- The document discusses building a shared e-journal title list through a consortium to replace individual library subscriptions from Elsevier's "Big Deals". - An initial shared title list was created based on aggregated usage data from the consortium members, starting with the most highly used titles. This list was then trimmed through an iterative process. - The resulting shared title list contained 425 titles at a lower cost than individual subject collections, with savings varying between institutions. However, some customization was still required. - The shared title list approach allowed the consortium to gain more control over content selection compared to the predefined subject collections offered by Elsevier.

1. Making the most of a ‘Big Deal’ Building a consortial shared list to reclaim title-by-title eJournal selection for libraries Jason Price, PhD Life Science Librarian The Claremont Colleges (California) Table Talk Charleston Conference 2005 Issues in Book and Serials Acquisition

11. TITLE ISSN 2003use %TotUseinTitle Cum. Animal Behaviour '00033472 41 25.95% .%use Epilepsy & Behavior '15255050 28 17.72% Brain and Language '0093934x 13 8.23% 51.9% Contemporary Educational Psychology '0361476x 10 6.33% Cell Biology International '10656995 7 4.43% Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications '0006291x 6 3.80% 66.5% Journal of Experimental Child Psychology '00220965 3 1.90% Religion '0048721x 3 1.90% Biological Journal of the Linnean Society '00244066 2 1.27% Brain and Cognition '02782626 2 1.27% … .. … .. … .. … .. 158 100.00%

12. Large List Background & Criteria Values are percent of total use represented School (SC title #) >24uses (Ti) >12 uses (Ti) Western (579) 74% (78) 87 Claremont (855) 77% (146) 90 LomaLinda (688) 85% (133) 94 UOP (733) 85% (146) 93 LMU noESP (908) 40 64% (45) Pepperdine noP (790) 44 66% (117) USD (959) 57 74% (101) Average >>> (787) 76% (109)

15. STL vs SubColl: Costs decreased Inst # subscribed % credit for subs % saved vs sub coll (CompCore) (425) CLAR 169 48% 57% A 258 47% 42% B 72 18% 38% C 20 5% 35% D 18 5% 28% E 33 20% 12% F 13 17% -20%

20. Why did Elsevier encourage it?

21. Why did we encourage it?