UKSG Transfer Code of Practice

UKSG TRANSFER Code of Practice

A collaborative project to improve journal transfers

NASIG/UKSG Joint Webinar

January 18, 2011

Agenda•Introduction – Ed Pentz, CrossRef, Chair,

UKSG Transfer Working Group

•The librarian view of Transfer - Nancy Marie Beals, Electronic Resources Librarian, Wayne State University Libraries

•The publisher view of Transfer - Yvonne Campfens, Springer, Executive Vice President eOperations

•Q&A

How common?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 titles that moved from one publisher to another.to another.

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

TRANSFER Goals

•Ensure that journal content remains easily accessible by librarians and readers when there is a journal transfer

•Ensure that the transfer process occurs with minimum disruption

•Establish explicit obligations for Transferring Publishers and Receiving Publishers

•Establish best practice to help publishers be more efficient

•Get publishers, librarians, agents and others to work together better

How to define success?•TRANSFER has been a great example of

publishers, intermediaries and librarians working together

•TRANSFER needs industry buy-in in order to be successful – primarily publisher buy-in

•Libraries need to support TRANSFER and educate publishers about their concerns

•The Code must be strong enough to protect the library customers and their end-users...

Transfer Working Group

•Elsevier, Springer, SAGE Publications, Oxford University Press, Nature Publishing Group, John Wiley & Sons

•Kingston University, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Hertfordshire

•Content Complete, Ringgold, Swets Information Services

•Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, CrossRef

Balance

Publisher incentives

pu

blis

her

Current Status•Code 2.0 release end of 2008

•34 publishers signed up – including Elsevier, Nature, OUP, Sage, Springer, T&F, Wiley-Blackwell

•~10,000 journals covered

•Impact with publishers behind the scenes

•Libraries need to educate publishers on the issues

Transfer The Librarian’s

PerspectiveNancy Beals

Transfer Working Group

Electronic Resources Librarian

Wayne State University

Best Practices• Lots of data with different formats + different systems =

messy

• Best practices = consensus

Reality:

• Rapid explosion of e-content

• Many players in the game

• Library resources are strained

• Tools are new or nonexistent

Results:

• Simplify the process

• Increase interoperability

• Improve efficiencies

Overview of code•Access to the title

•Digital Content Files

•Subscription Lists

•Journal URL

•Communication

•DOI name ownership

Communication Guidelines

•Transfer data elements

•Bibliographic

•Format

•Location

•Subscription data

• Transfer checklist

Transfer Notification List

•Journal Transfer Notification Form

•For endorsing publishers

•Info is posted to

•Blog with dated archive http://uksg-transfer.blogspot.com/

•JISC email list http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/TRANSFER

•Convenient 

Transfer Blog Example

Transfer Email Example

 Transferring Publisher: Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker e.V. (GDCh) - Society (if applicable): Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker e.V.- Journal Title: Nachrichten aus der Chemie- ISSN: 1439-9598 (Print) 1868-0054 (Online)- Receiving Publisher: De Gruyter- Receiving Publisher contact name: Ariane Rueckebeil- Receiving Publisher contact email: ariane.rueckebeil@degruyter.com- Effective Transfer Date: January 1st, 2011- Archival access policies: - Notes on any special circumstances: 

Librarians’ perspective:•Keeping track of e-journal movement

is a nightmare for librarians

•Access issues continue to be problematic

•Timing is crucial

•Archival/Perpetual Access is essential

Working TowardCommunication is key!

Seamless data exchange between publishers, data providers, third-party hosts, subscription agents, knowledge bases, and libraries

What Can Librarians Do?

•Support these initiatives

•Pressure your publishers & vendors to adopt and comply with best practices

•Include compliance in RFP’s and licenses

•Increase awareness of Transfer

•On a local level

•On a national level

•On an international level

What can publishers do?

•Participate!

•Publicly endorse your involvement

•Participating publishers can give guidance to new adopters

•Work with libraries that want compliance in licenses

Work that still needs to be done

•Checking compliance

•Market to publishers of all sizes and backgrounds

•Create best practices for large title transfers

Transfer WebsiteUKSG Transfer

http://www.uksg.org/transfer

Code version 2.0

Supplementary Materials

Communications Guidelines

Information about the Working Group

Thank You!

Nancy Beals

Transfer Working Group

Electronic Resources Librarian

Wayne State University

Transfer The Publisher’s Perspective

Yvonne Campfens

Transfer Working Group

UKSG Transfer: A collaborative project to improve journal transfers

Webinar, 18 January 2011

27

.

• Larger publishers buy smaller ones, lists, or individual journals.

• Learned societies ask publishers to tender for publication of their journals.

• Portfolio growth through a mixture of new launches, society journal takeovers, co-

publishing agreements, and company/program acquisitions. For example:

– Springer announced the transfer of 54 titles for 2009

– Wiley Blackwell added 32 titles in their fiscal year 2009

– Elsevier announced 11 new acquisitions for 2009

The movement of journals between publishers has been an established feature of the scholarly publishing landscape for many years

28

.

• Larger publishers buy smaller ones, lists, or individual journals.

• Learned societies ask publishers to tender for publication of their journals.

• Portfolio growth through a mixture of new launches, society journal takeovers, co-

publishing agreements, and company/program acquisitions. For example:

– Springer announced the transfer of 54 titles for 2009

– Wiley Blackwell added 32 titles in their fiscal year 2009

– Elsevier announced 11 new acquisitions for 2009

The movement of journals between publishers has been an established feature of the scholarly publishing landscape for many years

Online publishing is not the reason for this phenomenon…

29

.

• Larger publishers buy smaller ones, lists, or individual journals.

• Learned societies ask publishers to tender for publication of their journals.

• Portfolio growth through a mixture of new launches, society journal takeovers, co-

publishing agreements, and company/program acquisitions. For example:

– Springer announced the transfer of 54 titles for 2009

– Wiley Blackwell added 32 titles in their fiscal year 2009

– Elsevier announced 11 new acquisitions for 2009

The movement of journals between publishers has been an established feature of the scholarly publishing landscape for many years

Online publishing is not the reason for this phenomenon……but the complexities are far more pronounced with online journalsthan they were in the print-only world

30

.

It is important to distinguish between proprietary titles changing hands and society-owned journals transferring from one publisher to another

31

.

1. Company/program acquisitions

• ‘Change of ownership’: a valuable asset is changing hands

due diligence contract between two parties

• Formal contract (official legal document):

– Exact scope of the transaction described

– Clear assignment of responsibilities

– Addressing the additional implications of journal transfers with an electronic

component, especially when electronic backfiles are involved.

It is important to distinguish between proprietary titles changing hands and society-owned journals transferring from one publisher to another

32

.

1. Company/program acquisitions

• ‘Change of ownership’: a valuable asset is changing hands

due diligence contract between two parties

• Formal contract (official legal document):

– Exact scope of the transaction described

– Clear assignment of responsibilities

– Addressing the additional implications of journal transfers with an electronic

component, especially when electronic backfiles are involved.

It is important to distinguish between proprietary titles changing hands and society-owned journals transferring from one publisher to another

Advantage: Both parties are obliged to address all issues and to reach an equitable agreement before the transaction can be closed

33

.

2. Society-owned journals

• ‘Change of publisher’:

no full due diligence

(at least) three parties involved

a range of contractual situations possible

It is important to distinguish between proprietary titles changing hands and society-owned journals transferring from one publisher to another

34

.

2. Society-owned journals

• ‘Change of publisher’:

no full due diligence

(at least) three parties involved

a range of contractual situations possible

It is important to distinguish between proprietary titles changing hands and society-owned journals transferring from one publisher to another

Risk: lack of clarity regarding responsibilities and rights of- the former publisher (with regard to its existing subscribers and licensees)- responsibilities to the owner of the journal (the society)- the new publisher of the journal

35

.

• Owning Society has had a (contractual) partnership with a Publisher which has handled

a range of services on the society’s behalf, most commonly:

– publication in print and online formats

– marketing

– sales

– order fulfillment

– distribution (print and online platform)

– rights granted

• If the contract between the Publisher and the Society has not specifically addressed

important topics such as those mentioned above, complications can easily arise when

the agreement is terminated:

– Is the Publisher allowed (or obliged?) to keep on hosting material on its platform?

– Is the Publisher allowed or maybe obliged to keep on granting access to existing

customers?

Society-owned journals --- Issues for the ‘Transferring Publisher’

36

.

• Challenges before even getting started…

– Competitive bidding process.

– Society still bound by a contractual arrangement with its current Publisher.

Situation commercially sensitive, so very detailed (yet crucially relevant!) information is

often not disclosed.

– Potential publishing partners are required to put offers and proposed services on the

table without being able to conduct thorough due diligence.

• Challenges at contract stage:

– Contract is negotiated and signed between the Society and the new Publisher.

The former Publisher is no longer involved.

– Possible inconsistencies in rights and obligations between the Transferring and the

Receiving Publisher, due to:

• Corporate policies

• Licensing terms with customers

• Platform policies (cost!)

Society-owned journals --- Issues for the ‘Receiving Publisher’

37

.

Smooth *) society-journal transfers are feasible if key conditions are met

• Society’s contract with Transferring Publisher and contract with Receiving Publisher are

consistent in relevant areas.

• “Publishers of society journals ensure that their customer licenses do not exceed the

scope of the license granted to them by the owner societies.”

(STM Position Paper:

http://www.stmassoc.org/2006_07_28_STM_Journal_Transfers.doc)

‘Smooth’ meaning no loss of online access cancelled subscriptions disappearing archives

38

.

Smooth society-journal transfers are feasible if Publishers adopt the TRANSFER Code of Practtice

• Responsibilities of Transferring Publisher and Receiving Publishers:

TRANSFER Code of Practice is a set of voluntary industry best practices that is intended to make the journals marketplace better and more efficient *)

The Code encourages Publishers who sign up to:

1.Enter into Code-compliant contracts with societies.

2.Become, and to advertise themselves as, ‘TRANSFER Compliant’

3.Follow the Code in transactions where the transferring publisher is not TRANSFER

Compliant.

*) A legal review was a crucial step in the TRANSFER Code of Practice development process, to ensure that it was consistent with US and European antitrust and competition law. The legal review found that the Code was unlikely to have anticompetitive effects, that there were valid business reasons for establishing the voluntary Code, and that there were strong pro-competitive effects of communicating information to the marketplace by the use of ‘Code-compliant’ advertising.

Code of Practice V 2.0•Antitrust review

•Best practices that don’t replace contracts (encourages code-compliant contracts)

•Process: open, consensus-driven, fair

Transferring Publisher obligations

•Perpetual access rights: ensure continued access where rights have been granted. TP can do this or obligation goes to RP

•Access during transfer: if there are problems TP keep content online up to six months if Receiving Publisher isn’t ready

Transferring Publisher•Digital content files: make available

within 4 weeks of signature of contract or 4 months before Effective Transfer Date whichever is later

•Subscription Lists: same timing as above. Details of subscription data to be made available (consortia subscribers w/perpetual access, lapsed subscribers)

Transferring Publisher•Journal URLs – redirects for 12 months

or a URL to Receiving Publisher

•Communication – as soon as possible after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date

•DOI Name Ownership – must follow CrossRef procedures

Receiving Publisher•Perpetual access rights: will honour

rights granted by Transferring Publisher

•Access during transfer: provide access from Effective Transfer Date but must permit Transferring Publisher to keep content online if not ready

•Archiving services: content must remain in archives; encouraged to continue existing arrangements

Receiving Publisher•Communication – as soon as possible

after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date

•Subscription lists – will contact all existing subscribers when lists come from Transferring Publisher

•DOI Name Ownership – must follow CrossRef procedures

Supplementary Information•Definitions of terms

•More information on each section of the Code

•Publisher Information Exchange

•Detailed set of data elements publishers could exchange – checklist

•Bibliographic, format, location, subscription

•Communication spreadsheet and data list

Transfer Alerting Service•Central location for publishers to

register basic data about a transfer as soon as contracts are signed

•Minimal data, available to all

•Available via email and blog - http://www.uksg.org/transfer/notifications

•Hundreds of Transfers announced – big jump from September 2010

Future Plans•Working Group: ongoing oversight;

dispute resolution

•Promotion of Code

•Survey librarians and publishers about continuing problems to improve Code

•JISC Collections: participating in work on issues with societies

•Coordinate with KBART (Knowledge Base Updating)

Going forward•Collaborative, rather than punitive,

approach is best…unless it doesn’t work

•Keep focus on benefits to readers of online journals and customers

•Learn from COUNTER – steady progress with lots of consultation; moved from informal to more formal

•Traditional publisher and library roles are under threat…..

Thank you•Questions?