INTERNATIONAL PE

RSPECTIVES· Library Consortia in Hungary

Corresp

The Journal o

by Edit Csajbók, Péter Szluka and Lívia VasasAvailable online 12 October 2012

During the last two decades manyHungarian libraries have developed

considerably, beyond what was consideredpossible prior to 1989 and the beginning ofevents signaling the end of Communism inthe country. Some of the modernization oflibrary services has been realized throughparticipation in cooperative agreements.Many smaller and larger consortia havebeen organized in Hungary since 1991.There are some consortia based around

specific vendors, e.g. EBSCO and ProQuest,but the most important consortia were four

state supported programs: FEFA(Orientation towards European

Development Fund), OTKA (HungarianScientific Research Fund), EISZ (ElectronicInformation Service), and TÁMOP (Social

Renewal Operative Program). Through these

Edit CsajbókSemmelweis University Central Library, 1088 Budapest

Mikszáth Kálmán tér 5, Hungaryonding author at: 1088 Budapest, Mikszáth Kálmán tér 5

Hungary. Tel.: +36 13170948; fax: +36 1 3171048<ecsajbok@lib.sote.hu>

Péter SzlukaSemmelweis University Central Library, 1088 Budapest

Mikszáth Kálmán tér 5, HungaryLívia Vasas

Semmelweis University Central Library, 1088 BudapestMikszáth Kálmán tér 5, Hungary

Acronyms are used in textCALICO, Cape Library Co-operative

EISZ, Elektronikus InformációszolgáltatásFEFA, Felzárkózás Európához Fejlesztési AlapFinELib, Finnish Electronic Library Program

ICOLC, International Coalition of Library ConsortiaOTKA, Országos Tudományos Kutatási Alap

TÁMOP, Társadalmi Megújulás Operatív Program

f Academic Librarianship, Volume 38, Number 6, pages

,,

,.;,,;,,.

.

335–3

programs, access to the most importantscientific and multidisciplinary databaseswas provided for the Hungarian academic

and research community. They assistedlibraries to create a well-functioning

Information Technology (IT) infrastructurein addition to a rich collection of electronicsources. What has been achieved so far has

beenbeneficial; however, an extension to thenumber of accessible databases would be

advantageous. Thismight be possible ifmoregovernment ministries were involved in thefinancing of a library consortium based on a

national license.

INTRODUCTIONMeeting rising demands from customers, implementing new technolo-gies, and purchasing a wide range of electronic resources places a hugeburden on modern libraries. It is apparent to some librarians that theirorganizations are not able to do all this independently, so looking forfinancingopportunities and findinggrants becomes important inorder tomodernize services in away that helps libraries to keep their costs as lowas possible.

A cost-benefit study investigating the value of library consortia byScigliano found several reasons in favor of joining a consortium.Cooperation can result in cost savings but Scigliano also points outthat a consortium is more than just a ‘buying-club’. Because onlineresources are generally bundled and the library has less control overwhich individual titles it can buy thanused to be the case, there has beenan increasing emphasis on providing amuchwider rangeof resources toend-users. The institution ismotivated to purchase asmany resources asits infrastructure canhandle.1 This broader accessmakes thepoint that alibrary consortium brings several benefits to the participating libraries,not just financial savings.

In practice, librarians can attest that establishing an effectiveconsortium is not an easy task. That is the reason why the InternationalCoalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) was founded in 1997, to assistlibraries in developing consortia and provide them a stronger position. In1998, it became an international organization, presenting its first set ofguidelines in the same year. This unofficial self-organized association has228 active members made up of library consortia from all around theworld. The association facilitates communication between consortiamembers, provides occasions for discussing questions or problems,organizes conferences and makes guidelines and suggestions to itsmembers.2

39 November 2012 335

LIBRARY CONSORTIA

In some countries, predominantly the developed countries of theWest, consortia-like programs have been launched that enjoygovernmental support for purchasing electronic information under acentral national license. The variation of library consortia in a fewselected countries illustrates how geography and functionality canhelp shape the final organizational structure.

The Finnish Educational Department launched a consortium calledthe Finnish Electronic Library Program, FinELib, in 1997. It is a consortiumof Finnishuniversities, universities of applied sciences, research institutesand public libraries. The first two years of this program were financedcompletely by the government, except for some resources in specifieddisciplines for which universities had to pay 50% of the actual cost ofdatabases. In the third year of the consortium, the universities wereadditionally required to pay 20% of the actual cost of general andmultidisciplinary resources. Only universities have the privilege ofenjoying central financing, but joining the consortium is permitted toany organization if it can afford to finance its own participation.3

Displaying some parallels to Hungary, the foundation of the firstofficial library consortium in South Africa, the Cape Library Co-operative(CALICO), took place at the same time as the political, social andeconomic transformation of the country. Between 1992 and 1998, fivemore consortia were founded in different geographical locations. Allconsortia followed traditional consortium functions, such as using acommon library management system, sharing resources and commonlicense contracts.4

In 1995, the primary goal of the Greek Education Departmentwas tomodernize their library system, including increasing co-operationbetween libraries. In order to realize this modernization, they beganby systematizing journal acquisition, generating an electronic databaseof Greek dissertations and theses, opening a central catalogue of highereducation libraries and centralizing training for higher educationallibrarians. In the summer of 1998, based on international experience,they decided to found consortia, mostly for accessingmedical, scientificand technological journals.5

In Hungary, the first opportunity for establishing a consortium arosein 1991. The political transformation of 1989 meant the country facedhuge challenges in the renewal of politics, economics and society, butthat situation also created an environment in which change wasessential and something had to be done. The response was, given thecircumstances, quick in coming.

BEFORE THE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION

Between 1947 and 1989, Hungary was a Communist country under theinfluence of the Soviet Union. The countrywas adversely impacted by therepressive system immediately after the Soviet takeover and again afterthe 1956 revolt. In the political and economic system of Communism,Hungarian libraries received no income except from the state. Librariesbefore the democratic transformation were in a difficult situationbecause the economic model of the socialist regime and impropercontrol of the economy failed to produce the prosperity achieved incountries of the West. Characteristics of the communist Hungarianeconomy were economic stagnation, a high inflation rate, and indebt-edness. This left little money for the state to give to libraries.

Before the political transformation, the Legislative Library Acts(act-decrees) tried to follow the Scandinavian example, but these lawswere based on a socialist doctrine and although the concepts werepromising, the necessary financial resources were not available.6 Theavailable state budget was distributed according to political demands:the productive sector, and defense and security organizations receivedmost resources; culture, science, education and public health in-stitutions received the remainder. The situation for academic librarieswas also difficult. Their budgets were small, and the only successfuljustification for more money from the parent organization was the

336 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

increasing price of foreign journals. The example of one universitylibrary reflects the situation of all libraries: that library could not buy anintegrated library systembecause itwould havemeant using thebudgetintended to last for seven years. The infamously inefficient corporatesystem of libraries was one of the reasons why libraries were in such apoor situation before the democratic transformation.7

TRANSTION PERIOD

In the 1990s, Hungarian libraries faced two different kinds ofproblems: the challenges caused by the new political system; andthe needs of a new social and economic system demanding moreinformation resources be made accessible with the use of newtechnology. An even greater challenge was the question of financialresources. In 1997, a new lawwas passed concerningmuseums, publiclibraries and public education in an effort to control the budget ofpublic, university and national libraries. Although finances seemed tobe secured through this law, the actual budget is still very low; it doesnot adjust for the increasing cost of materials. It was therefore anopportune time to establish library consortia.

THE CONSORTIA SYSTEM IN HUNGARY

In Hungary, there aremany smaller and larger library consortia, whichhave varying structures. For example, there are consortia based on anational license with a specific publisher: one of them was foundedon a publisher's initiative, the EBSCO consortium. There are alsograssroots consortia such as the ProQuest consortium, the aim ofwhich is to provide current medical literature to hospitals. The mostsignificant Hungarian library consortia-like programs were FEFA (theOrientation towards European Development Fund), OTKA (HungarianScientific Research Fund), EISZ (Electronic Information Service) andTÁMOP (Social Renewal Operative Program).

FEFA – ORIENTATION TOWARDS EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTFUND – 1991–1997

At the time of regime change, the greatest need was to expand theeconomy, and themost important factor in that was developing humanresources. The Human Resources Development Program was a loanagreement between the Hungarian Government and the World Banksigned in 1991, in which the loan amount was US$150 million for acredit periodof 15 years. Theprogramhad twomain initiatives; onewasthe ‘Employment and Human Resources Program’, the other was the‘Orientation towards European Development Fund’, which included the‘General Higher Educational Development Program’. The loan for thehigher education program was US$66.675 million and 10.2 billionHungarian Forints (HUF).8 The purpose was to provide support forhigher education institutes through an open tender competition.9

The General Higher Educational Development Program was estab-lished with the intent to:

• modernize education and research• improve cooperation between higher educational and researchinstitutes

• forge integration between colleges, universities and research in-stitutes in amulti-level andmulti-faculty higher educational system

• increase the number of students and improve the infrastructure tocope with them

• modernize information technology in higher educational institutes,and

• improve vocational training; yet all achieved with greatercost-efficiency.10

Although the program aimed to support higher education institutes,the librarywas often the focus of attention since the program also aimedto develop the information infrastructure and improve accessibility toscientific resources. That iswhy academic librarieswere given the chance

to submit their applications (through a tendering process) for grants.Library development included building library subsystems, greateraccessibility of databases, building information infrastructure, enlargingcollections, digitizing library catalogues, and funding for conferences andcontinuing vocational training.

The libraries component of the FEFA program had some importantbenefits. As a result academic libraries could provide a wide range ofresources, including multimedia tools, with a greatly improved ITinfrastructure. This time was a significant learning period for librariansbecause through the program, librarians learnt how necessary it is towrite a good grant application, how they could communicate betterwith other librarians, and how to prepare for strict accountability ofprogram funding.

OTKA – ORSZÁGOS TUDOMÁNYOS KUTATÁSI ALAP – LIBRARYPROGRAM 1998–2006

The task of OTKA, known in English as the Hungarian Science ResearchFund, was designed to support scientific research, the researchinfrastructure, and to assist young researchers, in order to achievehigh quality research outcomes comparable to international stan-dards.11 The first time OTKA invited applications for a library grant (inco-operation with the government's Education Department) was in1998; the goal was to help higher education institutes purchasedatabases through consortia. The program had hard terms, managedand judged by the Library Committee of the Education Department,whose members are appointed from the Education Department andthe director-generals of major libraries. Possible applicants for thegrant were university central libraries, libraries connected to theHungarian Academy of Sciences, and public collections co-operatingwith academic and university sectors. The applicants had to undertaketo install the databases on suitable servers or access the servers of thedata providers, and to transmit data to authorized users in a legal way.The applicants accepted that they had to provide the service free forend-users.

222 applications were submitted and 113 applications weresupported with 1535 million HUF from 1998 through to 2006. In 2004the ratio of themember's fee was introduced at 10%. Later in 2006 it wasraised to 25%. The supported databases covered the whole area ofscience: the ACM Digital Library, Biological Abstracts, CABCD, FSTA,Zoological Record, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Material ScienceCollection, Chemical Abstracts, CrossFire plus Reactions, Econlit, Embase,General Business File International, Geobase, Literature Resource Centerplus MLA, Marburger Index, Bibliography of the History of Art,MathSciNet, Medline, Patrologia Latina Database, PsycInfo, SciFinderScholar, and SpringerLink. The number of supported databases hasdecreased since 2000 because EISZ, launched in 2001, took over theacquisition of a couple of databases previously supported by OTKA.12

OTKA library grants radically changed national library and informa-tion services. The program had some notable strengths: it providedmultidisciplinary, modern resources previously beyond the budgets oflibraries; avoided the purchase of parallel content; and helped raise thequality of research. It also gave librarians more experience withconsortia, expanded networks, providedmore training, and gave usefulexperience with usage statistics. On the negative side, it took time forlibrarians to learn how to manage consortia, and there was insufficientIT infrastructure in the some host libraries (mostly the public libraries).

The function of the OTKA program transferred to EISZ; still,terminatingOTKAwas unfortunate. The decreased number of databasesis not the only sad consequence for libraries. Librarians lost theframework that they had used to develop networks and improve theirmanagement of resources within a consortium.

EISZ — ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICETheElectronic InformationService (EISZ) is anational library consortium.The purpose is to establish a nationwide information system in order to

strengthen Hungarian research and development activity. It includes anational license for the acquisition of electronic sources for highereducation and research institutes and it has resulted in much moreinformationbeingprovided to awide rangeof users for a reducedprice.13

In the history of EISZ twoperiods can be distinguished. The first periodlasted from 2001 until 2008 during which time all higher educationinstitutes could be members without any member's fee. After theintroduction of a membership fee, the second period of EISZ began in2009.

Phase1 of EISZ spannedbetween2001 and2008when itwasusedby338 institutions. The Ministry of Education, the Hungarian Academy ofSciences, and OTKA were involved in its financing. From 2005, theNational Office for Research and Technology was also involved in thefinancing of EISZ.14 The focus was on providing access to a number ofcoredatabases including: Scopus, PsycInfo, SpringerLink,Webof Science,Science Direct, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Sweets Navigator,Scientific Journal Collection of Akadémiai Publisher, MTI database(Hungarian Telegraphic Office—news agency), BMC music database,Complex Web Law Store, the Databases of Aracanum and CERL.15

The key results, for Phase I of EISZ, were that it provided the databasesthat were the most important information sources for the users, andthrough its reliable, continuous services EISZ contributed to thedevelopment of domestic scientific activities. It provided speedy accessto journals, a reliable service,multidisciplinary andmodern resources, andall for no fee. Weaknesses were a lack of content in some disciplines, theobligatory keeping of printed journals from Elsevier and Springer thatmeans only 13 members have to contribute to EISZ financing due to anarrangement supporting the holding of printed journals. However, 338institutes, quite often with a high usage statistics, used the consortium'sservices.

It was already clear in 2007 that EISZ had to change its strategy to beable to operate. Financial sources of state support decreased signifi-cantly and the unequal contribution from the members causedcomment. According to statistics from EISZ the funding institutes didnot have the highest rate of utilization and some of the institutes withhigh utilization rate did not contribute to the financing of the system.16

This was a result of an unusual agreement relating to keeping printcopies of journals (see above).

This is not a unique problem; there were similar difficulties in thecases of national consortia in other countries. ANKOS, the nationalconsortium of Turkey, had to face the lack of central funding. Thesuppliers imposed anequal sharingof cost,whichmanysmaller librariesbelieved was unfair because their utilization of electronic sources wasmuch lower. Large libraries were unsatisfied with equal financialdistribution, for they thought that a greater burden was already put onthem because one of the conditions of the license was the obligation tokeep printed journals of the previous one or two years.17

Anewmodel of fundingwas introduced in 2009. Themost importantchange formembers is that they can access only databases subscribed toby their institute, because now the members have to contribute to thesubscription fee of databases accessible through EISZ. The calculationmethod of contribution is different in the case of every database. Here isan example of the calculation methods: for ScienceDirect the basis ofmembers' fees calculations are the following multipliers: 0.3 utilizationstatistics, 0.2 students FTE, 0.9 instructors FTE, and −0.4 print orders.There were two groups of supported databases; one of them got higher(75–90%) central support from the government,while the other group–

mainly specialized databases – got lower (25%) support. Databaseswithhigher support were ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Web of Science,Scientific Journal Collection of Akadémiai Publisher and some dictio-naries. Databases and journal collections with lower support were CABAbstract, FSTA, Zoological Records, ACM Digital Library, MLA+LRC, theGrove Dictionary of Art (Grove Art Online), GroveMusic Online, Econlit,MathSciNet, PsycInfo, Beilstein (Reaxys), Nature (online journal pack),and Science magazine.18

November 2012 337

The main result of the EISZ consortium is access to the mostimportant databases like Web of Science. Although in the secondphase of the program the member's fee was introduced, the repeal ofthe obligatory Springer subscription (25% DDP) was met with afavorable reception among the members. The drawback of the EISZconsortium is the quite slow and dilatory administration, whichresulted in temporary breaks in access to some services (e.g. PsycInfodatabase) sometimes.

Further development of EISZ is to be achieved with the help of anEU program: the Social Renewal Operative Program (TÁMOP). Theobjectives of TÁMOP projects are the expansion of employment, thedevelopment of human resources and the reduction of discriminationin the labor market and society. EISZ won support within TÁMOP(described later). They wish to acquire databases that have notparticipated in the EISZ collection yet. Another objective is that theuser circle will be extended to hospitals.

NATIONAL LICENSE CONTRACTS AND THE EBSCOINFORMATION SERVICE 2003–

The EBSCO consortium is based on a national license with theAmerican EBSCO publisher. The access to the databases stipulated inthe contract have been providing for Hungarian libraries without anymembership's fee. All public libraries, higher education libraries,professional libraries, public institute libraries, and libraries ofnonprofit organizations (e.g. church libraries, museum and medicallibraries) are entitled to use the services. From 2012 amembership feewas introduced, which was calculated based on the usage statistics ofthe members. The service is reliable and continuous. The mostrelevant databases provided through this agreement are: AcademicSearch Complete, Business Source Premier, MasterFILE Premier,Newspaper Source Plus, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition,Health Source: Consumer Edition, Medline, ERIC, Library, InformationScience & Technology Abstracts™ (LISTA).

THE CONSORTIUM OF HOSPITALS — THEPROQUEST CONSORTIUM 2005–

Within EISZ, only institutions in higher education can have access tothe information sources provided through the project. However,because hospitals are outside the scope of EISZ, a proposal was madefor hospitals to organize a consortium to get access to current medicalliterature so it can be made available for doctors and other healthworkers. The ProQuest consortium was organized by the HungarianMedical Libraries Society in 2005. Initially there were 13 members,though now it has dropped to 11. ProQuest contains more than 400medical journals and over the years its content has been expanded.ProQuest support their users with a Hungarian interface, informationmaterials, and annual meetings to make usage easier. Librarians areespecially important in this consortium. They provide remote desktopaccess for employees of their institute, they do intensivemonitoring ofuse and based on the statistics gained they make suggestions forexpansion of the collection.

TÁMOP — SOCIAL RENEWAL OPERATIVEPROGRAM 2007–2013

In 2007 a new European Union program was announced called theSocial Renewal Operative Program (TÁMOP). The budget of TÁMOP isa bit more than 4 billion EUR. Funding is provided by European Union(85%) and the Hungarian Government (15%).19 The program is carriedout in different fields, and one of its constructions is “TudásdepóExpressz” (The Express of Knowledge-Depot). The main purpose ofthis program is so the library system can efficiently support highquality formal and non-formal education, and assist with thedevelopment of reading and digital competences through libraryservices. The priority is to reduce the regional differences of access

338 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

that still exist in Hungary. Another purpose is to synchronize learningsupport services with the databases. There is an emphasis ondeveloping the human resources of libraries.20 Until now 106 libraryapplications has been supported with 8.5 million EUR. The keybenefits of the Tudásdepó Expressz program appear in the cataloguingand classification of collections, in providing universal access to thedocuments, and in increasing publicity for libraries. In addition, a newprogram started in 2012 within the frame of TÁMOP with a little bitmore than one million EUR financial support; its aim is the furtherdevelopment of the first national scientific bibliographic database. Thelibraries in higher education have a share in implementing thisprogram, which is realized in a consortium.

DISCUSSION

In many countries, libraries are under pressure to provide qualityinformation services that are fast and accurate, yet this has to beachieved with ever-tighter budgets. The programs and consortiadescribed in this column have certainly experienced this. All consortiaactivities spread the financial burden while simultaneously improvingthe quality of the information service. At first they targeted infrastruc-tural development, and huge improvements have been made. Therewere programs that enabled libraries to develop a common computerinfrastructure, create shared catalogues and start cooperative acquisi-tions programs.However, it is open to questionwhether the institutionsmodernizing their IT infrastructure in the 1990s or later with FEFAfunding will be able to develop continuously their IT infrastructure andkeep up with new technological advancements. Recently the focus ofprograms has shifted towards online resource sharing, althoughthe new European Union program promotes cataloguing and classifi-cation of the collections in addition to common acquisition of onlineresources.

The consortia organizations from 1991 did not operate withoutdifficulties. Access to themost important databaseshasbeenprovided tolibraries, but in theorganizationof consortia therewere somedispiritingdelays. Initially librarians were in a dire situation. They weren'twell-informed about national and international funding opportunitiessince there hadn't previously been a service that provided suchinformation. The librarians had no experience in the process of seekingout tenders, in writing a successful application, and in carrying outproject monitoring and evaluation. This has changed, so one clearbenefit of the consortia is that librarians have become more knowl-edgeable about grant applications and project management. Thesewere almost unknown requirements before the political changes of1989.

Due to the difficult economic situation in Hungary, the Ministry ofEducation (from 2011 the Ministry of National Resources) cannotprovide full state support to library consortia. State support could beincreased by involvingmoreministries, and thus increasing the range ofsupported databases, but this has not happened. There is the addedincentive that database subscriptions supported by EISZ are exemptfrom Value-Added Tax (VAT) which would increase access moreeffectively. This is very important to libraries because the HungarianVAT law is not supportive of the purchase of electronic resources withnon-state funding. For printed journals VAT is only assessed at 5%,whilein the case of electronic contents the VAT is a horrific 27%! Hence, evenminimal state support would result in zero VAT on electronic resources,making a huge difference to the extension of library content.

It is worth examining these consortia from a different point of view,and assessing if they reach their goals.Whenwe speak about consortiumdevelopment, wemust take into consideration the new tasks aswell, likecentral archiving, education and benchmarking. We have realized thatthe user's IT knowledge is not sufficient to use effectively the electronicresources in online databases, hence end-user training is much needed,and the responsibility for providing this training must also fall on theconsortia.

In conclusion it can be said that clear benefits have followed fromtheactivities ofHungarian library consortia since 1989. IT infrastructure andaccess to resources are greatly improved — but the ability to maintainthe improvement is questionable. Librarians are more knowledgeableabout finding funding opportunities and managing programs. Chal-lenges remain, of course, but consortiamay still play a vital role in librarydevelopment in Hungary.

REFERENCES

1.Marisa Scigliano, “Consortium Purchases: Case Study for a Cost–Benefit Analysis”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28(6)(Nov–Dec 2002): 393–399.

2. ICOLC Homepage. Available: http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia(July 7, 2011).

3. Péter Szántó, “Országos elektronikus információszolgáltatásiprogramok” Tudományos és Műszaki Tájékoztatás. 2000, 47(9–10)382–388.

4. Gwenda Thomas, Ina Fourie, “Academic Library Consortia inSouth Africa: Where we Come From andWhere We are Heading”,The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4) (July 2006):432–438.

5. Claudine Xenidou-Dervou, “Consortial Journal Licensing: Experiencesof Greek Academic Libraries”, Interlending & Document Supply 29(3)(2001): 120–125.

6. Judit Skaliczki, “A könyvtárügy, a könyvtárak és a könyvtári rendszerhelyzete” in Magyarország médiakönyve, edited by Gabriella Cseh,Mihály Egyedi Nagy & Tibor Solténszky (Budapest: Enamiké, 1998),pp. 221–227.

7. Béla Mader, “Hazai könyvtárak az átalakulás időszakában” Tudomá-nyos és Műszaki Tájékoztatás 39 (1992): 435–440.

8. András Benczúr, Ágnes Kőműves, Edit Stéfán, Felzárkózás azEurópai Felsőoktatáshoz Alap (FEFA) 1991–1995, (Budapest:FEFA, 1996), p. 135.

9. Edit Kerekes, Finanszírozás, Alappal Educatio (1993): 488–491.10. Benczúr (1996).11. Országos Tudományos Kutatási Alapprogramok, Szervezeti és

Működési Szabályzata. Online. Available: http://www.otka.hu/index.php?akt_menu=1362 (July 7, 2011).

12. “Könyvtárpályázat keretében beszerzett adatállományok”, OTKAHírlevelek (1999–2007).

13. István Béres, “Az Elektronikus Információszolgáltatásról”, KönyvtáriLevelező/lap 14 (2002): 12–13.

14. Az Elektronikus Információ Szolgáltatás (EISZ), Nemzeti Programjövőképe. (2007).

15. Ágnes Téglási, “Elektronikus Szolgáltatás (EISZ) nemzeti program”, inKönyvtár És Társadalom Vonzásában, edited by Zoltán Czövek, TiborKoltay, Mihály Pálvölgyi (Szombathely: Savaria Univ. Press, 2008),pp. 97–106.

16. Az Elektronikus Információ Szolgáltatás (EISZ), Nemzeti Programjövőképe. (2007).

17. Bulent Karasozen, Jane Ann Lindley, “The Impact of ANKOS:Consortium Development in Turkey”, The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 30(5) (Sept 2004): 402–409.

18. Ágnes Téglási, Elektronikus Információszolgáltatás nemzeti program2009–2010. Online.Available: http://www.mtak.hu/download/2010_01_20_Teglasi_Agnes.pdf (July 7, 2011).

19. Társadalmi Megújulás Operatív Program 2007–2013. Online.Available: www.nfu.hu/download/2736/tamop_adopted_hu.pdf (July 7, 2011).

20. Tudásdepó Expressz. Online. Available: http://www.nfu.hu/download/14869/konvTAMOP_324_felhivas0202.pdf (July 7, 2011).

November 2012 339