The Publishers� Perspective

How useful had IoPP found its knowledge of the magazine market when addressing the issue of distributing electronic journals in the corporate sector?

Knowledge of the magazine market had been useful but not a major gateway into the corporate sector.

To what extent do publishers envisage that dealings with the corporate sector will follow the pattern of the academic sector? Might the two markets be quite diverse?

In developing licence agreements with the corporate sector, it may be that some of the terms and conditions in academic licences can be transferred, but there is a fundamental difference between the academic sector�s "just in case" approa ch to e-journals compared to the corporate sector�s "just in time" requirements.

Given that the publishing world is so fragmented (the 2000 most frequently used journals at the British Library, Boston Spa, are published by 600 different publishers), what role does the panel envisage for aggregators in the era of e-journals?

The role of intermediaries is very important. In print journal publishing, communication between publishers and libraries has been very poor. Electronic journal publishing has made the relationship with libraries crucial, and intermediaries p lay an important part in this era of greater communication. The move towards linking between publishers is another critical area.

Publishers are still working to separate agendas, but this also gives rise to innovation and thus should not be entirely viewed as a negative approach. However "distributed publishing" is the way forward with an ever-increasing emph asis on linking. When deciding whether to work with aggregators, IoPP asks the following questions: what�s in it for IoPP, its authors, and its subscribers? If librarians were to pressurise IoPP to use aggregators, it would do so.

A distinction should be made between linking, in which case Academic Press favours as many aggregators as customers require, and licensing, which is a separate issue.

Publishers are now closer to librarians than ever before. They still value the role of subscription agents but also enjoy a direct line to libraries.

Carfax is interfaced with all major gateways. The winners will be those that add value in the pointing capabilities they offer. This raises many legal and commercial issues but those that offer access to their site via only one gateway will l ose out.

Publishers must recognise that staff time is a crucial issue. Librarians prefer aggregators in order to avoid the amount of time spent dealing with individual publishers and separate contracts.

IoPP do accept that researchers bookmark journals rather than publishers and are more interested in journals across a range of publishers. However, IoPP e-journal access requires IP addresses so some direct contact with the publisher is requir ed.

It�s clear that publishers should do more research about librarians requirements.

B.I.R has a mixed approach and deals both directly with libraries and individuals as well as with aggregators.

Librarians see an increasing trend in publishers dealing directly with researchers. What are the value points that librarians can add in the new era of e-journals? How can they overcome the perception of end-users that direct contact with pu blishers to gain online access will sidestep library bureaucracy?

The trend is towards librarians as teachers of tools and keepers of gateways rather than custodians of stock. If users require direct contact with publishers, then publishers will fulfill that requirement. However, there are major economic be nefits for a publisher in dealing with intermediaries.

This is an opportunity for librarians to go out and sell their knowledge of navigational tools. There is a new role for them in the fields of training and customer service. There will also be budgetary control issues if researchers deal direct ly with publishers rather than via their library budget, as they may well need to tap into library training skills even if ordering directly.

Most journal publishers� business is approximately 90% academic. To use the dog food analogy, our users are not our buyers. In the corporate sector, the power of the dog over the purse strings may be greater than in the academic environment. The end users may therefore make the purchasing decisions. In this scenario, librarians will become aggregators.

The British Journal of Radiology registrants are mostly librarians. Is the issue of password control a problem for librarians?

Many academics use a large number of journals which results in too many different passwords. This needs to be addressed and some standardisation should be introduced, e.g. via ATHENS 3.

IoPP has phased out passwords and requires domain names only; unless the service is personalised, in which case a password is still necessary.

OUP has maintained password controlled access to librarians so that librarians have some control over registration. It gives the librarian the option to change the IP address.

AP licenses everyone in the system. All authorised users have full right of access. This breaks down barriers and therefore encourages usage. Passwords and IP addresses are not both required. Information is seen as an infrastructure provisio n. This makes distribution worldwide much more extensive than for print editions.

The ICRF library in London provides services to scientists around the country, e.g. many based in hospitals who do not have access to the ICRF library but have access to the ICRF intranet. As a multisite organisation with one print subscription th e ICRF has had to deal with each publisher separately. Publishers have required details of all the end users which is very time-consuming for the ICRF librarian to collate. Why do publishers require so much information?

When offering online access, publishers must always ask themselves whether they will lose print subscriptions. If an organisation with multiple subscriptions to a title requires online access at a number of sites, this may result in some print cancellations if all staff in that organisation can then access the online version. In the case of the ICRF one has to consider the possibility that an ICRF staff member based in a hospital may then be the gateway for the rest of the site to gain online access. If the hospital or members of its staff have print subscriptions, these may then be cancelled.

This model is similar to many industries which have sites around the world. Publishers to date have not been very good at dealing with it and give the impression that they do not want people to read their journals! If the income to the publis her remains the same, there should not be a problem. If the publisher will make a loss then the situation needs to be reconsidered.

It is preferable to have all journals provided electronically to cut down on the time spent making photocopies and faxing articles to various sites. However, it is becoming a full-time job to negotiate site licences with publishers. The ICRF still wishes to retain all current print subscriptions as some users prefer print.

Jane has exposed the sheer terror of publishers. The journals market has fossilised for fifty years. Publishers are now faced with a rapidly changing environment. Carfax and AP share the same viewpoint: a single domain name should equal a si ngle site subscription, but other publishers have differing views. The challenge publishers face in a time of change is to think up new ways of trading and to introduce flexibility.

To what extent has the panel found electronic access to have affected paper sales?

It depends on the model used. Many publishers use a print + online model where the online edition is included for 10 or 15% over the print price. We need to consider a model where online is the basic product and print is extra, if required. U sage of print journals is different from online usage and customers often want the flexibility of both.

Online access often helps to maintain print sales so there can be positive results from offering both media.

Electronic editions have been brought in to protect print but there is not much usage yet, so it is too soon to predict how print sales will ultimately be affected.

We have very little information about usage of print journals and about our end users. One of the advantages of e-journals is the opportunity to monitor end users and usage but we have no base line against which we can evaluate the new informa tion.

Publishers are now being expected to archive their journals and to provide more information about usage. However, it should be remembered that it can be a commercially sensitive issue to reveal trains of research.

This is an area where publishers can add value to the services they offer librarians.

From the discussions, is it true to infer that publishers sales are going up? Publishers should be aware that there is no more money available in the library sector.

All publishers have financial targets to meet. If publishers offer a better service, they will charge for it. There is a change in what publishers can offer. They may now offer services that were previously offered by a third party.

Publishers are realistic about the market conditions. What may appear as wishful thinking is what publishers consider to be market share!