read in the press is that there is a lot of flexibility in
bundling about our choice of what is in the bundle. Our experience
shows that not to be the case, and we find that publishers tend
to approach us in terms of selling us a fixed product, and we
have to negotiate very hard to get any flexibility within those
products.
Q222 Chairman: Is it "take it
or leave it" or is it real negotiations?
Ms Martin: The starting-point
is "take it or leave it". We have to challenge very
hard to get some flexibility. That is not to say that there have
not been some successes, and I do not wish to say that all publishers
are in the same frame here. If I could give you an example, with
the ScienceDirect licence we currently have, which I have to say
contrasts with Cambridge's experience and was beneficial to us
in the first instance because it was predicated on our previous
spend for print journals, this allows us some flexibility within
the bundle to substitute new titles for previous ones, providing
the value remains the same. The deal that has been put forward
now for higher education, if we were to move to that, would give
us much fewer options and we would have to take a set package.
Q223 Dr Iddon: What effect does bundling
have on the rest of the journal provision from other publishers
which perhaps do not do the bundling exercise? Are you losing
out or are your academics losing out on journals that they consider
essential because you are having to venture into these cost-cutting
deals?
Mr Fox: Where the academics would
say that a journal was essential, we would try if at all possible
to retain that title. It is the next few levels down, in terms
of need, where the problem arises. I think most universities have
been through journals cutting exercises over the last few years,
where academics have been asked to rate the various titles, and
the ones coming out at the bottom of the list have had to be cancelled.
Q224 Dr Iddon: Obviously, the universities
are a major provider of profit for the large companies that do
these bundling exercises, so why do you not have any clout to
make them change their minds or become more flexible?
Mr Friend: We do have some clout.
We have been able to persuade even major publishers to change
their policies in some areas, but ultimately we are in the hands
of our academic community, and if the academic community does
not back the library up in saying "no", then the library
alone could not take action.
Q225 Chairman: You are being extremely
diplomatic, and we are very grateful for that, but it is not quite
the spirit I like to engender in these hearings. I just wondered
if you would like to say what the best companies are, the companies
that are the most flexible and the easiest to negotiate with,
and the worst companies? Why not say it? Please do.
Mr Friend: In general, the ALPSP
members are easier for us to deal with. They generally have very
strong academic contacts and they are working in our kind of environment.
I can give you two examples of publishers that have been very
difficult to deal with. One would be Elsevier, where last year
we spent about six months doing national negotiations, and we
are still spending another four months in sorting out the details
at local level. You agree a national price of, say, 5% on what
you paid last year; but then, when the detail gets down to local
level, you find that the reality is very different. That negotiation
has been extremely time-consuming, and is still not resolved for
many universities. Another example I can give you is the American
Chemical Society, where we have had great difficulty on long-term
access. You will understand that in the electronic environment
we are not allowed to purchase the content outright; it is licensed
to us. Many publishers impose conditions upon long-term accessnot
all, and in general the ALPSP publishers are better on this, but
the American Chemical Society is very difficult.
Q226 Dr Iddon: I am sorry to hear
that. In July I will be meeting the President of the American
Chemical Society! I will pass on that comment. As a Fellow of
the Royal Society of Chemistry, I am very much in favour, apart
from what you have just said, of learned societies continuing
to publish. Are you finding that learned society publishing is
being squeezed out or forced into bundling by the commercial houses?
Mr Friend: The short answer is
"yes".
Q227 Chairman: Is that a new phenomenon
or has it been gradual?
Mr Fox: Big-deal bundling itself
is a relatively new phenomenon, say the last two to four years.
Q228 Dr Harris: As I understand it,
bundling was initiated as a request by purchasers at the libraries
to get cheaper deals for big packages. Now, the criticism of bundling
is coming from those library communities. When we raised this
question, the publisher said, "if they do not want it any
more, they do not have to have it; it is on its way out".
It is very flexible, and indeed Elsevier said: "The libraries
are free to choose whatever they wish." You have directly
contradicted that already. They also said that it is a passé
issue because they are on the way out because there has been this
adverse publicity around it. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr Friend: Personally, I do think
that bundling is on the way out, and I see it being replaced by
open access. Again, as with the print electronic situation, I
think it will be a gradual change.
Mr Fox: There is also a difference
in the approach to bundling when it was first introduced, or there
was, between the research-intensive universities and the universities
which were more teaching intensive. As Di has said, the University
of Hertfordshire welcomed the ScienceDirect deal. Many of the
Russell Group of universities did not because we felt we were
simply paying more for content that we did not want in the first
place. We subscribed to most of the titles we wanted, and the
bundle simply gave us very little more other than electronic access
on a better basis.
Q229 Dr Harris: There is a market
here, is there not, in theory? You should, as the buyers, be able
to exercise your muscle in that market. You just said that in
order to do that, you need the academics behind you. Can you be
a bit more specific about how you feel that your market power,
which is what society and government expect you to rely on to
avoid being hit in this way, is limited by the academics that
back you?
Mr Fox: The problem is that we
are in a monopolistic situation. If an academic needs an article
from a particular journal, an article from a different journal
will not do; and therefore we have to subscribe to that journal.
At the moment, many publishers insist on the academic handing
over the copyright to the publisher, and the exclusive rights.
They are not free to publish the results of that research anywhere
else.
Q230 Dr Harris: I still do not know
what these academics could do to back you up. Would that argument
not apply, regardless of whether it is bundled? Is that not just
a way that the prices stay high? I want to know generally what
you do and why there is something specific about bundling that
you find yourself powerless because of your unco-operative academics.
Mr Friend: There are two basic
problems. One is the lack of competition, and the other is that
the people that are paying for the journals, i.e., the libraries,
are not the people that are taking the decision whether or not
they are purchasers. There is this gulf between the academic side
of the process and the library side, in terms of payment or lack
of payment. One advantage of open access is that this restores
the decision on payment to the authors.
Q231 Dr Harris: The final point is
this issue of the digital archive. We have heard that some people
have complained that you have lost control over access to the
digital archive and publications that you previously subscribed
to in digital format when you cancelled the subscription. Has
that been a problem, and how does that affect what you do in terms
of how you choose in advance, knowing what the rules are?
Mr Fox: This is one of the disincentives
to moving towards the electronic-only approach. If you subscribe
to a paper journal, then obviously you have got that journal sitting
on your shelves for perpetuity. If you subscribe to an electronic
version of that journal only and cease to subscribe, almost always
you lose access to everything that you have paid for in the past.[1]
Mrs Brindley: The situation is
very messy. Different publishers have different policies. Some
provide CD copies of back copies that have been subscribed to.
One issue that has been raised with publishers is whether, for
example, the British Library might be a clearing-house for these
back, previously subscribed-to journals. Again, that raises the
issue about the need for a national long-term infrastructure to
ensure that those journals are always available.
Q232 Dr Turner: Can I ask you about
licensing arrangements? Are you finding that you are able to collaborate,
as libraries, and secure better licensing deals with publishers
than on your own? Do you find the interests of libraries are sufficiently
similar?
Ms Martin: There is a good track
record of negotiation nationally with the publishers. From our
perspective, certainly where a publisher has adopted the model
licence terms that have been agreed nationally, it has made it
much easier to manage and deliver those journals to our staff
and students within the universities. That is by no means used
by all publishers, and there is a very mixed pattern in terms
of licence terms and conditions, which, I would have to say, we
find overly complex and overly restrictive. I have examples where
a licence would be a markedly different price, for example, if
we used the web-based version as opposed to accepting a CD-ROM
that we would then run internally in the universitythe
same material.
Q233 Dr Turner: Can I ask the university
librarians: how effectively you think digital licensing deals
with publishers meet the needs of your user communities? How do
they react? What feedback do you get?
Mr Fox: Digital licences for journals?
Q234 Dr Turner: Yes.
Mr Fox: On the whole, they react
very favourably because most scientists like to get access to
the material on their desktop. The problem is that, as Fred has
said, they do not normally deal with their pricing and negotiating.
What they seeand quite rightly what they want to seeis
the end result. It is our job to do the negotiating, and that
is where the problems arise in terms of lack of transparency of
some publishers in precisely what the arrangements are and the
difficulties in getting agreement on anything like a model licence.
Ms Martin: There are issues related
to access that are varied across the licences. Some licences allow
use by walk-in users and others do not, and for a library to manage
or make available those licences that do allow walk-in users,
as opposed to those who do not, on an individual basisthe
people coming through the dooris too complex to be manageable.
Q235 Chairman: A walk-in user is
somebody who comes into the library.
Ms Martin: Yes, somebody who might
come in, either as a member of the public, or particularly perhaps
somebody from an SME who might be working with a university. I
think there is a real tension in the current licensing arrangements
which prevents the university perhaps meeting some of its obligations
in terms of working with business and industry in terms of knowledge
transfer and business partnerships.
Q236 Chairman: Higher education obviously
will extend that kind of contact and use.
Mr Fox: That applies particularly
in a library like mine, where more than 50% of our currently registered
users are not current staff and students of the university. In
a paper environment they expect to come in and use whatever is
on the shelves, and can do so. In an electronic environment that
is by no means the case. Depending on whatever the licensing restrictions
are, we might or might not be able to give them access to certain
resources. That inevitably leads to a good deal of frustration
among those readers, who cannot understand why they cannot have
access.
Q237 Dr Turner: How do publishers
police that?
Mr Fox: We sign licensing agreements
with them and they are legal contracts.
Q238 Dr Turner: If you make someone
an honorary member of your university staff, would that give them
access?
Mr Fox: I think we would not do
it.
Q239 Dr Turner: How far is it possible
to use digital journals or the materials in them for teaching
purposes? Could you use digital materials exclusively for teaching
or not?
Ms Martin: We have looked into
this area in some depth because we are running a university-wide
virtual learning environment, and quite a number of the licences
we have specifically prohibit uploading of the information we
have already paid for in terms of digital journals, for use within
the virtual learning environment. That is not true of all of themthere
is a very mixed picture. For those that subscribe to the model
licence, it does include that; but others do not. That is a very
frustrating process for academic staff, because they want to make
use of the resources the university has paid for, in order to
enhance the student learning experience.
Mr Fox: This is a further argument
for breaking the monopoly, either through greater use of open
access to journals or through archiving in institutional repositories,
so that at least the material created within the university is
then freely available both within the university and to the wider
world.
1 Note by the witness: When a subscription
to an electronic journal ceases, some publishers provide no access
to material already paid for; others do provide access to subscribed
material, but an additional fee may be charged. Back
|