292 daniel dollar ssp yale_28_may2008

Shift to Online: implications for preserving scholarly communications

Daniel DollarHead, Collection Development & Management

Cushing/Whitney Medical LibraryYale School of Medicine

[email protected]

Cushing/Whitney Medical Library

Morse Reading Room

Shifting Formats

• Content• Online journal is the version of record• Digital backfiles (include everything)

• Scholarly Sharing• Interlibrary loan• Fair use

• Licensing• Pricing models

• Usage• COUNTER compliant

Shifting Formats

• Accessibility• Easy and clear path to content with few/no

clicks• No passwords please• OpenURL compliant

• Ownership• Purchase content not lease it• Perpetual or archival access rights• Post-cancellation access to subscribed content

• Preservation• Use trusted third-party preservation archive(s)

Digital preservation represents one of the grand challengesfacing higher education. Yet… the responsibility for preservation is diffuse and the responsible parties havebeen slow to identify and invest in the necessary infra-structure. The shift from print to electronic publicationof scholarly journals is occurring at a particularly rapidpace; the digital portion of the scholarly record is in-creasingly at risk and solutions may require unique ar-rangements within the academy for sharing preservationresponsibility.

Adapted from "Urgent Action Needed to Preserve ScholarlyElectronic Journals," Don Waters et al, 10/2005

Preservation: Problem Statement

Preservation: Study

• Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) agree on the need for survey of online journal archiving initiatives.

• CLIR commissioned study with a report issued in September 2006, entitled E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape.

Contents

• Includes: the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of significant archiving programs operated by not-for-profit organizations in the domain of peer reviewed journal literature published in digital form.

• Excludes: preservation efforts covering digitized versions of print journals (i.e., JSTOR), library conversion projects, publisher efforts, and initiatives in planning stages.

Twelve initiatives studied

• Government mandated/funded (6):• Koninklijke Bibliotheek - e-Depot (Dutch

national deposit library)• Kopal - DDB (National Library of Germany &

Ministry of Education & Research)• CISTI - Csi (Canadian national science library)• NLA-Pandora (Preserving and Accessing

Networked Documentary Resources of Australia)

• PubMed Central (National Institutes of Health-National Library of Medicine)

• LANL-RL aDORe (Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library)

Twelve initiatives studied

• Membership/subscription initiatives (4):• LOCKSS Alliance (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)• CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS)• OCLC-ECO (Electronic Collections Online)• Portico

• Consortial implementations, providing access for library members (2):• OhioLink Electronic Journal Center• Ontario Scholars Portal

Seven indicators of viability

1. Explicit mission & necessary mandate to perform long-term archiving

2. Negotiate all rights and responsibilities to carry out its obligations

3. Identify exactly which titles are covered and for whom

4. Provide a minimal set of defined services - receive, store, verify integrity, guard against loss, be auditable (certification)

Seven indicators of viability

5. Preserved information available to libraries under clearly stated conditions

6. Organizationally sound7. Work as part of a network

What about content coverage?

• Proved difficult to identify which publications are being archived, by whom

• Not all publish lists; not all have complete, up to date titles (this is complicated)

• Not all of a publishers' titles necessarily included in a collection (PubMed Central has largest number of publishers & smallest number of titles)

• Aggregators such as Muse, BioOne, etc., add complexity

Content coverage (2)

• Participation in the 12 (2006 data):• Number of unique publishers was 128 • 91 participated in only one program• 20 participated in 2 programs• 17 (major) publishers are in 3 or more

programs• Lots of redundancy for STM• Other disciplines, smaller publishers, non-

Roman, and dynamic Web publications are less well represented and less likely to have an archiving/preservation program

“Minimal” set of services?

• This area of the report:• Is the most lengthy• Is particularly clearly written• Represents the area that we know least about

(much technical activity with yet a long way to go to assure perpetual availability)

• Identifies emerging best practices and standards• Some areas covered: formats for ingestion, what

content is included, how to know it's all there, is it corrupted, cost effectiveness, data migration vs. emulation, guard against loss/backup, etc.

Organizational viability?

• Most of the 12 appear to have the necessary organizational structure including:• Commitment• Documentation• Adherence to standards• Succession planning• Good business planning, models• Incoming revenue for support• However, mostly a limited track record (very

new)

Part of a network?

• Networks can be formal or informal and provide:• Idea exchange• Sharing of documents• Sharing software• Coordinating content selection• Reciprocal storage, mirroring• Backup if other archives fail• Shared resources, facilities

• Some of these initiatives are communicating productively with one or more other initiatives

Conclusions of the CLIR study

• Trigger events will happen• Libraries cannot do this alone• Current license terms for libraries are mostly

inadequate (perpetual access does not equal preservation)

• Viable options are emerging• No single archiving program will meet all needs• Coverage is uneven• Much content is at risk• Libraries can and should influence developments• Legislation needed -- legal deposit• All programs need greater support, transparency, etc.

Digital Repository Certification

Research Library Group and National Archives and Records Administration Digital Repository Certification Task Force

Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC): Criteria and Checklist (Version 1.0 February 2007)

Center for Research Libraries (CRL) taking on audit and certification tasks in the US using TRAC criteria and checklist

Copyright and Digital Preservation

• Section 108 Study Group Report (March 2008)•Clarify library and museum rights to

preserve digital content.

Medical Historical Library

Medical Library >> tomorrow

• Pilot study of online journal archiving• Reviewed the

library’s “core” journals for inclusion in LOCKSS and/or Portico

• Lack of title lists and ISSNs problematic

• Yale University Library study to come

Conclusions

• Online journals are the version of record

• Preservation issues are complex• Technical

• Risks

• Costs

• Trust

• Submit scholarly published content to trusted (certified) third-party preservation archives • Use both LOCKSS and Portico.

Readings

• E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape. (September 2006)

• Urgent Action Needed to Preserve Scholarly Electronic Journals. (October 15, 2005)

• Section 108 Study Group Report. Executive Summary (March 2008)Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist. (Version 1.0 February 2007)

• Bernard F. Reilly, Jr. “Center for Research Libraries’ Auditing and Certification of Digital Archives.” Charleston Advisor (January 2008): 59-60.

• Bernard F. Reilly, Jr. “Summary of the Test Audits of Portico and LOCKSS.” Charleston Advisor (January 2008): 61-62.