APPENDIX 142
Supplementary evidence from the University
of Hertfordshire
1. What proportion of the publishers from
whom you purchase digital content would refuse you access to the
back issues you had previously subscribed to if you cancelled
your digital subscription? Which publishers have this policy?
The arrangements for access to back issues previously
subscribed to on cancellation of a digital subscription are as
varied and complex as the licence terms and pricing arrangements.
The detail provided below is based on existing
University of Hertfordshire licences. Generally it seems to be
the smaller publishers and societies that make no provision for
continued access.
Most large publishers do make some provision
for continued access to the backfiles after cancellation. Licence
agreements list several options such as continued access to the
publisher's own server, or via a third party server, or provision
of files to the local subscriber on CD Rom. The actual method
is presumably dependent on the publisher's circumstances at the
time of cancellation. These options do not seem to represent a
choice for the subscriber and are clearly not equitable alternatives,
in that the provision of files on CD Rom would require the cancelling
subscriber to put a potentially expensive local CD Rom network
delivery mechanism in place to maintain the availability of the
backfiles.
Publishers who make some provision for continued
backfile access on the basis of the subscriptions already paid
include:
— American Chemical Society (but on
basis of a forward moving wall of the past 5 years only, with
a separate fee for leasing the previous archive);
— American Physical Society (CD Rom
but only from year 2000);
— American Psychological Society /
PsycArticles;
— Elsevier (but only to the original
print journal subscriptions that pre-dated the e-journal bundle);
— Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins;
In addition, HighWire Press who publish biological
journals make all their backfiles available on open access after
a defined period eg 12 or 18 months.
Publishers who do not provide any continued
archive access after cancellation include:
— American Mathematical Society;
— American Medical Association;
— American Meteorological Society;
— Ecological Society of America;
— IEEE (separate one-off fee per annual
backfile volume);
— Institute of Physics (separate fee
for archive access);
— Nature Publishing (we believe a 10
year archive may be available for separate purchase);
— Optical Society of America; and
— SAE for Technical Indexes.
There are also archive only services for which
an annual subscription is payable eg Annual Review, American Physiological
Society, JSTOR. As the subscription does not relate to current
year publication, the concept of continued access after cancellation,
cannot apply.
Continued access to backfiles after cancellation
is not a major issue for this University as our Information Resources
Policy is predicated on collections to support the current learning,
teaching and research of the University. A cancellation decision
usually mean the title is no longer relevant here.
Our main concern lies with the lack of transparency
of publishers' journal pricing and licensing terms. These appear
not to be designed to promote availability and access.
2. How easy is it for you to use material
from digital journals for teaching purposes, as compared to material
from print-only journals?
Many universities, including the University
of Hertfordshire, are using managed and virtual learning environments
(MLE/VLE) to enhance learning and teaching. MLE/VLE's are accessible
to all staff and students and operate within the university's
intranet. This on-line provision is not only for the delivery
of distance learning, but more frequently for "blended e-learning"
to support traditional face to face delivery and to meet student
expectations of on-line access to the materials they need for
study in a 21st century modern university environment. Lecturers
use the MLE/VLE to make handouts, reading lists and other learning
materials available electronically to their students, to hold
on-line discussions with students, and for the submission of coursework.
Content from digital materials subscribed to by the university
is often unavailable for use in the MLE/VLE. This is because many
publishers prohibit, through their licensing terms, the circulation
of their material to groups of students over university networks
in such an intranet environment.
At the University of Hertfordshire we have identified
that approximately 50% of our e-journal titles (4000) are covered
by licences that DO allow the uploading of the licensed e-content
to our StudyNet MLE. This comprises mainly journals from the large
publishers who have adopted the NESLi2 model licence where clause
3.1.2 `The Licensee may make such electronic copies of all or
part of the Licensed Material as are necessary to ensure efficient
use by Authorised and Walk-in Users, provided that such use is
subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement' provides
the flexibility for a university to manage effective internal
delivery of the licensed content to its authorised staff and student
users to support their learning and teaching. The piecemeal approach
dictated by the inconsistency of publishers' licences, makes it
difficult for librarians to advise on what is permissible and
for lecturers to know what they may and may not use in conjunction
with their online handouts and learning materials in StudyNet.
It is debatable whether other publishers who
prohibit the uploading of content into a university's MLE/VLE
have deliberately done so or have just not bothered to address
the needs of a modern university. The licence terms one would
expect to see prohibiting the re-publication and re-sale of the
licensed e-content are deemed to extend to preventing uploading
to an internal university MLE/VLE. However, in reality re-sale
and re-publication are very different activities and imply commercial
gain by the licensee to the detriment of the licensor.
(It should be noted that the insertion of web
links from a MLE/VLE to e-journals held on the publisher's server
are not prohibited, but do not provide the flexibility and immediacy
of access required).
For printed materials, multiple copies for teaching
purposes in higher education may be made under a standard licence
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA). Until recently
this was also a complex and restrictive arrangement which involved
constant permission seeking. Such barriers to the effective use
of material from print journals to support learning and teaching
culminated eventually in a major Copyright Tribunal ruling in
2001 in the case brought by Universities UK against the CLA. The
Copyright Tribunal ruled against the "complex, costly to
administer, inefficient and burdensome" licensing arrangements
and commented that the CLA arrangement "was not meeting the
needs of the universities and placed a heavy administrative burden
on them".
It is highly regrettable that these pertinent
points remain unheeded in respect to e-journal licensing. Remedying
them would be an even more costly and lengthy process since the
nature of the e-contract would require multiple cases against
individual publishers rather than against one UK-wide licensing
agency. The restrictive terms of many licences currently prevent
today's higher education students from gaining full benefit from
the advantages of e-journals in the on-line e-learning environment.
We would urge the Committee to ensure that all
publishers address this issue. Universities have after all already
paid the licence fees for use of the e-content by their authorised
users. Surely the university as licensee should determine how
this licensed content is best delivered to its staff and students,
as authorised users of that content.
3. What proportion of your library's costs
are spent on overheads?
In 1997, the University of Hertfordshire implemented
a learning resources strategy to support student learning for
the 21st century through the delivery of fully integrated computing,
library and media services, 24 x 7, on and off campus. This strategy
also recognised the need for sustained investment in information
provision.
For the answer to this question from the Committee,
we have therefore used the financial data as separated out each
year from our integrated services for the national SCONUL statistical
return for comparative library provision purposes.
For the University of Hertfordshire (2002/2003),
this shows the following proportions:
|
| Information provision | 45%
|
|
| Staffing | 45%
|
| Other | 10%
|
|
This compares with a figure of 35% for information provision
ten years ago in 1993-1994.
The University's LIS staffing has been re-structured rather
than increased to address changing requirements during the past
decade; for example a focus on providing more user support and
on the delivery of digital materials was achieved by reducing
in-house cataloguing through buying-in the `shelf-ready' book
with the electronic catalogue record; for example by re-directing
staffing resources to create a post to manage copyright and licensing
matters. For 2003-2004 there has been an increase in the Information
Provision budget, but a decrease of 5% in the actual staffing
budget; this has involved staff redundancies. Unlike commercial
publishers, the University does not have the option of passing
the costs of e-development and digital delivery on to the customer
through higher prices.
4. Does your university have an institutional repository
in which academics can archive their research papers? Does it
have any plans to establish one? Does it have a view on such repositories?
The University of Hertfordshire does not currently have an
institutional e-print repository. We are aware that repositories
have been set up recently by a number of universities and we are
monitoring this trend. If this arrangement becomes the practice
amongst our peers, then we will also set one up.
However, the University takes the view that as this localised
provision is inherently fragmented, it presents unwelcome barriers
to the easy retrieval of materials. E-print repositories can play
a key role in disseminating and preserving scientific research,
but this needs to be done in a co-ordinated manner. We would urge
the development and implementation of a national strategy. The
British Library (or the British Library jointly with the Research
Libraries Network) should have a major role in setting up and
running national e-print repositories to provide this co-ordinated
approach, to balance discipline-based, international and national
requirements, to ensure inter-operability to agreed international
standards and to provide content cross-searching for efficient
retrieval of relevant material. It will need funding to do this.
CLOSING STATEMENT
The University welcomes the opportunity to make a brief closing
statement.
The issues the Committee seeks to address are complex, but
in drawing up its recommendations we would ask that consideration
be given to expedient and practical measures to tackle the long-standing
financial burden of substantial year on year journal price increases
and the barriers to access presented by the many current complex
and restrictive licensing practices.
We would draw the Committee's attention to the points made
in our initial submission and at the session on 21 April. In summary
we would ask that specific attention be given to the following
issues:
— A requirement for publishers to have transparent
pricing and licensing arrangements which address the needs of
a modern university;
— The promotion of competition as a means of curbing
prices, for example through support for open archive arrangements;
— A reduction in the VAT burden through exemption
arrangements; and
— The funding of national strategic developments.
May 2004
| 
