Portico Study Task Group Minutes

May 22, 2006 –Meeting held at UMBC

Task Group to Follow-up on Portico Proposal

Present: Betty Day (ITD), Desider Vikor (UMCP), Nathan Robertson (UMB-Law), Susanne Lischer (SU), Susan Wheeler (UB), Joyce Tenney , Chair(UMBC)

Absent: Teresa Knott (UMB-HSHSL)

There was an initial discussion of the scope of the group charge and timeframe of the discussions. It was decided that most of the work of the group could be done over email. The committee agreed to discuss the questions posed by CLD and see what additional information would be needed to make a recommendation. Betty will send the committee an email copy of the presentation from Portico given at the CLD meeting in April, and any additional information she has concerning the Portico project and proposal.

Desider and Betty reported that UMCP has already made a commitment to Portico and they will not drop LOCKSS.

1. What opportunities and benefits are presented by a commitment to Portico or a similar venture? Does this provide the stability needed to go e-only, or to discard print volumes covered by Portico holdings to free up shelf space, even for publishers who have formerly had no archiving plan? Or, are these decisions so mission and user driven that this is an “insurance” only proposition?
   
   It was agreed that Portico does provide stability and creates an independent long term archival plan for the publishers that participate. This product and others like it, will offer a solution to the concerns of relinquishing paper copies of the volumes covered by this service. Portico offers more than insurance, as it offers a long term technical base for the e-content. It will allow for the stability to go e-only and discard print volumes covered by Portico.
   
   There was discussion on the ability of publishers to remove content that has been deposited in Portico. Betty will ask Portico to explain their requirements of publishers. It is crucial that what goes in to Portico can not be removed.
   
   
2. At what juncture/point is Portico allied with a sufficient number of publishers to provide a secure archive for a sufficient number of titles to be of value across the USM libraries?
   
   Portico already offers a sufficient number of publishers to be of value to many of the USM libraries. Law libraries may have less value from this product, but still considered a valuable resource.
   
   
3. Is there a business plan for this initiative? If so, what is the plan and what reassurance, if any, do we have that they’ll be able to identify and collect sufficient publishers to become an essential supplemental archive? What is a critical mass of publishers and how/when will they reach it?
   
   Betty will ask Portico for a list of libraries that have signed up already. Their ultimate plan is to be self sustaining after the grants run out. They are starting out in a sound manner, but will need to prove that they can get the support in the long run.
   
   
4. We need a cost/benefit analysis with projections for short, medium, and long term likely scenarios.
   
   As they are following the JSTOR model, they will very likely not go out of business, so the money saved by the USM in shelf space, bindery costs, and collection maintenance will allow for this long term investment.
   
   There was discussion on the “trigger events” and what is the lag time. We need to know what the response time by Portico will be. Betty will ask Portico to describe their plan.
   
   
5. Other strategic/business model questions are “who should pay?” for the archiving costs, and “who should own?” the archive in the event of publisher sale or collapse.
   
   Normally libraries are the only ones paying for archiving, but in this model publishers are paying part of the cost. Portico has an escrow arrangement, so there is a dark archive of the dark archive that would be deposited in Iron Mountain.
   
   
6. How stable is the archive if a publisher could leave at any time? Having bits and pieces of journals isn’t stable nor does it really provide what is actually needed to provide confidence in canceling titles. That said, are we really supporting a stable archive if the publisher is in the driver’s seat and we are in a similar position with our databases, i.e. they can delete or add as their business mode dictates?
   
   Betty will ask Portico to detail their policies. She will ask questions on terms of library cancellations. Can a library cancel for a year and then come back and still have access to all but the one year that they were not able to pay for?
   
   
7. Do they have a commitment to titles in law? medicine? [note: Elsevier is included, ensuring hearty representation of medical titles.]
   
   Elsevier participation will cover many medical titles. However, Portico still does not have many legal publications.
   
   
8. How does Portico compare to the LOCKSS project?
   
   LOCKSS is a project run by the individual library. It does not migration of data and all operations are done in house. LOCKSS is only for the titles that a library individually subscribes to, not the fully collection from the participating publishers. LOCKSS is fully funded by the campus. Portico is more of a National Library model. Portico has been heavily supported by the Library of Congress.
   
   
9. Is Portico’s competitiveness, rather than collaboration, with LOCKSS a weakness? What if they both drive each other out of business?
   
   Portico and LOCKSS are very different projects. They are not really competitive. The likelihood of LOCKSS having any effect on Portico is minimal.
   
   
10. What are the server implications? Is it the case that LOCKSS requires a server for each collection or could there be a consortial LOCKSS server?
    
    Betty is working with LOCKSS to get information on the possibility of a consortial LOCKSS server.
    
    
11. We need some strategic analysis that treats the alternative business models to Portico from a cost/benefit perspective. One example of a question that needs to be answered is: to what extent does Portico undercut JSTOR? Will publishers not join JSTOR because Portico is sufficient to meet UMCP’s and other ARL Libraries’ “rigorous criteria” for preservation?
    
    Portico and JSTOR are very different products and one does not undercut the other. Portico is simply an archive which is only accessible in a catastrophic occurrence with the publisher. JSTOR is an open archive that allows access after a certain period of time. It requires a platform fee to gain access to the titles and an annual subscription fee. Portico will require only the annual subscription fee. We do not feel that publishers will not join JSTOR because of Portico.
    
    
12. Should the NIH policy (and similar initiatives) be considered in our decision-making?
    
    The NIH policy is to allow open access to articles produced with NIH funding. While archiving is part of this policy, it is not a guaranteed archive, nor does it require all authors to deposit their work. It is a good first attempt at dealing with the open access issues in scholarly publishing, but is not developed enough to be of any competition for a product like Portico.
    
    The group reviewed the questions for Portico. It was agreed that Betty would try to get sufficient answers from Portico via email. If we are not able to get our questions sufficiently answered via email, Betty will ask the Portico representative to meet with the committee to discuss any remaining questions.
    
    

1. If a publisher sells a title, what happens to the content? For example, if we get volumes 1-12 from Elsevier and then they sell to Flybynight Press, what will happen to our access to volumes 1-12? For volume 13 on, if you are already not working with Flybynight Press, will you pursue them so that we would have complete access through Portico?
2. If a publisher has put all of their content into Portico, can they decide to withdraw some or all of their content? This is a major area of concern for us.
3. Can you please send us a current list of your library participants? Have you already included College Park (we are hoping that this is so)?
4. After a trigger event, how long would it be before we would have access? Immediately, 24 hours, a week, or ??
5. What exactly are you asking for in terms of a legal arrangement with publishers? Would it be possible to see the license terms for a publisher?
6. What happens if we were to have severe budget problems and had to drop out for a year? what would happen to future access? Would we just be missing that year's content?
7. Can you give us an idea of pricing in out years? You have given us pricing for this year. We know that we would have the 25% discount for 5 years. How will pricing increase from 2006 to 2007 and beyond? Can we get a commitment to a certain percentage of price increase? We are interested in future pricing not only from our own budgetary concerns, but also because we are wondering what will happen when the Mellon Grant runs out?

It was noted that the proposal was to have the money for this purchase come from the LIMS Central Site funding for the first few years. It was agreed that a long term commitment would be needed from CLD to continue the funding for this purchase, if it is approved.

The committee agreed to meet again after the answers from Portico were received.

Information Technology Division College Park, MD 20742-7011
Please send comments and suggestions to ITD's Webmaster.
Content questions should be directed to Betty H. Day.