National site licence: Improved access to global commercial
research council sectors, which are strongly correlated with the intensity of research activities and outputs. Thus, the university sector’s current 95% of national expenditure on licenses, also involves the top five research universities accounting for the large majority of that expenditure. Clearly, inequitable access to e-journals is unsustainable and will pose a serious limitation to attempts to boost research and postgraduate training at historically disadvantaged universities and at science councils.
The objective of an NSLS should therefore be not only to reduce costs as much as possible, but also to widen access to electronic journals and databases across the universities and science councils. In this context, ASSAf has analysed the current cost structure and financing arrangements across all universities and councils, has developed a proposal and a business case for the establishment of an NSLS, and put forward a set of recommendations for administering the NSLS.
In undertaking the study, the current usage of databases across universities and science councils was analysed, as well as taking cognisance of the five big publishing houses with the most expensive licence fees. Five databases were identified that covered the vast majority of current usage, spanning all domains of science, potentially providing a significant expansion in the scope of the coverage for all but the most research-intensive universities, and thereby massively improving the equity of access across the public research institutions. These five databases were used as the reference set for all subsequent analyses, which revealed more core information:
• Several countries comparable to SA have followed a national licensing negotiation approach; in Africa, Egypt has just completed such an agreement with Elsevier. Based on benchmark data obtained, savings of between 20%
and 70% (depending on the supplier) were achieved through implementing an NSLS model. For SA, the net savings are likely to be lower since SANLiC (a section 21 company representing its member universities and research councils) has already played a role in achieving a certain level of savings.
• As mentioned earlier, the universities and councils spend about R500 m per annum on licenses. Assuming a modest 10% net average saving through an NSLS agreement over all the current subscriptions (independent licenses), and standardising access across the five key research databases for the current subscribing universities and councils, the ASSAf report concludes that an amount of R42 m would be saved over five years including operational costs associated with administering the NSLS, though some universities may need to subvent this to maintain their current levels of access; such subvention would be marginal by comparison with the overall current cost or the projected cost of the NSLS.
• The estimated additional cost for equitable access for Year 1 under an NSLS would be R40 m, and the forecasts for the subsequent years are as follows:
Year 2 (R42.1 m), Year 3 (R44.2 m), Year 4 (R46.5 m), and Year 5 (R48.8 m). In summary, the total additional cost over five years of equitable access through a NSLS is estimated at R221 m – this would be offset by the NSLS savings, however.
• Because the science councils currently subscribe to a much smaller proportion of the reference set of databases than does the aggregate university system, the cost of improving science council access will be proportionately higher.
Over the next five years, it is estimated that it would cost an additional R161 m to provide access for all research councils that do not currently have access to the five research databases. The research councils’ contributions therefore represent approximately 75% of the total additional costs (R221m); according to the cost-benefit model, these additional costs are expected to be absorbed into the NSLS cost, which would still show a marginal saving over the current level of expenditure (should this not be the case, these costs would need to be covered by the relevant government departments. Without the NSLS, the additional costs accruing for equitable access by the councils would be R178 m).
• The above-mentioned ASSAf report also estimates that depending on the specific database, more than 44 000 additional university and 8 700 science council researchers (by headcount) would be gaining access to databases they currently cannot access.
In addition to undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed NSLS, the ASSAf report also considers and outlines several different institutional models for administering the system. Specifically, the following models were considered for hosting the NSL delivery entity, namely:
• Scenario 1: Status quo (within SANLiC);
• Scenario 2: NSL negotiations coordinated by SANLiC;
• Scenario 3: NSL coordinated from within a government department as a government component;
• Scenario 4: NSL coordinated from within a statutory body (e.g., NRF or CHE);
• andScenario 5: NSL coordinated from within an existing tertiary institution.
The criteria considered in assessing the most suitable institutional arrangement for managing the NSLS were: academic independence and unrestricted access;
national interest; alignment with host’s mandate; (allowing) state sponsorship;
ability to coordinate with multiple stakeholders; organisational efficiency; and cost- efficiency.
Although the ASSAf report recommended the fourth scenario (NSLS coordinated from within a statutory body), the Advisory Committee (constituted of DST and DHET officials as well as experts) considered the third Scenario (NSLS as a government component coordinated from within a government department) the most favourable; it was consequently recommended that the DHET establish a government component within that department, to administer the NSLS, and fund it through an equitable top-slicing model for the subsidisation of the subscriptions.
This step would be initiated through a request from the DHET to the Government Technical Advisory Centre located in the Treasury to undertake a feasibility assessment for the establishment of such a component.
In addition, the DHET could establish a high-level negotiation team composed of suitable officials from the DHET, the universities and the science councils, and experts,
to prepare for and undertake the negotiations with the relevant publishing houses.
The DST would also be requested by the DHET to delegate a senior management official to participate in the negotiations.
By August 2017, the Minister of Science and Technology had endorsed the business case. The DHET has yet to endorse it under their new Minister to enable the initiation of negotiations and preparations for a NSLS for access to electronic scientific journals and databases.
The current status of the action plan includes the following steps:
• Conceptualisation by the DHET of the NSLS database management strategy and of a mechanism for funding the expected NSLS fees.
• Formal consultation by the DHET with the university and science council sector to ensure their support for the concept of a NSLS and the proposed operational and financial model.
• Consultation with relevant line departments housing science councils to secure their in-principle support, as well as financial support for the initial phase of negotiating the NSLS and establishing the required institutional infrastructure.
• The establishment of an implementation project team;
• The establishment of an NSLS negotiation team.
• The allocation of operational funds.