ALA Midwinter 1996 379

had prior to the reorganization. The Library continues to look for any further changes that need to be made to the organizational structure.

Gamble discussed the changes that occurred in cataloging at Comell as part of the massive reorganization of the University. Professionals now spend more time managing change rather than cataloging. They are responsible for evaluating and implementing computer-aided heading valida- tion; evaluating resources and services such as the Cataloger's Desktop, vendor table of contents services, and shelf ready services; and revising and inputting cataloging manuals online. Librarians should also be involved in other activities such as evaluating integrated library systems and in designing and redef'ming Web interfaces. Paraprofessionals are responsible for high production cataloging. A variety of technological aids enable tasks to be more easily passed on to paraprofes- sionals. As a result of the reorganization, the first ever nonprofessional original cataloging position was established. Comell has found that the level of expertise needed to provide cataloging for their collection is not yet available from a vendor at a cost lower than is possible in-house.

In his previous position at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Hastings headed inter- library loan as a paraprofessional. The paraprofessionals resented the professionals and many paraprofessionals felt overworked, underpaid, and undervalued. To improve the relationship pro- fessionals must define and communicate who they are and what they do. Although this is usually done to secure the respect of faculty and university administrators, it is rarely done towards the paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals today are routinely assigned duties formerly the responsibil- ity of librarians. Larry Oberg refers to this trend as role blurring. More than just task analysis is needed to distinguish between librarians and paraprofessionals. The implementation of total quality management has been used by some libraries to facilitate the empowerment of parapro- fessionals. In academic libraries it is economically feasible and technologically possible to move responsibilities and functions downward. Allen Veaner has asked the question as to whether librarianship is a profession or a craft. Librarians will have programmatic responsibilities while production tasks will be the responsibility of paraprofessionals. Librarians must clearly define and communicate what they do uniquely.

The session was concluded with comments and questions posed to the presenters.

M. Dina Giambi Assistant Director for Library Technical Services

University of Delaware Library Newark, DE 19717

Internet: Dina.Giambi@mvs.udel.edu

ALCTS Acquisitions Administrators Discussion Group. Electronic Journal Pricing and Licensing: Where Do Librarians and Publishers Agree?

The proliferation of electronic publications over the past five years has had a dramatic impact on the work of acquisitions librarians throughout the country. As the electronic publishing industry continues to grow and as the number of access options has multiplied, with standalone giving way to local area networks, which are now being replaced by sites geared to the World Wide Web, librarians have been confronted with an increasingly complex array of pricing and licensing deci- sions. With that in mind, cochairs Kay Granskog, Head, Monograph Acquisitions, Michigan State University, and Lisa German, Head, Acquisitions Department, Wright State University, invited speakers who could address both librarian and publisher concerns.

380 ALA Midwinter 1996

Speaking furst was Meta Nissley, Head, Acquisitions and Collection Management Department, Meriam Library, California State University at Chico. Nissley was followed by Liz Pope, Electronic Publications Director, Academic Press. The meeting, held at San Antonio's Sheraton Gunter Hotel, followed immediately on the heels of the ALCTS Acquisitions Librarians/Vendor of Library Materials Discussion Group, which'has a largely overlapping audience.

Nissley began by pointing out that there was still a hot debate on whether going to a fully elec- tronic environment would save money for libraries, noting that some studies suggested that as much as seventy percent or more of a libraries materials costs could be saved while other studies maintain that first copy costs do not vary significantly between print and electronic publications. Either way, according to Nissley, it is the case that libraries are strongly interested in further developing their collections of electronic publications, which are easier to access, more efficient to process, more cur- rent, and more widely distributed than corresponding print materials. On the other hand, work still needs to be done in several areas related to electronic publishing including: the ability of libraries to archive and guarantee access to these materials; the need for authors to be acknowledged and com- pensated for their work; the ability of the library to employ cost center shifting, being able to move money to areas that have the most demand; and getting university administrators and publishers to accept peer reviewed electronic publications as being on par with traditional, printed sources.

Having set the scene, Nissley went on to describe the various pricing and licensing options pub- lishers of electronic materials have employed. Pricing options include:

• flat fee per year, which assumes unlimited use in a single area; • the augmented price model, in which a library pays for the paper copy of a title and pays a lit-

tle more for the online version of the same thing; • the pay extra for print approach, in which primary delivery is by electronic means and the

library pays an additional percentage increment to get print; • the pay per use model, an example of which is OCLC's First Search, for which libraries can

buy blocks of searches in advance or pay as they go; • usage per potential user, which is based on the size of the institution and is predicated on the

idea that a head count is an adequate predictor of usage; • charge per connect time, which has been generally applicable to online services but which

may also include charges for specific services such as downloading, full text, graphics, print- ing and so forth;

• acquisitions on demand; • bundling or packaging, in which a library may get an introductory price for one year or a big

discount on an individual title if other titles are also included; and • consortial pricing, in which a group of libraries opts to go in together on accessing a particu-

lar electronic title.

In addition to these pricing schemes, Nissley said, there is also the question of access options, which are generally covered in licensing agreements. As the ways in which access may be obtained continues to mushroom, the number of options available also continues to expand. Examples include single user access (e.g., a stand alone workstation); multiport, in which the library pays according to the number of computer ports it is occupying; local area networks (one domain); wide area networks (multi-domains); Web sites; restricted access; complete, unlimited access; and national site licenses. Quoting Ann Okerson, who has stated flatly that there is no model for electronic publishing, Nissley reminded her audience that, given the paramount impor- tance of the journal in the research process, librarians need to make primary source material avail- able at reasonable and predictable prices.

ALA Midwinter 1996 381

Pope agreed to the importance of journal literature but implied that the environment was just as confusing for publishers. According to Pope, 60 percent of her company's authors are foreign, many of whom do not have well developed expertise with computers. Likewise, about half the material Academic receives has to be handled directly, i.e., rekeyed or reformatted - - and that their experience in general suggests that it is easier to rekey an electronically submitted manuscript than it is to reformat it. Also, despite burgeoning increases in the number of pages, fully half of submitted articles are rejected as part of the peer review process, Pope maintained.

As for pricing models, Pope reminded the audience that libraries needs tend to be radically dif- ferent - - and continue to evolve. Academic, she said, started with an augmented cost model, not having a good idea of how many print subscriptions would be canceled and how much would be needed to recoup costs. At this point, however, Academic has decided to make all 194 of its journals available electronically and to provide for backward compatibility, i.e., Academic wants to make sure that as new formats are employed they can still be used in conjunction with earlier versions.

After the presentations, questions regarding information ownership predominated. What hap- pens if you decide to end your subscription to an electronic title? Even if you retain the CD-ROMs instead of sending them back there is no guarantee that those CDs will be usable five years from now, much less ten years from now, and that is assuming you actually have a physical product as opposed to just online or Website access. In the print word, the library continued to own journal runs even after canceling a subscription. By contrast, others noted that there were big costs associ- ated with maintaining print collections, including shelving, retrieving, binding, preserving, and filming them. How to compare such costs against the cost of continued electronic access?

Pope pointed out that Academic is committed to maintaining all of its titles indefinitely but more than one member of the audience expressed anxiety over the fact that Academic or any other commercial publisher is subject to being purchased by a new owner less amenable to maintaining indefinite backfiles. A quick poll showed that approximately three fourths of the audience were still maintaining print subscriptions parallel to electronic ones because of uncertainty over the archiving of datafiles.

Compared to discussion group meetings of two or three years ago, librarians and publishers in general seemed to have a much better grasp of the varying types of issues associated with electronic publishing. Even so, based on the conversation at this discussion group, it is safe to say that for now there are still more questions than answers associated with pricing and licensing of electronic jour- nals. Without a doubt chief among these was the question of maintaining access to electronic infor- marion over the long haul. At this point librarians concerns regarding this issue have yet to be allayed.

PII S0364-6408(96)00062-2 Richard P. Jasper Head, Acquisitions Department

Emory University General Libraries Atlanta, GA 30322-2870

Internet: librpj@emory.edu

ALCTS Acquisitions LibrarianslVendor of Library Materials Discussion Group. It's Not Just the Two of Us Anymore: A Trialogue Between Acquisitions L i b ~ Library Materials Vendor, and Systems Vendor

The world of the acquisitions librarian and the library materials vendor has changed dramatically in the 1990s, according to cochairs Cynthia Coulter, University of Northern Iowa, and John Riley,