Transfer Update

Elizabeth L. WinterElizabeth L. WinterElectronic Resources CoordinatorElectronic Resources CoordinatorGeorgia Institute of TechnologyGeorgia Institute of Technology

&&Member, Project TRANSFER Working GroupMember, Project TRANSFER Working Group

ICOLC MeetingICOLC MeetingApril 15, 2008April 15, 2008

Session Overview

About Project TRANSFERWhy journals move between publishers Implications of these movesProgress so farCurrent statusCode of PracticeChallengesNext StepsRole of Consortia

About Project TRANSFER

Sponsored by United Kingdom Serials Group

Work began in April 2006 Objective:

To improve the procedures and policies surrounding the transfer of journals so that the annual movement of journals causes the minimum disruption and adheres to an agreed Code of Practice.

www.projectransfer.org

Working Group Members Richard Gedye (OUP/Oxford

Journals) Paul Harwood (Content

Complete Ltd) Helen Henderson (Ringgold

e-Marketing Services) Alison Mitchell (Nature

Publishing Group) Cliff Morgan (John Wiley &

Sons) Jill Taylor-Roe (University of

Newcastle upon Tyne) Elizabeth Winter (Georgia

Tech)

Chair: Ed Pentz (CrossRef) Nancy Buckley (Burgundy

Information Services Ltd) Yvonne Campfens (Springer) Diane Cogan (Elsevier

Science) Louise Cole (University of

Leeds) Jo Connolly (Swets

Information Services) Helen Cooke (Sage) Tim Devenport (Macmillan) Nick Evans (ALPSP)

Why Journals Move

It’s not the journals that move – it’s the societies that move their publishing arrangements.

Reality or perception that one publisher can do a better job regarding: Stability and growth of revenues Retention of ownership and control of editorial

policy and pricing Economies of scale Expanding readership Branding & PR Innovation

What are the implications of journal transfers…For Publishers?

For Intermediaries?

For Librarians?

For Publishers Receiving/sending subscriber data in a timely manner Logging and merging data with existing systems Interpreting subscriber data customers (incl. backfile

access rights) Receiving/sending content files and uploading into

existing platforms –conflicting formats, digitization issues

Maintaining links to previous/new publisher platforms Maintaining old content on current platforms Ownership of backfiles Liaison with third parties

For Intermediaries

A case study:A case study:

In 2007 EBSCO logged 2,667 unique In 2007 EBSCO logged 2,667 unique titles that moved from one publisher to titles that moved from one publisher to another.another.

2,667 titles moving between publishers 2,667 titles moving between publishers required EBSCO to make 20,000-25,000 required EBSCO to make 20,000-25,000 changes to their title file.changes to their title file.

For Librarians Being aware of timing and implications of

transfer in time to make appropriate changes to library data records (ILS, link resolver, ERM, etc.).

Retaining appropriate access to previously subscribed content

Maintaining accurate and comparable usage data (COUNTER-compliant)

Ensuring no negative impacts in terms of access for our customers (loss of access, link resolver out-of-date, etc.)

Having reliable, timely and accessible source of data on transfers

For example: “In 2008, 26 journals are moving to [publisher] and

will be available electronically on [publisher platform], [publisher] 's online journal delivery platform. If your library has access to one or more of these journals through your participation in a consortial network, please contact us at your earliest convenience so that we can ensure your access is uninterrupted. To view a list of journals moving to [publisher] in 2008 please visit [publisher web site] and fill out the form to ensure your continued access. We will let you know once your online access has been activated and will contact you to discuss your subscription/access options now that these journals are published by [publisher].”

TRANSFER Timeline

April 2006

April 2007

May 2007

April 2008

Working Group formed

Draft Code launched at

UKSG

Revised Code launched at

UKSG

Publisherssign up

Concerns Extensive discussion and review

?

Publisher Concerns

“Mandatory” language needed to be removed (conflict with existing contracts)

Didn’t take into account the variety of business models

Too specific about definition of archival access (variety in customer contracts)

Other Issues

Mandatory submission of transfer data elements to a TRANSFER database (scoped, but did not exist)

References to auditing for compliance (no procedures existed for this)

Competition issues (journal ownership governed by contracts and business arrangements)

Current Status

Last week: Released Version 1.0 of the Code for public review period, until 31 May 2008

Also released Supplementary Information = guidelines for publishers on practical aspects of implementing the Code of Practice

Code: Transferring Publisher

Access to title: Transferring Publisher (TP) keeps content online up to six months if Receiving Publisher (RP) isn’t readyPerpetual access rights: TP ensures

continued access where rights have been granted. TP non-exclusive right or transfer obligation to RP

Digital content files: TP makes available within 4 weeks of signature of contract or 4 months before Effective Transfer Date whichever is later

Code: Transferring Publisher

Subscription lists: Same timing as content. TP makes details of subscription data available (consortia subscribers w/perpetual access, lapsed subscribers)

Journal URLs: TP redirects for 12 months or transfer URL to RP

Communication: TP notifies subscribers of transfer as soon as possible after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date

DOI name ownership: Follows CrossRef procedures

Code: Receiving Publisher

Access to the title: RP provides access from Effective Transfer Date but must permit TP to keep content online if not readyPerpetual access rights: RP honors

rights granted by TPArchiving services: content must

remain in archives; encouraged to continue existing arrangements

Code: Receiving Publisher

Communication: RP notifies subscribers of transfer as soon as possible after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date

Subscription lists: RP contacts existing subscribers according to info. from TP

DOI name ownership: Follows CrossRef procedures

Challenges

Feasibility of Feasibility of compliance for compliance for publishers and publishers and

societiessocietiesvs. vs.

Giving the Code Giving the Code “teeth” for librarians “teeth” for librarians

and consortiaand consortia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/procsilas/1283513775/

Next Steps

Continue to solicit buy-in After comment period, Code of Practice will

be formally released and publishers will be asked to agree to follow the Code. Publishers agreeing to align their procedures with the Code, and to apply them in practice when working with other, similarly aligned publishers, will be considered “TRANSFER Compliant.”

Working Group will re-establish itself officially under UKSG, as the TRANSFER Committee

Next Steps

Once formed, the TRANSFER Committee will: Oversee implementation of a TRANSFER

Alerting Service, a central location for basic details of transfers

Oversee compliance with the Code, conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the Code and receive complaints on non-compliance

Consider future revisions to the Code of Practice and establish procedures on how any revisions will be made and approved

Role of Consortia

Read and understand the CodeTalk with publishers about

TRANSFER—use your clout to encourage compliance

Insist on TRANSFER compliance in your publisher agreements and license terms

Thank you!www.projecttransfer.org

Elizabeth L. WinterElectronic Resources CoordinatorGeorgia Institute of Technology

elizabeth.winter@library.gatech.edu