CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Consortium) Datasets Coordinators’ Meeting Victoria University, Flinders St, Melbourne, 3/2/2014

Chair: Michael Gonzalez (MG) Notes: Majella Pugh (MP)

In Attendance:

Diane Costello (DC) CAUL Rebecca Henson Australian Catholic University Hong-Li Jia Australian National University Gail White Bond University Elke Dawson Central Queensland University Sonya Pennington Charles Darwin University Deidre Boland Charles Sturt University Anne Loria Charles Sturt University Alice Fahey Deakin University Susanne Glynn Deakin University Sarah Sherman Deakin University Kay Saunders Edith Cowan University Gill Blacket Flinders University Belinda Nicolson-Guest Griffith University Paul Jensen Griffith University Neil Renison James Cook University Alison Bates La Trobe University Eva Fisch La Trobe University Tory Sheehy La Trobe University Kirsten Versendaal Macquarie University Robert Stafford Monash University Amanda Lazarro Monash University Sue Dowling Murdoch University Colleen Cleary Queensland University of Technology Domenic Iannello RMIT University Doreen Sullivan RMIT University Bronwyn Kohlman Southern Cross University Debbie Storz Swinburne University of Technology Tony Davies Swinburne University of Technology Anna Gill University of Adelaide Julie Lasinger University of Ballarat Carmel Grant University of Ballarat Bee Lim University of Canberra Paula Barlow University of Melbourne Karen E. Brown University of Melbourne Mardi Cook University of New England Bruce Munro University of New South Wales Jenny Marriott University of Newcastle Jennifer Bennett University of Newcastle Dell Schramm University of Queensland Majella Pugh (MP) University of Queensland Eleanor Thomas University of South Australia Debby Macdonald University of Southern Queensland Nancy Li University of Sydney Debra Wilson University of Tasmania Alison Storey University of the Sunshine Coast Michelle Morgan University of Western Australia Michael Gonzalez (MG) University of Western Sydney Alison Pepper University of Wollongong Gillian Laughton Victoria University Brian Tyrrell Victoria University Judi Kercher Massey University Jo-Ann Cowie Massey University Neil Heinz University of Auckland Peter Hosking University of Canterbury Marilyn Fordyce University of Otago Ross Hallett University of Waikato Jaime Carter University of Waikato Ivy Xiaolu Guo Victoria University of Wellington Dawn McMillan AgResearch Ltd Christina Tian ANSTO Jacqui Porter CSIRO Katinka Emmer CSIRO

1 Jane Angel DSTO Deanne Holmes DSTO Margot Bowden Landcare Research Vince Shepherd Unitec (NZ)

Apologies received from:

Curtin University of Technology University of Technology, Sydney Avondale College Open Polytechnic of NZ (OPIT)

Bruce Heterick (JSTOR), Andrew Wells (University of New South Wales), Philip Kent (University of Melbourne), and Anne Bell (University of Sydney) were also in attendance for selected presentations.

Business Meeting

Introduction

MG welcomed Datasets Coordinators (DSCs). He thanked MP and the speakers for their assistance with the program. Alison Pepper was welcomed by DC as the new CEIRAC representative taking over from MG (his two year term expired).

New DSCs

All attendees introduced themselves.

Minutes of 2013 Meeting/ Matters Arising

Journal transfers initiative: started, however, group has been distracted by Alma implementations. Will get going in 2014. Action: Gill Blackett, Flinders.

Alumni access: MG had received a couple of emails. DC asked if CEIRC should add into its checklist to ask publishers about. Yes, but: it was agreed each institution had their own approach.

The quality of ebook records: to be covered in Debbie Storz’s presentation (Swinburne).

Suggestions for CEIRC New Resources

Sydney Morning Herald: Discussed the 60 year lock out and late access. Swinburne: tried to get it along with The Age and AFR. DC talked about past experience negotiating with Fairfax: a long and excruciating process, which ended when her contact left the company. Can try again, but cautioned that if there’s a saturated market, Fairfax will lock the content down. Action: Send any known contacts to DC by email (even if failed).

Lynda.com – again. Colleen Cleary highly recommends: well used, and replaced previous training tool. DC: they don’t want to talk to CEIRC – is inclined to leave

2 alone. There are no library consortia elsewhere. Monash also subscribes to – heavily used (by Creative Design).

Beama Film (streaming video): Colleen Cleary had put in touch with DC. Latter asked DSCs to tell her why it was useful. (DC noted she had not heard from DSCs about Overdrive).

Would CEIRC offer a PDA/ DDA (Colleen Cleary)? DC reported the shared user model had never worked for CAUL, though other consortia offer it. PDA/ DDA lends itself to institutional decision-making. Some ask for a combined deposit, which gives better buying power. A show of hands indicated some interest (around 24). JSTOR, Wiley, and ASP were suggested. Action: DC to look into.

Remarks about specific PDA/ DDAs:  RMIT: amount up-front is an issue  Elsevier: hard to meet required spend  JSTOR: agreed to drop upfront deposit (haven’t yet). Invoices monthly  BMC: messy.

CEIRC Program Rationalisation

DC reminded the group that this item was from the CEIRC 2007 review. It is aimed at reducing transactional work, and making a material difference. DC wants to keep CEIRC’s value at the negotiation end; simplify invoicing when difficult.

Some invoicing moved back to vendors (e.g. OUP – all but annual subs). If agents (vs publishers) are in Australia, CEIRC presents offers, but DSCs go direct to renew/ take up. This removes some duplication, but can cause confusion. Direction is given in emails, the offers page, and the spotlight on publishers page. Library staff to refer queries to DSCs, who should know where to look. Can also look at list archive to check original message.

There are 3.7 staff in the CAUL office: one has nothing to do with CEIRC; Alisha has the most; Rebecca (recently replaced) is 0.75 EFT; DC is 0.5 EFT on CEIRC.

DC cautioned about going directly to a publisher when dealing with CAUL agreements – can have negative consequences: e.g. remote fee paid when no-one else in CAUL did. If there is a deal or if mentioning CAUL in the email: go through the CAUL office.

CEIRC may not get to talk direct to the publisher if via agents – e.g. iGroup or EBSCO. DC spoke of new pricing models coming through, e.g. tiered. Problems: iGroup cannot provide information about how models are set up. Vendors often talk about “must have” products – makes us powerless, and justify increases with “you’re all using it”. Example given of Elsevier’s late-added platform fee.

DC to attend ICOLC in late April. Same frustrations. She noted that if nothing is done, it’s because the group has no leverage to make changes.

3 CEIRC Resources and Price Rises

Requests/ questions:

 On changing the order of offer attachments on the website. DC - can’t be fixed without commissioning and paying developers who aren’t inclined to make such changes– attachments can be resorted or can use the link in the “spotlight”  On the date of expected invoicing: DC - don’t know when they will come. Use the estimated billing service. (Attendees expressed their appreciation of the service)  On adding archives via CAUL (not part of renewal process). DC - not via CAUL (go direct), though if in doubt, ask DC  On re-banding institutions – can CAUL do anything (e.g. iGroup). DC - non- transparent; can’t get answers; lack of consistency (even within single vendor). Query direct if we don’t like it, cc DC.

DSC Mentor Program

MG advised that Alison Pepper to take over. He asked DSCs to volunteer if they can help newbies. It is an informal program. Action: Alison.

Datasets Forum Presentation: Bruce Heterick (JSTOR) - Impact of discovery service on usage statistics and Take up of new packages in a climate of high use

How measured impact: talked to vendors over 6 months. Investigated what is happening at the backend - PQ, Ex Libris, EBSCO (OCLC seemed irrelevant). Services opaque. What’s driving relevancy ranking? What do they do with the data? Had to build analytics, data warehouse to track effect? on JSTOR – spent money.

Subject metadata matters a lot for relevancy ranking. This is a problem for JSTOR as it was set up for access, not discovery. Relevant subjects, not more, are the answer. Testing with Ex Libris to get full text to index this year – see if makes difference.

Libraries don’t spend enough time configuring systems for implementation – they use the default, which excludes JSTOR (e.g. EDS).

Publishers/ content providers don’t spend enough time on their data syndication – how data is received and used. Expensive.

This is the 10th anniversary of JSTOR’s deal with CAUL (the 1st Australian national site licence) – thanks extended.

JSTOR Survey MG reported there were 30 responses to the JSTOR survey (see slides). Some results:  Decrease or flat budget expected.

4  One time offer preferred to annual access fee  Exchange rate very impactful  Ongoing fees very impactful  97% using usage metrics in renewals  Want more Science covered, and Australian content. JSTOR working on STEM collection – esp engineering. However, point of diminishing return is being approached. Tell them what you want.

Presentation: Alison Pepper (UOW) The Library Cube – Target Marketing With Big Data

Able to use data this year. The Value Cube is outcomes based – at client level. Developing the Marketing Cube – related to WAM (students’ weighted average mark).

Shows what is being used/ not, compared to other resources and user groups; when in semester. Use Cognos software (IBM). EZproxy logs identify database names. Pivot tables used, takes little staff time to analyse. They have a big data warehouse. Gives 2-dimensional answers. Real time data. Allows targeted marketing.

Each day = 144 x 10 min slots. Can answer specific questions, e.g. when do nurses use EBH resources? Who are non-users? A flat line was found in the Value Cube – non-users don’t change. Also found: a 12% increase in marks for resource users; 40% more likely to fail if don’t use resources.

Look at before intervention, post intervention. Look weekly. Tested in Dubai campus (commerce, informatics…). Shows the difference in use - important for UOW, as external campuses are extras in licences.

CEIRAC Chair Handover

Andrew Wells (AW):  3 negotiation workshops held (70 attended) – important for capacity building. We must consciously apply what we learnt. ‘Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In’ (New York: Penguin Books, 1983, reissued 1991) (book read for course) was very useful.  Elsevier: retained Steve Lancken – negotiation trainer - as mentor. Helps to miss traps.  CEIRC Taskforce Principles and Strategies: Publishers don’t like the 1st. Agree with 2nd. Site pricing incompatible – some won’t give up. Avoid usage (is volatile). Provides a framework for adding/ removing content.  IEEE – a significant event; successfully used principles, though took years. Tiered, overseas sites excluded, no longer simultaneous users. 2-11% price increase. Members agreed. No contract – is a transition plan.

 ACS – offered usage tiers. Couldn’t put to CEIRC: like the North Star – would take 10 years to reach. Continuing with existing deal. ACS running out of good will, internationally – Philip Kent to take over from AW.

5  Elsevier – very concerned with privacy. Talks have come a long way. AW will continue to lead, for consistency. New model – can’t discuss. In 3 weeks, are meeting in Canberra. CEIRC want something concrete by ULs’ Brisbane March meeting. ScienceDirect only - not other divisions (e.g. Health). Take any ScienceDirect offers to your UL.  Usage data: Some vendors won’t give. At the March 2013 Melbourne meeting ULs agreed data could be shared.  ARC mandates: couple of vendors got excited with addenda. AW sees clear boxes: publisher should discuss author content with authors (libraries are about access). SHERPA ROMEO do good job. Not our role – though some overseas consortia are adding. AW to add a paper to CEIRC website. Advises against libraries getting involved.

Philip Kent (PK):  On CEIRC when in CSIRO for 5 years; later represented Victoria University.  PK thanked AW for his extensive body of CEIRC work: he has a huge corporate memory regarding deals.  Priorities: o 2 major deals outside CEIRC, likely to come back – Thomson Reuters, and Scopus (through UA) o Ebooks – separate to CEIRC work – keep a watching brief. There are a lot of similarities with serial licences. Same publishers. Harvesting licence exemplars. o Confidentiality clauses: keep on to-do list. Divide and conquer mentality with some publishers. Should be able to share information within the consortium = better and fairer deals. o LexisNexis: working on. More to be done. One of most difficult to work with: legalese. o Elsevier Health Science. Met in Singapore during IFLA 2013. Discussed the MDConsult transition to ClinicalKey. Added to work plan.  Database agreements coming up: ACS (2014), Cambridge Journals (annual), CAS SciFinder (2014), Emerald (2014), Oxford Journals (2013), SAGE (2013), Springer (2013), T&F (2014)  Thanks given to CEIRAC members.

AW: asked about ClinicalKey – around ½ of the attendees have subscriptions.

Emerging Services

Presentation: Anne Bell - Collaboration Across Institutions – JISC and KB+

 2008: investigation into Library Systems landscapes – adventurous proposal  2010: more modest proposal. E-management. Continues today.  2 principles: not cost effective across all unis (redundant effort). Silo issues of data: variance, inaccuracies. Should be focusing on evidence based renewals.

6  Late 2011: JISC Collections host. Ongoing and consistent service.  Late 2013+ - become core JISC service (was to be charged).  1000+ packages; 18,000+ titles; 100+ institutions; 1,900 subs; 400+ licences.  Benefits: Improved reliability of e-libraries; decreased time; embedding community experience of shared service.  Next phase: workflow support (local): prompting admins, reporting. May include ebooks. Finance data to be included from 2015.  Interest from Sweden, Germany, France, and Ireland.  There are YouTube clips.  6 full time people work on KB+. Programming is done outside.  A formal evaluation will be undertaken: a formative and summative standard for JISC projects.

Presentation: Tony Davies and Debbie Storz (Swinburne) – Working with the community zone in Alma

 Live in April 2013.  Alma is 18 months old. Monthly development cycle. 68 instances worldwide; 9 in Australia (Curtain to be 10th).  Replaces ILMS, link resolver, ERM.  Has e & p inventories and workflows. Alma not seen by patron, is backend. Delivered via Primo. Previously managed workflows in wikis and paper folders.  Pre 2010: Moved Dynix to Ex Libris suite (Aleph), Primo, SFX, (Verde – ERM, never got working). PrimoCentral moved to first. Hosted in Chicago & Singapore.  Primo single search: Primo Central (Alma & repository) searched. Have an institution zone, and a community zone (maintained by Ex Libris – libraries can’t add/ edit; updated monthly). Records may be thin, though can overlay with MARC.  Had site visit from Ex Libris developer.  Vendors need to sign a separate licence to give data to Alma (if already giving to Primo).  Swinburne pay for a Premium Sandbox – gives a week to look at changes. Had two instances that went wrong. Fixed in a day.  Australia goes live first (due to timezone) – discovers bugs 1st.

Comments:  Verde user: hasn’t got licensing workflow working.  Others lost lots of information from SFX.

Perspectives on eResource Workflows Attendees shared the presenters’ pain!

Presentation: Eleanor Thomas - Licence workflows at UNISA

 Licence sent by email  Read, then Director signs

7  Return to vendor (scanned)  Move piles, with a 9 page coversheet – usually incomplete. Filed by PO no. in filing cab  Problems with retrieval; lack of staff confidence  Also save e-version.

Presentation: Kay Saunders - eResource workflows at ECU: licenced to kill?

 Reviews – sends to manager if issue.  EZProxy & Shibboleth, Summon. Don’t use 360 Counter (too much trouble). Have Millennium – without licence module. Excel (works better – long standing).  Save e-version of licence on TRIM.  Manually add URL to EZProxy configuration file.  Check access twice a year.  Naming conventions important for retrieval  Issue: ebook overlap. Export ISBN – send Excel list to vendor for supression. Problem: how to match the e-version of 2008 book (displaying as 2014).

Discussion: Identifying Common Issues And Opportunities For Collaboration

MG reported on the results of the statistics survey sent to DSCs. Some highlights:  50% collect on all resources; rest do selected or ‘other’.  Used mainly for renewals.  Data warehouse to be set up for UWS.  ERMI, ONIX schemas to identify licence terms (21% aware). Would assist (49%).

General discussion:  ERM in Millennium used: better than others described. Patrons can see licence information.  50% of attendees don’t make licences available to users – no information on walk in use, remote, alumni  2 had metadata librarians who went through licences: lot of handling.  Griffith: 2 page summary. Loaded to catalogue: educate upwards and downwards. Highlight in red. Goes to ProVC.  Action: DC to collate what used in our checklists

 Other: There is a lack of system interoperability – top issue in the US. Time we got vendors to resolve.  Other: Indemnity. AW: don’t sweat on indemnity, focus on licence deal breakers.  Other: CAUL committees: Have 2 year terms. Contact your UL if you wish to be involved  Other: MP asked about: students prolonging their computer session logins using heavy objects on keyboards or running long movies (not occurring elsewhere); how attendees were using statistics gathered (for ROIs/ KPIs;

8 budget support; accountability; decision making; DDA; internal auditing; subscription renewals), and mapping library value enablers to organisational parent’s KPIs (recently done by MP at UQ; not done elsewhere)

Close

DC thanked MG for his energetic contribution during his two year term on CEIRAC, and for today’s robust agenda. MP and speakers were also acknowledged.

9