Transfer Update Elizabeth L. Winter Electronic Resources Coordinator Georgia Institute of Technology & Member, Project TRANSFER Working Group ICOLC Meeting April 15, 2008

Session Overview About Project TRANSFER Why journals move between publishers Implications of these moves Progress so far Current status Code of Practice Challenges Next Steps Role of Consortia

About Project TRANSFER Sponsored by United Kingdom Serials Group Work began in April 2006 Objective: To improve the procedures and policies surrounding the transfer of journals so that the annual movement of journals causes the minimum disruption and adheres to an agreed Code of Practice.

Working Group Members Richard Gedye (OUP/Oxford Journals) Paul Harwood (Content Complete Ltd) Helen Henderson (Ringgold e- Marketing Services) Alison Mitchell (Nature Publishing Group) Cliff Morgan (John Wiley & Sons) Jill Taylor-Roe (University of Newcastle upon Tyne) Elizabeth Winter (Georgia Tech) Chair: Ed Pentz (CrossRef) Nancy Buckley (Burgundy Information Services Ltd) Yvonne Campfens (Springer) Diane Cogan (Elsevier Science) Louise Cole (University of Leeds) Jo Connolly (Swets Information Services) Helen Cooke (Sage) Tim Devenport (Macmillan) Nick Evans (ALPSP)

Why Journals Move It’s not the journals that move – it’s the societies that move their publishing arrangements. Reality or perception that one publisher can do a better job regarding: Stability and growth of revenues Retention of ownership and control of editorial policy and pricing Economies of scale Expanding readership Branding & PR Innovation

What are the implications of journal transfers… For Publishers? For Intermediaries? For Librarians?

For Publishers Receiving/sending subscriber data in a timely manner Logging and merging data with existing systems Interpreting subscriber data customers (incl. backfile access rights) Receiving/sending content files and uploading into existing platforms – conflicting formats, digitization issues Maintaining links to previous/new publisher platforms Maintaining old content on current platforms Ownership of backfiles Liaison with third parties

For Intermediaries A case study: In 2007 EBSCO logged 2,667 unique titles that moved from one publisher to another. In 2007 EBSCO logged 2,667 unique titles that moved from one publisher to another. 2,667 titles moving between publishers required EBSCO to make 20,000-25,000 changes to their title file. 2,667 titles moving between publishers required EBSCO to make 20,000-25,000 changes to their title file.

For Librarians Being aware of timing and implications of transfer in time to make appropriate changes to library data records (ILS, link resolver, ERM, etc.). Retaining appropriate access to previously subscribed content Maintaining accurate and comparable usage data (COUNTER-compliant) Ensuring no negative impacts in terms of access for our customers (loss of access, link resolver out-of-date, etc.) Having reliable, timely and accessible source of data on transfers

For example: “In 2008, 26 journals are moving to [publisher] and will be available electronically on [publisher platform], [publisher] 's online journal delivery platform. If your library has access to one or more of these journals through your participation in a consortial network, please contact us at your earliest convenience so that we can ensure your access is uninterrupted. To view a list of journals moving to [publisher] in 2008 please visit [publisher web site] and fill out the form to ensure your continued access. We will let you know once your online access has been activated and will contact you to discuss your subscription/access options now that these journals are published by [publisher].”

TRANSFER Timeline April 2006 April 2007 May 2007 April 2008 Working Group formed Draft Code launched at UKSG Revised Code launched at UKSG Publishers sign up Concerns Extensive discussion and review ?

Publisher Concerns “Mandatory” language needed to be removed (conflict with existing contracts) Didn’t take into account the variety of business models Too specific about definition of archival access (variety in customer contracts)

Other Issues Mandatory submission of transfer data elements to a TRANSFER database (scoped, but did not exist) References to auditing for compliance (no procedures existed for this) Competition issues (journal ownership governed by contracts and business arrangements)

Current Status Last week: Released Version 1.0 of the Code for public review period, until 31 May 2008 Also released Supplementary Information = guidelines for publishers on practical aspects of implementing the Code of Practice

Code: Transferring Publisher Access to title: Transferring Publisher (TP) keeps content online up to six months if Receiving Publisher (RP) isn’t ready Perpetual access rights: TP ensures continued access where rights have been granted. TP non-exclusive right or transfer obligation to RP Digital content files: TP makes available within 4 weeks of signature of contract or 4 months before Effective Transfer Date whichever is later

Code: Transferring Publisher Subscription lists: Same timing as content. TP makes details of subscription data available (consortia subscribers w/perpetual access, lapsed subscribers) Journal URLs: TP redirects for 12 months or transfer URL to RP Communication: TP notifies subscribers of transfer as soon as possible after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date DOI name ownership: Follows CrossRef procedures

Code: Receiving Publisher Access to the title: RP provides access from Effective Transfer Date but must permit TP to keep content online if not ready Perpetual access rights: RP honors rights granted by TP Archiving services: content must remain in archives; encouraged to continue existing arrangements

Code: Receiving Publisher Communication: RP notifies subscribers of transfer as soon as possible after contract or no less than 2 months before Effective Transfer Date Subscription lists: RP contacts existing subscribers according to info. from TP DOI name ownership: Follows CrossRef procedures

Challenges Feasibility of compliance for publishers and societies vs. Giving the Code “teeth” for librarians and consortia

Next Steps Continue to solicit buy-in After comment period, Code of Practice will be formally released and publishers will be asked to agree to follow the Code. Publishers agreeing to align their procedures with the Code, and to apply them in practice when working with other, similarly aligned publishers, will be considered “TRANSFER Compliant.” Working Group will re-establish itself officially under UKSG, as the TRANSFER Committee

Next Steps Once formed, the TRANSFER Committee will: Oversee implementation of a TRANSFER Alerting Service, a central location for basic details of transfers Oversee compliance with the Code, conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the Code and receive complaints on non- compliance Consider future revisions to the Code of Practice and establish procedures on how any revisions will be made and approved

Role of Consortia Read and understand the Code Talk with publishers about TRANSFER—use your clout to encourage compliance Insist on TRANSFER compliance in your publisher agreements and license terms

Thank you! Elizabeth L. Winter Electronic Resources Coordinator Georgia Institute of Technology