Follow up on Wiley (apologies
for the cross-posting)
I wanted to get back to the
lists on which I posted my original Wiley communication.
I
am happy to report that Wiley got back to me directly the day after the
original post. The other happy news is that St. Thomas will be treated as a
single site permitting us to sign the BAL license (Basic Access License) and
not be required to use the EAL (Enhanced Access License).
We
have looked at the language of both licenses closely to see what best serves
the University of St. Thomas. We are grateful for the opportunity to choose
rather than be locked into a kind of license because of a multi-site
designation. I wish that everyone had the choice.
It
appears to us that the BAL will meet all of our needs. We’ve read the
license, the EBSCO license detail and looked at the Wiley FAQ. The only
difference we can tell is that in the BAL, ILL is not explicit, but it is
inferred and electronic course-packs are not explicit but they are also inferred.
More than silent on the matter, the language permits the activities without so
naming them.
We
worried about two more areas: access in perpetuity for the content purchased
(to obviate the need for purchasing paper, too) and usage data. The license,
the FAQ and EBSCO’s review all indicate that we have access in perpetuity
to subscribed data either by their supplying archival copy or continued access
online. I would imagine, although it is not stated, that as long as we have any
online Wiley content we will have access to purchased content online.
While we subscribe we have access back to 1997, if available. I would not
expect them to continue access to unpurchased content after cancellation.
Usage
data: This is a change. At one point the EAL was required for usage data but
that is no longer true. Both the FAQ and the license indicate that BAL license
users will have usage data.
The
benefits they list at their FAQ for all subscribers: Free access
to Counter-compliant usage data; unlimited concurrent users, free course-pack
and walk-in user access; content back to 1997 where available and perpetual
access to content back to 1997.
We
have a few things to negotiate with Wiley – our institution prefers
licenses to be silent on governing law if we can’t have Minnesota and we
would like to have a co-signed license. But in all the important
ways, we are thrilled with the BAL.
So,
these are our experiences. This is all good for UST.
I
thought I would share some of the comments I got back from colleagues from
various lists. Because some were directed just to me, I am going to have
them all be anonymous.
Overall,
what I see is that Wiley has replaced Elsevier as the least valued ‘partner’
in the scholarly communication chain. Because we have a choice, we are
comfortable doing business with Wiley.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Good
for you. The root cause of the crisis in scholarly communication is the
absurdist price demands of big publishing.”
“The
answer is for libraries simply to say they won't pay, and if that means that
for a year or so they have to do without so-called 'must have' content, so be
it.”
“The
multi-site definition of Wiley is less than helpful. I have ranted about
this last year on this list and on lis-e-journals, when they wanted to inflict
their unworkable definitions also on those sites that had existing agreements
with Blackwell. It is not helpful at all if institutions that formerly were
treated as single-site by Blackwell are now suddenly considered multi-site by
Wiley-Blackwell.”
“Wiley-Blackwell
- please wake-up and offer conditions that are workable, especially during the
current recession.”
“This
is exactly the kind of flexibility that ICOLC asked for in its latest Statement
on the Global Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Consortial Licenses The
principles suggested there are not only valid in the consortial context.”
“Principle
1: Flexible pricing that offers customers real options, including the
ability to reduce expenditures without disproportionate loss of content,
will be the most successful. In stable times, standardized pricing and
terms may work relatively well. Today, purchasers will be under
heavy pressure to reduce their outlays and need solutions that let them
do so while continuing to offer as much content and service as
possible. It is in the publisher best interest that we avoid
all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it decisions and options, whose lack of
flexibility is likely to result in far greater damage than is absolutely
necessary.
“Principle
2: It is in the best interest of both publishers and consortia to
seek creative solutions that allow licenses to remain as intact as
possible, without major content or access reductions. Content, once
discontinued, will be very difficult to reinstate at a later date. While
there may be practical limits to this principle, publishers, authors, scholars,
and libraries will be best served by those solutions that retain as much access
to as much content as possible.”
“…by
all means, if a publisher is inflexible in this way, just get out of the
contract and cancel all what you can, including duplicates if you still have
any. But talk to your university library board first, and get their
approval…. There was a clear willingness [here] to accept a period of
reduced access in exchange for a sustainable system.”
“Don't
worry. It's not the end of the world, if you have to cancel a lot of
subscriptions from one of those big publishers. Concentrate on deals with
publishers who offer effective collections and are flexible enough to
accommodate your needs.”
“Thank you Linda
for slogging through this and sharing it with all of us. I have read that
in the past their BAL had hidden costs and consequences in an attempt to force
us into the EAL model so we need to monitor it closely.”
“The Wiley World gives
me a headache.”
“I am sorry that Wiley
has (to say the least) been less than forward thinking in their negotiations
with you, and I admire the strong stance that you have taken!”
“I can say that we also
suffered from the Wiley takeover. “
“As far as them considering you a multi-site license and forcing you into
an EAL, as well as the rigid nature of the EAL in general, it is all just so
evil and unethical.”
“…by moving to
Online Only subscriptions, but having a Basic, instead of Enhanced License, we
have NO ACCESS TO USAGE DATA!!!!” [N. B.: We’re reading the
licenses closely to see if this is true.]
“It is the most
ridiculous "rule" I have ever heard of and can only have been put
into place to try and force clients into the Enhanced Access
License.”
“I
have passed this letter on to all of our faculty in the library. I was
glad to see that we are not alone in our troubles.”
“We
are going to have to make cuts for our FY11 year. I will strongly
recommend that we start with titles held by publishers that are not willing to
work with libraries. The publishers are only hurting themselves with
these attitudes as the library is their biggest customer. (Publishers,
are you listening?)”
“We
have a consortial arrangement for our Wiley titles. Every year, it is a
nightmare. Wiley is difficult to work with and their system is
confusing. I would not shed a tear of remorse if we were to drop every
Wiley title. (Also Elsevier for that matter)”
“Enhanced
Access License vs. Basic Access License (BAL) Oxymoron = a figure of
speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly
self-contradictory effect (Compliments of
dictionary.reference.com).”
“Thanks
for standing up to them. I know it's hard, it's really painful, but someone has
to start.”
“…
Blackwell titles, which of course are no longer any good because of Wiley's
lack of foresight in honoring their agreement to keep Blackwell titles as
is.”
“Good
job! There is no other publisher right now as detestable as Wiley -- none.
Elsevier is looking downright cuddly in comparison. When I go to serials librarian
meetings with other librarians in my consortium, the first thing we all do is a
collective vent about Wiley...”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank
you for all your comments and commiseration and for Wiley being willing to
reconsider our status as a single site.
Linda
Linda
Hulbert, Associate Director
Collection Management and Services
O’Shaughnessy-Frey Library #5004
University of Saint Thomas
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
Phone: (651)
962-5016 Fax: (651)
962-5486 email: lahulbert@stthomas.edu
The journal article you find is the journal article you were
looking for