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