Electronic JournalsAccess & Preservation
Roles, Responsibilities & Emerging Solutions
Terry [email protected]
The Lost Libraries of Timbuctu
© BBC
Agenda
The Problem – whose problem, who pays Access or Preservation? What to save? Costs, Benefits and Risks Choose a solution Four Scenarios Discussion Review of current initiatives Report conclusions, recommendations Recent developments
A Comparative Study
of e-Journal
Archiving Solutions
A JISC Funded Investigation
Final Report - May 2008
Terry Morrow (Tee Em Consulting)
Neil Beagrie Maggie Jones (Charles Beagrie Ltd)
Julia Chruszcz (Top Class Computer Technologies Ltd) © 2008 JISC Collections The authors have asserted their moral rights in this work.
The Problem
Libraries are increasingly moving to e-only solutions
Libraries’ traditional role was access and preservation
Now they direct users to external servers/services
These services provide access to a copy That copy is typically in hands of publisher –
vulnerable to loss
Whose problem & who pays?
This is a shared problem Everyone who benefits from the technology
has some responsibility Authors, Publishers, Librarians, Subscription
agents, Aggregators, Repository managers Who pays?
Arguably, all who benefit from this form of delivery should contribute
Access or Preservation?
Perpetual/continuing access Continuing access, even after cancellation Analogous to backfiles on shelf Librarians feel subscription = ownership Subscribers should ensure that perpetual access is
included Long term preservation
Ensuring content is accessible and readable for the indefinite future
Larger scale problem Responsibility of publishers, libraries, society as a whole Problems include costs and technology obsolescence
What to save?
One answer - what you see on screen Otherwise known as rendition files Retains look and feel of journal Initial costs lower May be difficult to preserve content over time Eg strategy for large scale migration between formats is
essentially untested Another answer - source files used by publisher
Advantage - content likely to be more complete Disadvantage - higher costs; presentation differs from
original Not obvious what correct answer is
Therefore best to save as much as possible
Costs, Benefits, Risks
Preservation isn’t a free option! Hardware, software, people all cost Costs will continue indefinitely
Investment in preservation - insurance Risk, consequences of loss of access need to be
assessed
Costs, Benefits, Risks (cont.)
Eg 1 Major research university Large collection of high impact journals Loss of access would have major consequences Should invest in more than one solution
Eg 2 Small teaching college Limited, specialised collection Fallback might be document supply from BL etc May wish to take the risk of not subscribing to any
backup service
Solution selection criteria
Coverage no. of publishers, titles, year ranges
Costs, charging basis Post cancellation access Immediate access if short term problem Size, type of institution - research, teaching Teams, departments with special needs
Some possible scenarios
Scenario 1 Library cancels subscription Wants access to past subscribed issues
Scenario 2 E-Journal no longer available from publisher Highly likely as publishers merge, change
business models or portfolios of titles UKSG TRANSFER initiative Code of Practice
covers transfer between publishers
Scenarios (cont.)
Scenario 3 Publisher has ceased operation (titles not
transferred to another) Unlikely for large publishers, though impact would
be high Scenario 4
Catastrophic failure of publisher’s service Unable to deliver service for prolonged period Temporary access to preserved content enabled
Discussion
Small groups 5 minutes Whether you are customer or provider of serials,
discuss what you are currently doing to preserve e-journals
Six initiatives - LOCKSS LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)
Libraries play active role – each has LOCKSS box Copies of all journals in agreement saved locally Closest analogue to paper preservation Now a JISC-sponsored UK subscription service - 18 signed Operated by EDINA, Edinburgh; now over 400 publishers
Advantages Content made available as soon as publisher inaccessible Covers many smaller (more vulnerable) publishers
Disadvantages Needs some local technical support To date larger publishers not signed up (tho’ working with T&F)
Six initiatives - CLOCKSS CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS)
Based on LOCKSS technology CLOCKSS now an independent not-for-profit corporation Last year moved from trial to service “Global dark archive” – only opened after trigger (2 events so far) 11 locations - 15 planned for 2010
(US - 6, Japan, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Edinburgh) Attracted big publishers
(eg Elsevier, T&F, Wiley-Blackwell, IOP, OUP, Springer etc) Advantages
Appeals to larger publishers Disadvantages
Post-cancellation access not supported Only triggered when publication abandoned by publisher
Six initiatives - Portico Portico
Designed as third party archiving service Permanent dark archive Access only permitted after disruption of publisher access Preserves normalised source files and rendition files Option to provide post cancellation access
Advantages Enables library to purchase outsourced solution Major STM publishers participating
Disadvantages May be relatively costly solution Some see dependence on publisher income a weakness
Six initiatives reviewed (cont.)
e-Depot Initiative of Koninklijke Bibliotheek (KB – Dutch national library) Content includes Dutch university repositories, websites,
newspapers etc Initially only Dutch e-journals; now worldwide; inc Elsevier
Advantages Aim to cover all major STM publishers KB strong reputation in DP research and practice
Disadvantages Large publishers - trigger events unlikely to happen Access by publisher agreement – generally onsite
Six initiatives reviewed (cont.)
OCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO) Not an archiving service as such Long term (inc post-cancellation) access to subscribed
content Depends on continuing to pay OCLC an access fee
British Library Least developed of the initiatives reviewed Infrastructure in place Have begun ingesting content from five publishers Testing & streamlining ingest solution Working on access mechanism at Legal Deposit Libraries
Figure 2: Comparative Analysis of E -Journal Archiving Programs – Trigger Events
Access Arrangements Trigger Event LOCKSS CLOCKSS PORTICO e-Depot OCLC ECO
BL E-jnl archive
1. Library cancels subscription and needs access to past issues to which they subscribed
Yes
No
This is not one of the trigger events included
Yes
Providing the publisher has nominated Portico as a provider of post -cancellation access.
No
Except for onsite access.
Yes
ECO provides continued access on payment of an access fee.
No
This is not one of the trigger events included.
2. E-Journal or its past issues are no longer available from the publisher
Yes .
Yes The title would be made openly accessible to all.
Yes The title would be opened up to all active participants, regardless of whether they previously subscribed to the content
Yes At least onsite access. Open access following trigger if agreed with publisher .
Yes ECO’s Business Model is to continue to provide access to journal titles on payment of an access fee.
Yes At least onsite access. Open access following trigger if agreed with publisher .
3. Publisher has ceased operation and e-publication is no longer possible.
Yes
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
4. Catastrophic failure of publisher’s operations/
servers
Yes
Yes
As long as publisher is unable to provide a service.
Yes
As long as publisher una ble to provide a service.
Possibly
Depends on agreements with publisher.
Yes
Ditto above
Possibly
Depends on agreements with publisher.
Findings – general points Responsibility of all in information chain
Authors, publishers, repository managers, librarians, subscription agents, aggregators and negotiators
Publishers Now have a new responsibility to ensure preservation
Libraries Must raise awareness within institutions Work with policy makers – get e-J archiving/preservation
incorporated in institutional strategies Archiving services must earn trust of key players
Demonstrate financial/organisational sustainability Technical insight and expertise
Recommendations:Libraries
Take initiative – raise awareness work with policy makers embed in library/institutional strategies
Carry out risk assessment of impact of loss of access to subscribed
e-journals a cost/benefit analysis on value, relevance of archiving
solutions offered National institutions should ensure solutions cover
material of value to their country’s libraries BL should provide safety net for UK publications Provide greater clarity about their plans
Recommendations:Publishers & Agents
Publishers should acknowledge responsibility for security of e-journal content support one or more initiatives provide clear statements on their archiving policies state their perpetual access policy under specified
scenarios provide post cancellation access at minimum cost
Publishers, trade organisations should gather, share statistics on risk of trigger events
Transfer Code of Practice should be followed when titles move between publishers
Recommendations:Publishers & Libraries
Licensing agreements should define post-cancellation access arrangements
Libraries should strongly encourage publishers to work with one or more external archiving solutions
Recommendations:Archiving solutions
Need … Sound & transparent financial models To demonstrate technical insight, expertise, ability to deal
with new technologies High profile visibility & buy-in from wide range of publishers To provide clarity on coverage, publishers, titles, years and
issues The trust of publishers to safeguard their assets To be clear about access arrangements after trigger event
Recommendations:Archiving solutions & Publishers
Need to work together to develop cross-industry definitions of trigger
events, protocols on conditions for release of preserved
content. Ground rules for post-trigger event
negotiation should be clear, transparent, established in advance
Recommendations:Negotiators
Use their influence, contracts, to define post-cancellation access arrangements short-list of approved archiving solutions
For community “big” deals, support one or more approved archiving solutions
Footnote: Developments since publication
NESLi2 Licence updated to include archiving July 08
Transfer Code of Practice V 2 released Sept 08
Portico - e-books archiving agreement with Elsevier June 08
CLOCKSS – moved from prototype to production June 08
UK LOCKSS – from pilot to membership organisation Aug 08
Terry Morrow
Tee Em [email protected]