Transcript E-Journals Archiving Solutions

Electronic Journals
Access & Preservation
Roles, Responsibilities &
Emerging Solutions
Terry Morrow
[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
Terry Morrow
(T ee Em C onsulting)
Neil Beag rie
Maggie Jones
(C harles Beagrie Ltd)
Julia Chruszcz
(T op C ass
l Computer
Technologies Ltd)
© 2008 JISC Collections
Final Rep ort - May 2008
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






Another answer - source files used by publisher



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
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 ejournals
Six initiatives - LOCKSS

LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)






Advantages



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
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)







Advantages


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)
Appeals to larger publishers
Disadvantages


Post-cancellation access not supported
Only triggered when publication abandoned by publisher
Six initiatives - Portico

Portico






Advantages



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
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




Advantages



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
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
Trigger
Event
Access Arrangements
LOCKSS
CLOCKSS
BL E-jnl
archive
PORTICO
e-Depot
OCLC ECO
Yes
Providing the
publisher has
nominated
Portico as a
provider of postcancellation
access.
Yes
The title would
be opened up to
all active
participants,
regardless of
whether they
previously
subscribed to
the content
No
Except for
onsite access.
Yes
ECO
provides
continued
access on
payment of
an access
fee.
Yes
ECO’s
Business
Model is to
continue to
provide
access to
journal titles
on payment
of an access
fee.
Yes
Ditto above
No
This is not
one of the
trigger events
included.
Yes
Ditto above
Possibly
Depends on
agreements
with publisher.
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
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.
3. Publisher
has ceased
operation and
e-publication is
no longer
possible.
4. Catastrophic
failure of
publisher’s
operations/
servers
Yes
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Ditto above
Yes
Yes
As long as
publisher is
unable to
provide a
service.
Yes
As long as
publisher unable
to provide a
service.
Possibly
Depends on
agreements
with publisher.
Yes
At least onsite
access. Open
access
following
trigger if
agreed with
publisher.
Yes
At least onsite
access. Open
access
following
trigger if
agreed with
publisher.
Yes
Ditto above
Findings – general points

Responsibility of all in information chain


Publishers


Now have a new responsibility to ensure preservation
Libraries



Authors, publishers, repository managers, librarians,
subscription agents, aggregators and negotiators
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



Carry out



work with policy makers
embed in library/institutional strategies
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 postcancellation 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


Transfer Code of Practice V 2 released


June 08
CLOCKSS – moved from prototype to production


Sept 08
Portico - e-books archiving agreement with Elsevier


July 08
June 08
UK LOCKSS – from pilot to membership
organisation

Aug 08
Terry Morrow
Tee Em Consulting
[email protected]