Journal of Information Management (정보관리연구)

Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (한국과학기술정보연구원 과학기술정보센터)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seeking Alternative Models and Research Trends for Big Deals in the Electronic Journal Consortium

전자저널 빅딜 계약의 연구 동향과 대안 탐색

  • Kim, Sang-Jun (Librarian, Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Hwan (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information)
  • 김상준 (한국생명공학연구원 도서관 및 충남대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 김정환 (한국과학기술정보연구원)
  • Received : 2010.06.15
  • Accepted : 2010.12.13
  • Published : 2011.01.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to seek a workable alternative to replace a big deal related to the journal budget for the maintenance of academic libraries with the largest issue on the E-journal consortium. The contents of this study was to present it. It had examined the current situation, strengths, weaknesses and corresponding to replace the big deal contract. After reviewing the literature, we looked into the alternative activities for the big deal such as open access-based, usage-based, consortium improvement-based, publishers lead, and other models. As a result, the 'consortium cost reapportion model' was an alternative for the KESLI. The alternative was in the short term for cost division format, but long-term oriented for a consortium single(bloc) payment type or national licence model. The model was based on the data from the last year. It had evaluated download the PDF and HTML documents, but the three times weighting more than others, and the rest of 14 factors of 0.5 to 5 out of 100 total score. The total amount negotiated by national units 10, 20 and 30 grades for the final step was allocated to the participating library on the KESLI consortium.

본 연구의 목적은 빅딜 계약이 큰 비중을 차지하면서 전자저널 컨소시엄 유지를 위한 예산 확보가 학술도서관의 최대 이슈로 자리 잡은 상황에서 빅딜 계약의 대안을 탐색하는 것이다. 이를 위해 빅딜 계약의 현황, 장단점, 문제점에 대한 대응을 토대로 빅딜 계약을 대체하는 다양한 모델을 조사하였다. 문헌연구를 통해 빅딜 계약의 대안을 OA 기반, 이용량 기반, 컨소시엄 개선 기반, 출판사 주도, 기타 등으로 살펴본 후 KESLI를 위해 단기적으로 Cost division 형식이지만 중장기적으로 보다 강화된 컨소시엄을 기반으로 Single(bloc) payment 형식이나 National licene 형식을 지향하는 '컨소시엄 비용 재배분 모델'을 대안으로 제시하였다. '컨소시엄 비용 재배분 모델'은 최근 1년분의 각종 데이터를 기초로 PDF와 HTML 다운은 3배의 가중치를 부여하되 나머지 14개 요소는 각 요소별 0.5점부터 5점까지로 총 100점 만점으로 합산해 자관 총점의 순위에 따라 국가 단위로 협상된 KESLI 총액을 10, 20, 30 등급으로 확정해 최종 협상된 금액에 맞게 다시 배분하여 구독액을 결정하는 방식이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김상준. 2010. 전자저널 컨소시엄의 당면과제와 해결방안 모색. 정보관리연구 , 41(4): 93-118. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2010.41.4.093
  2. 김정환, 이응봉. 2009. KESLI 컨소시엄의 주요 이슈 분석에 관한 연구. 정보관리연구 , 40(3): 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2009.40.3.099
  3. 신은자. 2007. 학술지 빅딜판매의 문제점 및 개선 방안. 한국문헌정보학회지 , 41(1): 373 -389. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2007.41.1.373
  4. Baker, Gayle and Eleanor J. Read. 2008. "Vendor-supplied usage data for electronic resources: a survey of academic libraries." Learned Publishing, 21(1): 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X247276
  5. Ball, David. 2004. "What's the 'big deal', and why is it a bad deal for universities?." Interlending and Document Supply, 32(2): 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610410538586
  6. Best, R. D. 2009. "Is the 'Big Deal' dead?" The Serials Librarian, 57(4): 353- 363. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903203702
  7. Bevan, Simon, Pete Dalton, and Angela Conyers. 2005. "How usage statistics can inform national negotiations and strategies." Serials, 18(2): 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1629/18116
  8. Bucknall, Tim. 2009. "A comparative evaluation of journal literature access options at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro." Interlending & Document Supply, 37(3): 140- 142. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610910985611
  9. Bucknell, Terry. 2008. "Usage statistics for big deals: supporting library decision -making." Learned Publishing, 21 (3): 193-199. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X323893
  10. Cole, Louise. 2009. "The E-deal: keeping up to date and allowing access to the end user." Serials Librarian, 57(4): 399-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903206879
  11. Cox, John and Laura Cox. 2006. Scholarly publishing practice: academic journal publisher's policies and practices in online publishing. ALPSP. [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  12. Cox, John and Laura Cox.2008. Scholarly publishing practice, third survey 2008: academic journal publisher's policies and practices in online publishing. ALPSP. [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  13. Fowler, David. 2009. "The bundling and unbundling of E-serials: introduction." Serials Librarian, 57(4): 350- 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903203694
  14. Friend, Fred. 2010. A journal business model to replace the big deal? Learned Publishing, 23(1): 69-70. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100113
  15. Frontline Global Marketing Services Ltd. 2009. Consortium Purchasing Directory. [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  16. Gatten, Jeffrey N. and Tom Sanville. 2004. "An orderly retreat from the big deal:is it possible for consortia?" D-Lib Magazine, 10(10). [cited 2010.03.08]. .
  17. Gibbs, Nancy J. 2005. "Walking away from the 'big deal': consequences and achievements." Serials, 18(2): 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1629/1889
  18. Harwood, Paul and Albert Prior. 2008. "Testing usage-based e-journal pricing." Learned Publishing, 21(2): 133-139. [cited 2010.04.11]. . https://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X248338
  19. Ives, Gary and Steve Fallon. 2009. "Stung if you do, stung if you don't the good and the bad of the big deal." Serials Librarian, 56(1): 163-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260802679572
  20. Jackson, M. E. 2005. "The 'bigger deal' is OpenURL." Interlending & Document Supply, 33(3): 172-174. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610510700430
  21. Karasozen, B., A. Kaygusuz, and H. Ozen. 2007. "Patterns of e-journal use within the Anatolian University Library Consortium." Serials, 20(1): 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1629/20037
  22. Kohl, David F. 2007. Ten Years of Big Deals. [cited 2010.03.08]. .
  23. Kyrillidou, Martha and Les Bland. 2009. ARL statistics 2007-2008. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. [cited 2010.03.08]. .
  24. Maron, Nancy L. and K. Kirby Smith. 2008. Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication. Washington: Association of Research Libraries. [cited 2010.06.05]. .
  25. Research Information Network. 2008. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system: key findings. [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  26. Research Information Network. 2009. E-Journals: their use, value and impact. [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  27. Rightscom Ltd. 2005. Business models for journal content: final report. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. 64p.
  28. Rowse, Mark. 2003. "The consortium site license: a sustainable model?" Libri, 53: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2003.1
  29. Russell, Ian. 2009. ALPSP survey of librarians: responding to the credit crunch - what now for librarians and libraries? [cited 2010.03.14]. .
  30. Stange, K., K. Hormia-Poutanen, K. B. Gronvall, and Eeva Laurila. 2003. "Cost division models in BIBSAM and FinELib consortia." Serials, 16(3): 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1629/16285
  31. Tattersall, M. 2003. "Big deals: reflections on electronic journal acquisition 1996-2003." Serials, 16(2): 201- 204. https://doi.org/10.1629/16201
  32. Taylor-Roe, Jill. 2009. "To every thing there is a season: reflections on the sustainability of the 'big deal' in the current economic climate." Serials, 22(2): 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1629/22113
  33. Termens, M. 2008. "Looking below the surface: the use of electronic journals by the members of a library consortium." Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 32(2): 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2008.05.004
  34. Wolfe, Donna., Narda Tafuri, Noella Owen, Rebecca Day, and Marcella Lesher. 2009. "Smoking out the big deal: getting what you want without getting stung." Serials Librarian, 56(1): 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260802679291
  35. Wolverton, R. E. and T. Bucknall. 2008. "Are consortium 'Big Deals' cost effective?: a comparison and analysis of E-journal access mechanismsworkshop report." Serials Librarian, 55(3): 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260802059858

Cited by

  1. A Study for the Efficiency Analysis on Big Deals of Electronic Journal vol.47, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2013.47.4.187