For the Press Release About This Statement, see http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/icolcpr.htm

Publishers today increasingly act globally to provide electronic information, and it is incumbent upon libraries to act globally to express their market positions on the pricing and other terms and conditions related to the purchase of that information. This document sets forth concerns about the current electronic information environment, the desired environment for the future, and the preferred practices for library consortia and their member libraries to achieve the desired outcomes. In a rapidly changing technology and information environment, the general goals and views outlined here will remain relatively constant, while the specific terms may change based upon experience.

Although this statement may have general applicability, the adopters expect that its primary relevance will be within the higher education community. A premise of this document is that the current scholarly communication system will continue during the critical transition period from print publication to electronic distribution of scholarly and research materials. Our primary intention is to define the current conditions and preferred practices for pricing and delivering scholarly information within this emerging electronic environment. While other organizations have set forth useful proposals that offer the potential to change signficantly the structure of the scholarly certification and review process [1], those efforts go beyond our current scope. This statement builds upon and complements the work of others to develop principles for the licensing of electronic resources. [2]

This statement aims to provide a starting point for a dialog among information providers and library consortia. The members of ICOLC invite information providers to engage in meaningful discussions about how this document might help advance ubiquitous and affordable information resources for library users in educational and research institutions.

Definition of Terms. The following terms, which may have both general and specific definitions in other contexts, are used within this document as follows:

E-information (or electronic information). A broad term that encompasses abstracting and indexing services, electronic journals and other full text materials, the offerings of information aggregators, article delivery services, etc. E-information can be accessed via remote networks from information providers, or locally mounted by a consortium or one of its member libraries.

Fair Use. Used here not to describe the specific copyright laws or guidelines of any one country, but rather the general principle of a society's lawfully permitted copying or excerpting of copyrighted materials in the course of education, scholarship, commentary, or to advance learning and other societal goals. Fair use can be made without the user's paying a specific fee or needing to seek the copyright owner's permission. (Used interchangeably with the term "fair dealing" that is more commonly used in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.)

Providers (or information providers). Includes traditional print and electronic scholarly publishers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), trade publishers, information aggregators and other vendors, and other electronic-only information disseminators.

A. The goal of academic libraries is to meet the teaching, learning, scholarly, research, and other information needs of their faculty, students, and affiliates, and to do so effectively and efficiently.

B. E-information resources are very much in a developmental phase. Therefore, this statement is a work in progress rather than a final product.

C. While this statement intends to be broad enough to encompass all types of academic consortia, and to set general boundaries within which consortia usually operate, experimentation is necessary and encouraged within this emerging field. Therefore, this statement is not intended to preclude individual consortia from taking specific actions that may be appropriate to their own needs.
 

A. Increasing Expectations and Stable Budgets.
 
Current Problem: Over time, academic institutions typically have spent a decreasing percentage of their educational and general budgets on their libraries. Nonetheless, academic institutions and library clients expect their libraries to obtain new electronic resources while simultaneously maintaining or growing traditional print collections until the electronic resources are fully stable. Libraries also are expected to do this with no additional funding.

Future Need: Academic libraries and information providers must use information technologies to facilitate increased information delivery and to make e-information more generally, readily, and flexibly accessible than its print counterpart.
 

B. Fair Use Under Attack.
 
Current Problem: Although there exists no empirical evidence that fair use causes material or undue harm to providers, many information providers nonetheless are seeking to discontinue the well-established principle of fair use, and they are using the new electronic environment as the reason and means to do so.

Future Need: The concept of fair use continues to be relevant and must be retained in the electronic environment.
 

C. Archiving of Information.

Current Problem: Print publications provide a degree of permanence that is critical to academic libraries. However, if not managed properly, e-information can be highly transient.

Future Need: It is critical to libraries and the constituents they serve that permanent archival access to information be available, especially if that information exists only in electronic form. Libraries cannot rely solely on external providers to be their archival source. Therefore, agreements to procure e-information must include provisions to purchase and not just to lease or provide temporary access.
 

D. Changes to the Scholarly Communications System to Meet the Needs of Teaching, Learning, and Research.

Current Problem: Academic libraries are but one of several key players in a large, complex scholarly communications system that is becoming dysfunctional. Symptoms of such dysfunction include: an increasing volume of academic journal publication (particularly in science, technology and medicine) that is redundant or repetitive, and that is generated as much for the certification (through tenure and promotion) of authors as for the advancement of learning; the inability of academic institutional budgets to support the growing number of research journal publications; the push by some publishers to increase profit by charging high prices for catering to the academic research trade; the clash of values in the copyright ownership of academic works; and the reluctance by many sectors, including academic authors, to deploy the new technologies to improve the current scholarly communications system.

Future Need: Scholars, academic institutions, publishers, and libraries should share a common and compelling interest in fostering systems of publishing that result in broad information access at an affordable price. To achieve this, each group must take steps to improve the current system. Universities and colleges must modify recognition and rewards systems to create disincentives for unnecessary publication. Publishers must charge reasonable prices for journal subscriptions. Academic libraries must purchase subscriptions only to journal titles of certain value to scholarship and learning. Academic authors must develop an understanding of how copyright law works and how to use their ownership, the law, and fair use provisions to support the work of scholarly creation and dissemination. All parties must be willing to take risks to create and implement new, technologically enabled research outlets for initial publication of scholarship and research results.
 

E. Pricing Strategies.

Current Problem: Current pricing models for e-information, which are developing during a period of experimentation, are not sustainable. While present pricing approaches of information providers may in some cases be desirable as a bridging strategy to the future, academic libraries, with their diminishing fiscal resources, will rapidly be unable to afford to support the pricing strategies for electronic information currently advocated by information providers. For example, academic libraries cannot afford to commit long-term to the now-prevalent electronic journal pricing model that is premised upon a base price of "current print price plus electronic surcharge plus significant projected inflation surcharges."  furthermore, today's electronic information products are neither fully formed nor stable, yet libraries are being asked to support in full the cost of the research and development to bring such products to market.

Future Need: Pricing models for e-information must result in a significant reduction in the per use (or "unit cost") of information. The savings accrued through the production of electronic information should, over time, be passed from the provider to the customer. Eventually, the methods for pricing electronic information must dovetail with the financial requirements of information providers and the budgets and missions of academic libraries. Additionally, academic library consortia must work with information providers to reduce the overall cost of electronic information so the member libraries can demonstrate that they are delivering more services at the same cost. Strategies for doing so may include increasing the total number of uses of the electronic information above that for the print publication, or reducing the base cost to obtain the information.
 

F. Measures of Effectiveness.

Current Problem: Neither academic libraries nor information providers have sufficient experience or data to determine the appropriate unit cost of information, the effective return on investment, or the most appropriate economic model for charging or paying for electronic information. Academic libraries cannot afford to purchase information that is not of proven need on campus.

Future Need: Effective data must be collected and measures of success must be constantly reevaluated. Libraries and providers must jointly develop and agree upon what constitutes an effective measure of the use and value of electronic information so both parties can demonstrate better returns on investment. Improved measures of e-information effectiveness will be essential to enable libraries to secure future funding to procure these resources.
 

A. Contract Negotiations.

1. Providers should not preclude libraries from working through consortia to seek advantageous pricing or other special arrangements by writing contracts only with individual institutions and not with consortia.

2. All terms and conditions should be negotiated and clearly stated in the contract. Hidden charges, after-the-fact retroactive charges, changes in content, or any other changes in commitment are not acceptable without re-negotiation.

3. Non-disclosure language, if necessary, should not preclude library consortia from sharing pricing and other significant terms and conditions with other consortia.
 

B. Pricing.
 
1. Recognizing that libraries have limited new funds to invest in e-information (including electronic journals), and that providers are not yet providing fully debugged and client-ready electronic products (especially electronic journals), providers should not engage in excessive pricing during the current period of experimentation. Therefore:
 
a. Consortia and their libraries should not be asked by providers to pay for undelivered features.

b. Libraries should not be charged high premiums for essentially development level (beta) products that often do not meet basic client needs.

c. Providers should not expect libraries to pay at present the entire cost of their research and development to bring new electronic products to market. These costs should be shared by the company shareholders and should be amortized by the provider so current prices for electronic information are sufficiently affordable to encourage experimentation and ultimately widespread use. This strategy will offer providers a better long term revenue stream from which to recover their research and development costs.

d. Libraries should have the option to purchase the electronic product without the paper subscription, and the electronic product should cost less than the printed subscription price.

 
2. Consortia and their member libraries are diverse and have different needs, funding structures, and governance. To meet these differing needs during this current period of experimentation, providers are strongly encouraged to offer multiple and flexible economic models. As libraries and providers gather experience, information, and understanding of the electronic information environment, a richer array of options and solutions should be provided.

3. Bundling electronic and print subscriptions should not be the sole pricing option for purchasing e-information. For example, licenses and purchase agreements for electronic journals should not be premised upon a fixed base year expenditure for purchase of information or contain "no cancellation" clauses that require the library to continue paying for print subscriptions to be able to obtain the electronic version.
 

C. Access, Archiving, Systems and Licenses.
 
1. Electronic files (e.g., electronic copies of journal articles) should be available before, or no later than, the publication of the article in its print format. Significant delays in availability (e.g., of 6 weeks) substantially depreciate the value of electronic publication.

2. The provider should grant to the consortium and its member libraries a perpetual license when the consortium purchases the content. That perpetual license must be transferable should the consortium or library wish to change providers, agents or vendors, or to switch from obtaining information from the provider's Web site to local or regional mounting.
 

a. Consortia and their member libraries should be allowed to take reasonable steps to archive content that they purchase or lease (e.g., to make backup copies).
 
b. When an information provider gives access to data from its Web site (rather than through local mounting of data), the provider should guarantee perpetual availability of the content. This availability need not obligate the provider to realtime access. For example, it may be possible to provide the consortium with copies of data files in an appropriate format, escrowing of data files, or other appropriate means.

3. Consortia or libraries that wish to mount information locally should be allowed the option to do so on the system of their choice. The licensed content should be portable to all major computing platforms and networked environments. All systems and data should comply with appropriate standards as used by libraries (e.g., Z39.50, MARC format). Standard "off-the-shelf" hardware and software solutions are highly preferred to proprietary solutions.

4. Libraries and consortia should have complete flexibility to choose the format in which they wish to receive and store information. Electronic data (bibliographic data, abstracts, and full-text) should be available in multiple formats, e.g., real PDF, HTML, and SGML. The resolution of all images should be at a level appropriate to the material, with at least 600 dpi employed for detailed scientific photographs, data, etc.

5. Licenses should not limit the right of a library or a consortium to integrate the data into local system infrastructures and information services.
 

D. Content, and Management Data, and Use.
 
1. Given that e-information provides library clients with the new capabilities and value-added features of the electronic format, providers should not place any undue restrictions or burdens on individual authorized use, such as restrictions on downloading, storing, local printing, use of information for classroom purposes, or electronic reserves.
 
a. Licenses should permit the "fair use" of all information for non-commercial, educational, instructional, and scientific purposes by authorized users, including unlimited viewing, downloading and printing, in agreement with the provisions in current copyright practices as applicable in the country of origin. Providers should allow e-information (such as electronic copies of journal articles) to be used to generate copies (whether in print or electronic form) for non-commercial interlibrary loans between two academic libraries in support of their teaching, learning and research missions.
 
b. Libraries should commit to taking reasonable steps to prevent misuse or abuse by clients and to work with the providers as appropriate to stop abuse should it occur. However, license or purchase agreements must not place liability on the licensing/purchasing institution or on consortia for the misuse of content or the product by an individual user. Neither the consortium nor its libraries should be liable for breach of the terms of the agreement by any authorized user as long as the library or consortium did not intentionally assist in or encourage such breach to continue after having received notice by the provider of an actual breach having occurred.
 
c. Walk-in use by clients who are not formally affiliated with the institution should be included by the provider in the base contract as part of the permitted user group.

2. Agreements with publishers must guarantee individual libraries the right and the opportunity to measure use and to gather the relevant management information needed for collection development. Consortia and their libraries must be allowed to share basic management information about the provider's product. For example, a provider should be willing to generate for every library in a consortium both composite data about the use of the product and itemized statistics of electronic journal use at both the journal title and article level.

3. It is in the best interests of information providers to gather and share data considered by consortia and their libraries to be necessary for consortial and institutional decisionmaking. These data will enhance provider and institutional understanding in the emerging e-information environment.

4. The anonymity of individual users and the confidentiality of their searches must be fully protected.

5. Information providers should not maintain information about individual or institutional use that would violate the other national and international library organization principles (such as those of the American Library Association) on the ethical use of information or on confidentiality and privacy.

6. In cases where the provider is generating full text files (e.g., electronic journals), MARC bibliographic records for each title should be provided.
 

E. Authentication. Information providers should be flexible as to the acceptable mechanisms for authentication or validation of users (e.g., IP addressing, PIN).

[1] When this statement was prepared, the adopters were aware of efforts of other groups that might change the underlying structure of the scholarly communication process. For example, the Pew Higher Education Roundtable recently published "To Publish and Perish" in their "Policy Perspectives" series (Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research on Higher Education, 1998. Available from http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/pp/pp-main.html.

In addition, the American Association of Universities Digital Committee recently circulated an unpublished early draft statement that proposed a possible change to the scholarly communication process by "decoupling" the certification necessary for tenure and promotion from the publication and information dissemination process.

A third relevant development is the work of the ARL Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), which seeks to encourage the development of competition in the scholarly publishing marketplace.

[2] While a number of such statements have been developed, in particular we wish to recognize:

• The "Dutch-German Library Joint Licensing Principles and Guidelines" (October 1997), developed by a consortium of universities in the Netherlands and Germany, is available at http://cwis.kub.nl/~dbi/cwis/licprinc.htm
• The "Principles for Licensing Electronic Resources" (July 1997), which was promulgated jointly by the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association. That statement is available at http://www.arl.org/scomm/licensing/principles.html
• The University of California Libraries Collection Development Committee "Principles for Acquiring and Licensing Information in Digital Formats" (May 1996). Available at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Info/principles.html
• The "Basic Principles for Managing Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment from the National Humanities Alliance Committee on Libraries and Intellectual Property Document, which were derived, with permission, from the University of California document. Separately available at http://www-ninch.cni.org/issues/copyright/principles/nha_Complete.html
• Task Force on the CIC Electronic Collection. "Assumptions & Guiding Principles for Near-Term Initiatives." Available at http://NTX2.cso.uiuc.edu/cic/cli/licguide.html

 

This statement was adopted in principle by member representatives of the "International Coalition of Library Consortia" (ICOLC) whose institutions are listed below.  This statement does not necessarily represent the official views of each consortium listed.   Consortia listed are in the United States unless otherwise noted.

Adventist Libraries Information Cooperative (ALICE)
AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, Inc.
Arizona Universities Library Consortium (AULC)
Big Twelve Plus Library Consortium
Boston Library Consortium (BLC)
British Columbia Electronic Library Network [Canada]
California Digital Library (CDL)
California State University - Software and Electronic Information Resources (CSU-SEIR)
Center for Digital Information Services (Israel)
Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Center for Library Initiatives
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) [Australia]
Conference of Rectors and Principals of Universities of Quebec (CREPUQ): endorsement added March 1999.
Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL) [United Kingdom]
Council of Australian University Libraries (CAUL) [Australia]
Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL)
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) and the Florida State University System Library Directors
GALILEO: Georgia Library Learning Online
Gemeinsamer BibliotheksVerbund (GBV) [Germany]
Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program
Illinois Libraries Computer Sytems Organization (ILCSO)
Louisiana Library Network (LLN)
MINITEX Library Information Network (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota)
Missouri Research Consortium of Libraries (MIRACL)
Missouri Research and Education Network (MOREnet)
New York Comprehensive Research Libraries (NYCRL)
Netherlands Association of University Libraries, Royal Library, and Library of the Royal Academy of Sciences (UKB) [Netherlands]
Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (NAAL)
New England Law Library Consortium (NELLCO)
New Zealand University Librarians, Committee of
NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL)
OhioLINK
Orbis
Pennsylvania Academic Library Connection Initiative (PALCI)
Ontario Academic Research Libraries (OARL) [Canada]
PORTALS
Standing Conference of National and University Libraries (SCONUL) [United Kingdom]
TexShare
Triangle Research Libraries Network (TRLN)
University of North Carolina System University Librarians Advisory Council
University of Texas System Knowledge Management Center
Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA)
WALDO
Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC)
Washington State Cooperative Library Project

About the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC)

The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) is an informal organization that began meeting in 1997.  Comprising about sixty library consortia in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Israel, and Australia, the Coalition represents over 5,000 member libraries worldwide.  The Coalition serves primarily higher education institutions by facilitating discussion among its members on issues of common interest.  ICOLC conducts meetings to keep its members informed about new electronic information resources, pricing practices of electronic providers and vendors, and other issues of importance to consortium directors and their governing boards.  These meetings also provide a forum for consortial representatives to meet with the information provider community, discuss their products, and engage in a dialog with Coalition members about issues of mutual concern.   The ICOLC also maintains listservs and web pages for the benefit of its members.  Additional information about the ICOLC can be found at http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia

Authors of the Statement

• Arnold Hirshon, Vice Provost for Information Resources, Lehigh University

8A East Packer Avenue, Bethlehem PA 18015
Phone: 610/758-3025       Fax: 610/758-3004
Email: arh5@lehigh.edu

• Tom Sanville, Executive Director, OhioLINK

Suite 300, 2455 North Star Road, Columbus, OH 43221
Phone: 614-728-3600, ext. 322      Fax: 614-728-3610
Email: tom@ohiolink.edu

• Ann Okerson, Associate University Librarian

Yale University, P. O. Box 208240, 130 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06520-8240
Phone: 203/432-1764      Fax: 203/432-8527
Email: ann.okerson@yale.edu

• David Kohl, Dean, University Libraries, University of Cincinnati

University Libraries, Langsam Library, PO Box 210033, Cincinnati OH 45221
Phone: 513/556-1515      Fax: 513/556-0325
Email: david.kohl@uc.edu

In the United Kingdom:

• Fred Friend, Director, Scholarly Communication

University College London, Gower Street, London England WC1D 6BT
Phone: 0171-380 7090      Fax: 0171-380 7043
Email: f.friend@ucl.ac.uk

• Elmar Mittler, Library Director

Niedersaechsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Goettingen, Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Goettingen Germany
Phone: +49 (551) 39-5212      Fax: +49 (551) 39-5222
Email: mittler@mail.sub.uni-goettingen.de

• Hans Geleijnse, University Librarian

Tilburg University, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant Library, Warandelaan 2, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 13 466 21 46      Fax: +31 13 466 33 70
Email: Geleynse@kub.nl

• John Gilbert, Head Librarian

Universiteit Maastricht, P.O Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 43 388 3404       Fax: +31 43 325 6932
Email: j.gilbert@ub.unimaas.nl

• Alex Klugkist, University Librarian, and Chairman, Dutch University Library Association, Groningen University, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Broerstraat 4, Postbus 559, 9700 AN Groningen, The Netherlands

Phone: +31 (0)50 363 50 02/3      Fax: +31 (0)50 363 49 96
Email: a.c.klugkist@ub.rug.nl