Elsevier Serial Cancellations
November 24, 2003For the past four years, the UNC Chapel Hill Libraries, through the Triangle Research Libraries Network (TRLN), have licensed electronic access to serial titles published by Reed Elsevier under a variety of imprints including Elsevier Science and Academic Press. These titles are available through the Elsevier electronic interface, ScienceDirect. Our consortial license provides electronic access to 483 Academic Affairs Library subscriptions and 320 Health Sciences subscriptions. The license also provides access to 556 shared TRLN titles (those held by our consortial partners at Duke University, North Carolina State University, and North Carolina Central University, but not by UNC-Chapel Hill). Additional access via "Transaction Allowances" permits students and faculty to view selected content to which no TRLN library subscribes, including the pre-1995 archives for many titles.
The TRLN libraries are currently negotiating with Reed Elsevier to renew the license for ScienceDirect. In 2003, the UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries spent more than $1.5 million for Reed Elsevier titles in print and electronic form, excluding the Cell Press imprint. This represents over 13% of total library materials expenditures and 25% of serials expenditures but only 3% of Carolina's paid serial subscriptions. Under Elsevier's initial offer for a three-year contract renewal, the costs to UNC-Chapel Hill would increase substantially in the first year according to our calculations and with additional increases in each subsequent year. The contract does not permit cancellations of titles, thus locking the TRLN libraries into escalating costs in the face of uncertain budget prospects. TRLN member libraries have already cancelled $433,000 in Elsevier titles that would have to be restored to meet the terms of the offer. Of that amount, $73,000 is for cancellations at UNC-Chapel Hill.
A basic objective of our negotiations has been to restore the ability of the Libraries to cancel titles of marginal value to our users in order to regain some control of our serials selection and budget, and to reduce the rate at which our costs will rise. Without this flexibility other journal publishers, including many scholarly associations and societies, would be treated unfairly and the appropriate balance of expenditures among the disciplines supported by the UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries would be lost. We and our TRLN partners have therefore proposed to Elsevier that we rebase our list to eliminate titles of marginal value and to reduce total costs. We have also proposed an annual cancellation allowance equal to the annual price increase if cancellations are needed to balance the library materials budget. We believe that recalculating our base subscription list and retaining some ability to cancel titles to control cost increases are essential provisions in the current budget situation. These terms are critical to our ability to sustain a balanced collection and to meet the information needs of faculty and students across the University.
Although negotiations are continuing, it is possible that Elsevier will not accept these proposals and that TRLN will not be able to renew its consortial license. In that event, the UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries will have to move to the limited collection model offered by Elsevier to institutions that do not maintain a constant title list. This model is more expensive on a per title basis but allows librarians and faculty to review titles annually and to retain only those of continuing importance to teaching and research at the University. We would thereby preserve the ability to manage our collections and our costs.
The terms of the limited collection model, as we understand them, are a surcharge of 15% over the print price for an electronic-only subscription and a 25% surcharge over the print price for a print copy with electronic access. Under this model, maintaining access to all subscribed titles, including those we have proposed canceling, would result in an increase of $418,000 over 2003 prices. Because a consortial license would not be in effect, we would also lose the shared access to the 556 titles from our TRLN partners along with the transaction allowances that have given us access to the rest of the ScienceDirect online titles. This decision is not UNC-Chapel Hill's alone. Our TRLN partners must be party to the consortial contract for access to the "shared" titles to continue, and some of our partners would have to reinstate considerably more cancelled titles than UNC-Chapel Hill. At this point, this outcome appears unlikely.
The libraries must prepare for the possibility that the Elsevier/TRLN license cannot be renewed. If that happens, we cannot afford the increase we would pay under the limited collection model. Rather, we believe we must hold our spending levels for Elsevier titles to the 2003 level, requiring us to cancel additional titles beyond those already proposed. Library selectors have been asked to begin working with faculty to identify titles for cancellation and/or for elimination of either the print or electronic format should TRLN not able to negotiate a satisfactory renewal of the ScienceDirect license.
The current Elsevier/TRLN license expires on December 31, 2003. Titles proposed for cancellation by the Academic Affairs Library are listed alphabetically and by subject. These lists have been generated after discussion with faculty. We welcome any comments or questions. Questions and comments should be directed to the selector with primary responsibility for the subject supported by the title, or to Larry Alford, Deputy University Librarian alford@email.unc.edu or 962-1301.
Titles proposed for cancellation by the Health Sciences Library are listed by title. This list has also been generated after discussion with faculty. The Health Sciences Library welcomes any comments or questions. Questions and comments on this list should be directed to Christie Degener Christie_Degener@unc.edu or 966-0947.
While our negotiation with Reed Elsevier is the most urgent problem related to consortial licenses with no cancellation provisions, Elsevier is certainly not the only publisher with such provisions. We face similar negotiations over the next year with other major science and social science publishers. The University Administration has done its best during very difficult times to protect the library materials budget and to provide funds to help sustain access to scholarly information in the face of rapidly escalating costs. However, even with that support, we do not believe there is any realistic budget strategy that can continue to respond to significant (5% - 7%) annual cost increases for these already extremely expensive journals coupled with no cancellation requirements. We appreciate your help and support as we deal with these difficult problems.
