The Subscription Agent as E-journal

Intermediary

Jue Wang and Alan T. Schroeder Jr.

Available online 9 January 2005

0098-7913/$–see fro

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.

Wang is ElectronCalifornia Statewang@csun.edu.Schroeder, Jr. iLibrary, Californalan.schroeder@cs

A library uses a subscription agent to consolidate orders, invoices, and payments.The agent, in turn, pays the publisher directly on behalf of many libraries, while thelibrary enjoys the product. This middleman (intermediary) role is one that canbenefit libraries for both their electronic and print subscriptions. While the changingrole of the subscription agent is well documented, the authors’ focus describessubscription agent management of electronic journals through a review of theavailable literature, service providers, and their own professional experiences. SerialsReview 2005; 31:20–27.D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The bmiddlemanQ role for traditional subscription agen-cies was presumed to become extinct with the advent ofthe World Wide Web. Infinite, object-driven scalabilityvia the World Wide Web would create direct pathsbetween libraries and publishers and eliminate interme-diaries. In reality, the bmiddlemanQ role has evolved andchanged as documented in articles by Wimmer et al.,1

Andrews,2 Fourie,3 and Cobbs.4 Schrage,5 King,6 Craw-ford,7 Gellman,8 and others predicted the demise orirrelevancy of the middleman; however, they raise asmany questions as they answer. Libraries are increas-ingly asking themselves, bWhat value-added services dosubscription agents bring to our organizations?Q Dolibraries still need subscription agents to act as middle-man to help them acquire and access electronic journals?Overall, what we found was that vendors and librariesgenerally change in synch and incrementally. For thepurposes of this article, the authors use bintermediaryQand bmiddlemanQ interchangeably.

The Changing Role of the Subscription Agent

Rick Lugg and Ruth Fischer describe the subscriptionagent as a bmiddlemanQ between publishers and librariesbsince the late 19th century . . . [providing] consolidated

nt matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2004.11.007

ic Resource Librarian, Oviatt Library,University, Northridge; e-mail: jue.

s Business & Law Librarian, Oviattia State University, Northridge; e-mail:un.edu.

20

ordering and billing, price comparisons and projections,consolidated claims handling, pre-payment plans, andone-stop customer service.Q9 Rollo Turner, SecretaryGeneral of the Association of Subscription Agents andIntermediaries, likens subscription agents to bthe jam inthe sandwich.Q10

Like other industries the library world is no strangerto the merger and acquisition trend. Dan Tonkeryreports that bthe number of active subscription agentshas dropped over the years from 100 to fewer than 10major subscription agents.Q11 Such well-known names asFranklin Square, Universal Periodicals, Readmore, SMS,Hills, McGregor, Majors, Moore-Cottrell, Faxon, Daw-son, RoweCom, and a host of others have disappeared.A larger subscription agency, such as EBSCO or Swets,acquired each of these companies. Tonkery furtherobserved that balthough a large number of family-owned subscription agents had much strength andserved the market well for over 100 years, they alsohad inherent problems. . . . Family-run companies have arelatively high percentage of mergers and sales due tononfinancial issues resulting from divorce, retirement,estate sales, and poor succession planning.Q12

One of the most common reasons for acquiring othercompanies is the need to increase market share or expandinto new geographic areas. For example, in 1994, theDutch company Swets bought Faxon’s European busi-ness in order to boost its market share. Tonkery adds thatbby merging or buying another company, agents canacquire new clients at a single stroke.Q13

Both libraries and publishers have benefited from thevalue-added services provided by the agent. However, as

Volume 31, Number 1, 2005 The Subscription Agent as E-journal Intermediary

electronic resources become increasingly prominent,ominous changes are taking place. Lugg and Fischerfound that the earlier, bstraightforward . . . tasks relatedto selecting, acquiring, renewing, cataloging, paying for,and binding print journals—in which the subscriptionagent played a major supporting role—have beensupplemented and in some cases supplanted by a hostof newer, more complex tasks. These include licenseparsing and negotiation, direct dealings with publisherswho decline to deal through agents, evaluating multipleddealsT for the same content, configuring link resolvers,troubleshooting access problems, and constant main-tenance of holdings records and URLs.Q14

In the changing market of electronic resources,publishers saw and seized an opportunity to sell contentdirectly to libraries. Libraries, in turn, formed consortiain order to negotiate lower prices with publishersthrough economies of scale. The loss of revenue willdamage all subscription agents. Lugg and Fischer framethe situation in this way: bHaving been excluded from asignificant role in e-journal distribution, subscriptionagents are in danger of becoming marginalized.Q15

In the past, the time-consuming bmany-to-manyQrelationships of libraries, publishers, and agents becamedistilled to bfew-to-few,Q i.e., each library dealing withonly a handful of vendors and each publisher with onlya few buyers. As Lugg and Fischer note, bThe industry isin danger of re-creating a problem it had previouslysolved, by reverting to cumbersome dmany-to-manyTrelationships.Q16

Tonkery believes that the bshift from print periodicalsto e-journals has been dramatic for many of thesubscription agencies, not only in terms of financialimpact but also to customer service units and thebusiness systems that manage subscriptions.Q17 Thechallenge of providing e-journals has made the role ofagents more difficult, and agents must redefine theirservices. To complicate matters further, other interme-diaries are entering the market. Lugg and Fischer statethat bonline hosting services, such as HighWire Press,Ingenta, and Project MUSE [have] assumed electronicdistribution for many publishers, creating another typeof entity in the market, one that could operate with orwithout the help of subscription agents. Traditionalcontent aggregators (such as ProQuest and Gale)continued direct sales to libraries, bypassing theagent.Q18 New intermediaries who can provide docu-ment delivery services, a link resolver,19 and e-journalmanagement tools have entered the disrupted market-place. They are stepping into relationships with publis-hers, libraries, and Integrated Library System (ILS)vendors. Although they are solving some pressingproblems, they are increasing the competitive pressureon subscription agents. Potentially, these competitivedevelopments could be a management bonanza forlibraries and information centers.The advent of the World Wide Web and e-journals

has thrust subscription agents to the forefront of thedebate on the cost of serials. Universities are watchingtheir materials budgets closely and canceling subscrip-tions as costs skyrocket.20 Universities are now faced

21

with more money than ever being devoted to serialswith the inverse relationship of fewer actual serialstitles in the library. According to Rollo Turner, e-journal growth bhas expanded to include 75 percent ofscholarly journals and 30–40 percent of all subscrip-tions. By 2008, this number should be up to 60percent of all subscriptions.Q21 As libraries continue topurchase and store serials in print and electronicformat for the foreseeable future, the agent is perfectlysituated to address these familiar problems. Thenecessary response for libraries is to embrace sub-scription agents, not replace them. And the necessaryresponse for subscription agents is to leverage Web-enabled services.

Generally speaking, libraries value what subscriptionagents add to the print ordering and supply process asthe intermediary between libraries and publishers, butthe same attitude is not as prevalent with e-journals.Rights management is a key area of change. In the e-journal world acquisition is frequently separate fromaccess. An e-journal is acquired through agents orconsortium while access occurs through portals orgateways directly from a publisher, an online hostingservice, or an aggregator service. One reason for this isthat publishers are approaching either libraries orconsortia directly with special deals or offers. Agentsneed to play a role in easing this transition andregulating the flow of the required holding information,authorization, access routes, and licenses. The key forthe survival of agents is integration within this complexprocess.

Subscription Agencies Viewed through aValue-Added Lens

Should the role of subscription agents be broadened toinclude e-journals and other electronic delivery methodsfor libraries? The authors’ answer is a resounding byesQif agents follow an effective business model and providevalue-added service that supports management of theinformation and workflow necessary to efficiently select,evaluate, acquire, maintain, note change in content,renew/cancel, and provide informed access to e-journals.Agents are positioned to assume a multitude of rolesthrough increased service and technology whereaslibraries are not. Market dilution should only occur ifagents let it happen.

Intermediaries to Libraries

Subscription agents need to establish a new businessmodel of providing e-journals. The new business modeladapts to changes in technology and the financialsituation of libraries. The format of e-journals has madetheir management problematic and has contributed tothe growth of electronic resources librarian positions;however, the growth in workload and complexity isclearly outpacing libraries’ ability to respond. In theirinformal survey about staffing for electronic resourcemanagement, Ellen Duranceau and Cindy Hepfer con-cluded that bwhile libraries have been adding staff in

Jue Wang and Alan T. Schroeder Jr. Serials Review

response to needs for e-resource support, they have notbeen adding staff in a way that comes close to being inproportion to collection growth. While one would notexpect or even need staff and collections to have grownin exact proportion to each other, the fact that staff andcollection growth are an order of magnitude apart doesstrongly suggest that more staff needs to be deployed ine-collection support.Q22

Agents need to work with publishers and libraries todevelop effective business models offering value-addedservices to libraries. In the new workflow, someimportant issues need to be addressed. Who shouldnotify libraries regarding the change of e-journal titlesor a change in price and access method? It is notuncommon that the access link is cut off by the onlinehosting service when either payment is not transferredby the agent to the publisher on time or the paymentis not processed by the publisher on time. Further-more, it is not uncommon that the library addresses anaccess loss only after patrons complain that ausername and password are required to access aparticular title. There are holes in the workflow. Asthe intermediaries devise ever more sophisticated andinteresting new services and products such as link-resolvers,23 bit will be less clear exactly who is doingwhat for whom in an ever more interconnectedworld.Q24

As a component of the new business model, what newservices can agents create for libraries? The access of e-journals requires license, technology, and expertise notfound in the paper environment. E-journal accessincreases the complexity of ordering e-journals andrequires a different skill set. New standards are neededas a new business process is vital for the industry.

The New Agent Marketplace

Using Philip Anderson and Erin Anderson’s25 ninecriteria in evaluating how intermediaries add value, theauthors propose a new business model for subscriptionagents that is service based with an electronic backbonethat includes an Electronic Resource ManagementSystem (ERMS). Anderson and Anderson identify nineways intermediaries (bmiddlemanQ) add value in thatthey provide information about the following:

1. buyers;2. sellers;3. goods or services;4. economies of scale;5. economies of scope;6. arranging convenient times and places;7. reduce uncertainty about quality;8. preserve anonymity; and9. tailor offerings.26

This new e-commerce model suggests a bservice hubQas one reworking of the intermediary or middleman rolethat we put in a library, e-journal context in this way:bAlthough to customers [libraries] a simple, linearchannel will still seem to flow from suppliers [publis-hers], the reality will be complex. The best metaphor is a

22

service hub. A hub has a center, and at the center is theorganization [subscription agents], with which thecustomer places the order, which assembles the rest ofthe offer, calling on other hub members [publishers,aggregators, and online hosting services]. E-commercehubs will be assembled quickly, like interlocking puzzlepieces. Customers will collaborate with suppliers tocreate service hubs that materialize in real time.Q27 Hereagents can provide economies of scale and scope,Anderson and Anderson’s criteria 4 and 5. Agents’bhubsQ will generate enough good will and efficienciesthat will indirectly bring publishers and libraries closerbut not eliminate the middleman. ERMS provided bysubscription agents such as SwetsWise or EBSCOHostEJS Enhanced are examples of agents leveraging tech-nology for economies of scale and scope, broadening theagents’ service and value. In addition, agents’ work withILS vendors extends the library systems reach throughincreased economies of scale and scope. That reach willsoon extend to the comprehensive management of e-journals, including the many services now provided bydisparate vendors.28

In a nutshell, economies of scope occur when it ischeaper to produce two goods per vendor than one pervendor.29 We can express this mathematically as

AC X;Yð Þ b AC X;0ð Þ½ �where X and Y are goods and AC is the average cost toproduce them.

As the e-journal market and serials market in generalchange over time, achieving economies of scope will becritical to agents’ success. Libraries’ overall e-journalcosts of acquisition and management should decrease asthe agent offers more products and tasks on behalf ofthe library and purchasing consortiums (See Figure 1).Agents have volumes of information about libraries

and publishers creating strategically logical ways toprovide value-added services using that information.These services fulfill Anderson and Anderson’s criteria1–3. In this business model agents can play a significantrole in license negotiation. As agents represent manylibraries, they should be able to negotiate licensing issuesonce with a publisher and other agents and librarycustomers can benefit from the solution.30

Another example of a new service is registration andactivation. Publishers normally notify agents of changesin registration or activation requirements. Ideally, agentsshould bpass these on to libraries as they do notificationsof pricing or content changes, typically via email at themomentQ31 using an ERMS. A third example is authen-tication. Not all subscriptions are placed directly withthe publisher; many may be through aggregationservices, subscription agent gateways, and secondaryinformation providers (e.g., LexisNexis). Currently,authorization tends to be dependent on the channel tothe publisher’s system. If it comes directly, there shouldbe few problems, but if the route is via a secondaryservice linked to an aggregation service, the publishermay not know that this individual user has rights to therequested information through a library subscription.Here the agents with their vast databases of subscrip-

Figure 1. How intermediaries will create value on the web

Volume 31, Number 1, 2005 The Subscription Agent as E-journal Intermediary

tions may well hold one of the keys to future develop-ment since they will undoubtedly be able to speed thisprocess. John Merriman and Rollo Turner note, how-ever, that bit will take time and probably further co-operation between all parties to achieve it.Q32

Criteria 7–9 are present growth areas for agents byadding value in reducing uncertainty about access andquality, preserving customer anonymity, and tailoringofferings to customer needs. One instance where theindustry information gathering and distribution rolebroke down was the bankruptcy of divine, Inc., itssubsidiary RoweCom and the Faxon Library Servicesdivision. In 2003, few saw the divine, Inc. collapsecoming as evidenced by the number of libraries holdingcancelled checks to divine, Inc. Subscription agents areuniquely positioned to inform librarians and librariesof potentially adverse industry information. EBSCOand other agents and publishers resolved many of theproblems resulting from divine’s bankruptcy throughtheir purchase of the bankrupt company. EBSCO’smarket position kept many libraries subscriptionsintact.Creating a new business model is not just an effort of

agencies or publishers but a collaborative venture withall the players in the industry. Whatever business modelis pursued, the goal should be the same: to combine thetraditional value-added services of subscription agentswith technology to provide electronic resources, specifi-cally e-journals.

Electronic Resource ManagementSystem (ERMS)

Increasing library staff is one possible response to theincreased workload related to the management of e-journals. Automated support is another. The challengesinherent in e-journals have led libraries, ILS vendors,and agents to develop and tailor databases to meet theire-journal management needs. According to NormMedeiros, these challenges include bno central reposi-tory for administrative metadata; lack of statistics,inability to propagate information to public servicesstaff; notification when licenses expire; new ways ofproviding access; an increase in complexity in the supply

23

chain; the volume and volatility of e-journals; andchanges for collection development.Q33 HARRASSO-WITZ is an example of an agent tailoring an ERMS forits customers by taking an ad hoc approach where amarket presents itself.

Academic libraries have developed or are developingtheir own electronic resource management toolsbecause bthe vendors they depend on for their printsystems do not yet build what they need for the newelectronic environment.Q34 Although these systems areeffective in providing gateway service for users toaccess e-journals, they are far from perfect from anadministrative perspective. Simultaneously, libraries aredeveloping their own methods to manage e-journalsthrough either an in-house searchable database, Web-based database, or an Excel spreadsheet. These in-house methods are often complex and burdensome tomaintain. The libraries that have developed databasesto manage e-journals have done so largely in isolation.There are advantages to a purely customized solution,but this may not be financially viable for manyinstitutions. One disadvantage of local development isthat bchanges in supported software at the institution(e.g., change in Microsoft Office versions) can lead toadditional in-house programming work.Q35 If we see astandard implemented by either an ILS vendor orsubscription agent, the standard should be flexibleenough to allow tailoring to specific institutions with-out losing software compatibility. There is no reasonthe ERMS should not form the backbone of anybservice hub.Q

A proposal for an Electronic Resource ManagementInitiative (ERMI) to the Digital Library Federation(DLF) was approved in October 2003. Its primary goalis to foster the rapid development of systems and toolsfor managing e-journals—whether by individual libra-ries, consortia, or vendors. According to TimothyJewell, bsuch a collaborative effort might reduceunnecessary costs and duplication at the institutionallevel.Q36 Different organizations have different needs,but many of the needs for managing electronicresources are common across libraries. The SteeringGroup for this initiative includes librarians fromHarvard University, Cornell University, University of

Jue Wang and Alan T. Schroeder Jr. Serials Review

California at Los Angeles, University of Washington,Yale University, and John Hopkins University. Theirtask is to bcontinue the efforts already begun andproduce the deliverables such as functional specifica-tions, functional workflow diagram, identification ofrelevant schemas and standards, entity relationshipdiagram, data elements and definitions, and XMLschema,37 or, in layman’s terms, the standardizationof ERMS specifications. A library reactor panel ofsixteen members and a vendor reactor panel of twelvemembers were formed to review the project goals anddeliverables. bILS vendors who currently have or aredeveloping an ERMS include Innovative, Endeavor, ExLibris, Sirsi, and Dynix,Q reported Kitti Canepi.38

The ERMS is an important component in managinge-journals. The DLF report states that bthe idealERMS should support management of the informa-tion and workflow necessary to efficiently select,evaluate, acquire, maintain, and provide informedaccess to electronic resources in accordance with theirbusiness and license terms.Q39 Furthermore, the func-tional requirements for ERMS should include thefollowing:

1. Resource discovery requirementsa. Make resources available through or pass infor-

mation about resources to OPACs and Webpresentation services using traditional resourcediscovery methods, including the ability to searchand browse by authors, titles, alternate titles, andcross-references.

b. Offer contextual presentation of relevant licenseinformation to the end user at the point of access,regardless of the access path taken through anysupported tool.

c. Support site defined and auxiliary descriptive data.d. Make available information about issues particu-

lar to the online interface, such as inaccessible ornonsubscribed portions not marked at the site,unusual login/logoff requirements, and naviga-tion or accessibility features.

e. Flag resources as unavailable in real time, withoptional explanatory note.

f. Offer advisory notices of planned downtime andother time-sensitive information.

2. Bibliographic management requirementsa. Provide a single point of maintenance for biblio-

graphic and auxiliary descriptive data that can beexchanged or shared between the OPAC, portallists, federated search tools, local resolution servi-ces, and other bibliographic systems and services.

b. Import subscription management data fromexternal providers using standard software anddeveloping protocols.

3. Access management requirementsa. Store and maintain access Uniform Resource

Identifiers (URIs), User IDs and make theseactionable for end users according to localrequirements.

b. Integrate proxy server/access management withother functionality.

24

c. Store lists of IP addresses used to register accessto specific resources and provide automated e-mail notification to online providers when IPaddresses are updated.

d. Store one or more user IDs and passwords andprovide the ability to generate secure screendisplays of this information for authorized usersand/or staff, with associated text or for Javascript autosubmission.

e. Implement access restrictions.4. Staff requirements

a. Provide a staff interface that enables library staffto efficiently search, browse, and retrieve recordsby attributes unique to electronic resources suchas license, vendor, interface, record status,licensed site, consortium, and library selector orother contact individual.

b. View the full range of information appropriate tothe staff member’s security profile and functionalrole.

c. View records that are hidden from the public.Q40

There are several advantages for subscription agentsif they host a Web-based ERMS on their own server.For instance, agents can more easily perform globalchanges on access method, license agreement, registra-tion, title change, URL change, payments, and otherfinancial and subscription details. Agents will havemore control over the services they provide to libraries.Conversely, agents have to reinvent themselves asbtrackersQ by providing electronic resource tools thattrack the acquisition and access of e-journals. It willmake agents more valuable in the world of electronicresources. Of note, more ILS vendors are working onERMS than subscription agents. If libraries select anERMS that is provided by ILS vendors, the primaryrole of agents will still be there; however, their marketshare may diminish.

Enhanced Services and Systems ofSubscription Agencies

In terms of managing electronic resources, an ERMS isa value-added service through enhanced technology inthe administration of e-journal subscriptions. EBSCOInformation Services released EBSCOHost EJS En-hanced, which includes an administrator tool in 2002.For libraries that never had a database to manage e-journals, EBSCOHost EJS Enhanced represented a newopportunity in working with an agent’s ERMS. AtCalifornia State University, Northridge, the OviattLibrary started using EBSCOHost EJS Enhanced inthe fall of 2002. The data, which were downloadedfrom EBSCOHost EJS Enhanced, gave the OviattLibrary a powerful tool to sort through e-journalissues. The system offers features that help with e-journal management tasks such as tracking the regis-tration status of e-journals, authentication assistance tofacilitate both on-campus and off-campus access to e-journal content, and automatic management of e-journal URLs.

Volume 31, Number 1, 2005 The Subscription Agent as E-journal Intermediary

Swets Information Services has a similar e-journalmanagement system called SwetsWise. SwetsWiseoffers integrated functionality for online subscriptionmanagement and electronic access to online content.An important element within this system is an admin-istrator tool. The attractive features of this tool includethe option of customizing the individual users’ rightsand roles; the option of generating usage statisticsreports that will give an overview of how users utilizethe system; and the option of global settings foraccount management, which allows the administratorto control the catalog categories from which users areallowed to order subscriptions and define whichindividual functionalities should be available to allusers, such as which document delivery suppliers canbe used.At the time of writing, the authors contacted

HARRASSOWITZ, a European-based subscriptionagent, but the company had not developed a systemsimilar to EBSCOHost EJS Enhanced or SwetWise.This agent is working with ILS vendors such asEndeavor Voyager, Ex Libris, and Dynix on a case-by-case basis in developing ERMS functions where ademand exists. As a result, HARRASSOWITZ maysoon offer a product based on individual systemscreated over the last several years.There are certainly advantages to the subscription

agent if it develops an ERMS. It is much easier for theagent to provide current subscription data, which are theagent’s biggest asset. Of note, at the 2004 NorthAmerican Serials Interest Group (NASIG) conference inMilwaukee, Wisconsin, attendees at a networking nodeon e-resource management debated whether or notlibrarians wanted ERMS to be an ILS module. Iflibrarians want ERMS to be an ILS module, bit is notworth it for subscription agents to develop.Q41 But therole of subscription agents cannot be overlooked becausebsubscription agents have a wealth of knowledge tocontribute.Q42 bMany librarians expressed a desire forglobal general information to be available in adatabase similar to OCLC’s bibliographic databasefrom which they could pick and choose the elementsthat match the local situation.Q43 Subscription agentsdefinitely need to play a big role in this attempt. Onestep forward for both agents and ILS vendors wouldbe a development agreement between two or more todevelop an ERMS for the general library market.In addition to the traditional services provided by

agents such as order consolidation, line-item invoicing,fund accounting, ILS feeds for invoicing, claiming,renewals, reporting, tools to access, and managejournals, a subscription agent can offer extra servicesthat come with e-journal subscription such as gatheringIP addresses and registration. The agent can also provideother value-added services. For example, when a libraryorders a journal through the agent, the publisher isasked to send the agent, via e-mail, any numbers that thelibrary may need for online access. The publisher cantake advantage of this service and send batch files thatinclude order numbers and registration numbers. Theagent then e-mails these numbers to the library for its

25

use in authenticating for online access to the publication.This eliminates the need for individual publishers tocontact the library. The library would not have to gatherregistration numbers from multiple publishers.

In summary, besides an ERMS, subscription agentscan offer additional services in the following areas:

! Acquisition: trial use, evaluate, license terms, pricenegotiation, order, and payment.

! Access: authentication, registration, and URL main-tenance.

! Administration: User ID, holdings list, and claiming.! Technical support: troubleshooting.! Evaluation: usage statistics.

These new services need to be introduced by subscrip-tion agents to satisfy the requirements in the e-journalenvironment.

Turner bsees even more problems developing in thefuture as many titles, now grouped in aggregatorpackages, break away, forcing libraries to selectivelyorder individual journals. Expanded acquisition andevaluation processes will be required, along with amore complex access route of registrations, catalog-ing, and authentication.Q44 As secretary general of theAssociation of Subscription Agents and Intermedia-ries, Turner believes that bdealing directly withthousands of publishers, who invoice the library atdifferent times, with different payment terms, inmultiple currencies, using multiple communicationprotocols dealing with multiple customer servicesstaff, would all cost libraries far more in additionalstaff and systems than using an agent.Q45 Heforecasted that the future bwill not see a dscaledownT of the labor intensive electronic journaladministrative process as more and more periodicalsbecome available online, but agents are responding tothat increased complexity by developing new servicesand systems.Q46

Conclusion

Subscription agents are poised to profit from their long-standing middleman role between libraries and publis-hers. Agents’ knowledge base and analytics of thepublishing industry create economies of scale and scopethat will enable them to introduce more value-addedservices that will provide licensing, registration, authen-tication, link checking, access and acquisition, training,and customer support. The different services nowprovided by disparate vendors will be negotiated ordeveloped by agents in the near future and funneled tolibraries in a coherent, fully functional ERMS bservicehubQ solving both publishers and libraries e-journaldistribution and management problems. The valueadded by agents will bbecome the jam in thesandwich.Q47

The role of subscription agents in the provision of e-journals is still emerging and subscription agents mustbe innovative in solving libraries’ e-journal problems.For libraries, going directly through the publisher of an

Jue Wang and Alan T. Schroeder Jr. Serials Review

e-journal does not always equate into better service andprice. Subscription agents add value. Resources aremaximized and costs minimized through economies ofscope and scale with subscription agents. Infrequently,publishers may be creating the illusion of a directchannel when, in fact, they have indirectly assembledseveral vendors into a service hub. One consequence ofsubscription agents failing to be successful intermedia-ries is market dilution of the traditional intermediaryrole agents enjoyed in the past between publishers andlibraries.

Notes

1. Bradley S. Wimmer, Anthony M. Townsend, and Brian E.Chezum, bInformation Technologies and the Middleman: TheChanging Role of Information Intermediaries in an Information-Rich Economy, Q Journal of Labor Research 21, no. 3 (2000):407.

2. Whit Andrews, bPlaying the Role of Digital Middleman in aNiche Market,Q Internet World 5, no. 5 (1999): 12.

3. Ina Fourie, bShould We Take Disintermediation Seriously?Q TheElectronic Library 17, no. 1 (January 1999): 9.

4. Chris Cobbs, bInternet Changed the Middleman’s Role, butDidn’t Cut It Out,Q Chicago Tribune (January 12, 2003): 7.

5. Michael Schrage, bNew IS Role: Bypassing the Middleman,QComputerworld 31, no. 2 (January 1997): 35.

6. Julia King, bDisintermediation/Intermediation,Q Computerworld33, no. 50 (December 1999): 54.

7. Walt Crawford, bPartnership, Property, andDisintermediation,QAmerican Libraries (February 2002): 59.

8. Robert Gellman, bDisintermediation and the Internet, QGovernment Information Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1996): 1.

9. Rick Lugg and Ruth Fischer, bAgents in Place: Intermediaries in

E-Journal Management. An R2 White Paper, written with

Support from Harrassowitz,Q (October 2003): 2, http://www.

ebookmap.net/pdfs/AgentsInPlace.pdf (accessed October 27,2004).

10. Rollo Turner, bAgents and Intermediaries: The Jam in the

Sandwich,Q (presented at Charleston, November 2003), http://

www.subscription-agents.org/papers/Charleston%202003_2.ppt

(accessed October 27, 2004).

11. Dan Tonkery, bMergers and Acquisitions in the Library Market-place: Opportunity or Threat?Q Serials Review 27, no. 1 (2001):45–50.

12. Ibid., 49.

13. Ibid.

14. Lugg and Fischer, bAgents in Place,Q 1.

15. Ibid., 2.

16. Ibid.

17. Tonkery, bMergers and Acquisitions in the Library Market-

place,Q 48.

18. Lugg and Fischer, bAgents in Place,Q 3.

19. A link resolver uses OpenURL to provide users with context-sensitive links, such as linking from a citation in an abstracting

and indexing database to the full text or other services.

20. See Doris Helfer, bIs the Big Deal Dead? Status of the Crisis in

26

Scholarly Publishing,Q Searcher 12, no. 3 (March 2004): 27.

bAnother major pressure is the need for the research library topurchase materials in both traditional (mainly paper) and

electronic form. The substantial advantages of electronic

materials to scholarship (in terms of storage, transfer, and

manipulation) are unquestionable, and the Cornell Library, likeall major research libraries, is investing heavily in digital

holdings. At the same time, however, we must still purchase

traditional materials—and the need for such traditional materi-

als in many disciplines is not declining, despite the increasedavailability of (and need for) digital publications and databases.

We will likely remain in this age of transition from traditional

to digital for many years to come—and the need to build ineffect two libraries, one in paper and one in online form, will

remain very costly.Q

21. Rollo Turner, bHidden Costs of E-Journals,Q (presented at the2004 NASIG Annual Conference)NASIG Newsletter (September2004): 31. http://nasig.org/newsletters/newsletters.2004/04sept.pdf (accessed October 27, 2004).

22. Ellen Dureanceau and Cindy Hepfer, bStaffing for ElectronicResource Management: The Results of a Survey,Q Serials Review28, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 317.

23. For an excellent discussion of linking and link resolvers, see John

McDonald and Eric F. Van De Velde. bThe Lure of Linking,QLibrary Journal (April 1, 2004), http://www.libraryjournal.com(accessed October 27, 2004).

24. John Merriman and Rollo Turner, bThe View from the Middle:

Subscription Agents, Intermediaries and the ASA: A Chapter from

a Century of Science Publishing, IOS Press,Q (2001): 8, http://www.subscription-agents.org/papers/Einar%20Frederikson%

20paper.doc (accessed October 27, 2004).

25. Philip Anderson and Erin Anderson, bThe New E-CommerceIntermediaries, Q MIT Sloan Management Review 43, no. 4(Summer 2002): 53.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., 54.

28. Paula J. Hane, bEBSCO Celebrates Its 60th Anniversary,QInformation Today 21, no.4 (April 2004): 1, 4. A recent

interview with top EBSCO executives revealed a promising

approach to ILS, bLibrarians should choose whatever systemwill best suit their needs. It is not the agent’s place to dictate, or

state a preference for, the library’s choice of a system. Once the

library chooses a system, it is the agent’s responsibility to strive

to provide electronic transactions that are compatible with thatsystem. This necessitates a relationship between the agent and

the organizations that develop and produce integrated systems.

For example, EBSCO Subscription Services cooperates with

fifty-two ILS vendors who offer 72 systems around the world.EBSCO staff at the corporate level seek working relationships

with ILS vendors, and a programming group within EBSCO’s

Information Systems and Services department is assigned

specifically to develop and deliver compatible electronic services,which we call binterfaces.Q (These are electronic ordering,

claiming, invoicing, renewal, retrospective conversion, bar code

data input, Internet transmissions, and so forth.) Currently,there are 152 interfaces of all types operational today between

EBSCO and various ILS vendors. But why would a corporation

go to this effort? Perhaps if we look back a few years we can

follow a path of system development and mutual cooperation.Q

29. See alsoGrahamBannock et al., bThe Economist,Q inDictionary ofEconomics, 4th ed. (Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press, 2003): 115.

30. Licensing of e-journals and databases in general has become a

Volume 31, Number 1, 2005 The Subscription Agent as E-journal Intermediary

very complex issue for librarians. See Alan T. Schroeder Jr., bAQuantitative Look at Software Licensing for IT Managers,Q ITProfessional 5, no. 5 (2003): 44–48; Duncan E. Alford,

bNegotiating and Analyzing Electronic License Agreements,QLaw Library Journal 94, no. 4 (2002): 621–644.

31. Lugg and Fischer, bAgents in Place,Q 5.

32. Merriman and Turner, bThe View from the Middle,Q 7.

33. Norm Medeiros, bManaging Administrative Metadata: The Tri-

College Consortium’s Electronic Resources Tracking System(ERTS),Q (PowerPoint presentation at ACRL 2003), http://www.

library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/acrl2003/ACRL_ERTS.ppt

(accessed December 15, 2004).

34. Adam Chandler, bProgress Report on the Digital Library Federa-

tion Electronic Resource Management InitiativeQ (PowerPointpresentation at ACRL 2003), http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/

elicensestudy/ acrl2003/acrl2003-alc.ppt (accessed October 27,

2004).

35. Nathalie Schulz, bE-Journal Databases: A Long-Term Solution?QLibrary Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 25(2001): 456.

36. Timothy D. Jewell, bElectronic Resource Management: the

Quest for Systems and Standards,Q (presented at the 2004

NASIG Annual Conference), http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/

27

elicensestudy/dlfdeliverables/roadmap/ERMQuest_Final030304.

doc (accessed October 27, 2004).

37. bAWeb Hub for Development Administrative Metadata for Elec-tronic Resource Management,Q http://www.library.cornell.edu

(accessed October 27, 2004).

38. bNetworking Nodes on E-Resource Management,Q (reported byKitti Canepi), NASIG Newsletter (September 2004): 51, http://

nasig.org/newsletters/newsletters.2004/04sept/04sept.pdf

(accessed October 27, 2004).

39. bReport of the DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative,

Appendix A: Functional Requirements for Electronic Resource

Management,Q http://www.library.cornell.edu (accessed October

27, 2004).

40. Ibid.

41. bNetworking Nodes on E-Resource Management,Q 51.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Turner, bHidden Costs of E-Journals,Q 32.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Turner, bAgents and Intermediaries.Q