Electronic Journals Access Preservation Roles Responsibilities

Electronic Journals Access & Preservation Roles, Responsibilities & Emerging Solutions Terry Morrow tm_morrow@yahoo. co. uk

The Lost Libraries of Timbuctu © BBC

Agenda l l l l l 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

The Problem l l l 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? l l This is a shared problem Everyone who benefits from the technology has some responsibility q l Authors, Publishers, Librarians, Subscription agents, Aggregators, Repository managers Who pays? q Arguably, all who benefit from this form of delivery should contribute

Access or Preservation? l Perpetual/continuing access q q l 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 q q 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? l One answer - what you see on screen q q q l Another answer - source files used by publisher q q l 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 q Therefore best to save as much as possible

Costs, Benefits, Risks l Preservation isn’t a free option! q q l Hardware, software, people all cost Costs will continue indefinitely Investment in preservation - insurance q Risk, consequences of loss of access need to be assessed

Costs, Benefits, Risks (cont. ) l Eg 1 Major research university q q q l 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 q q q 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 l Coverage q l l l 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 l Scenario 1 q q l Library cancels subscription Wants access to past subscribed issues Scenario 2 q q q 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. ) l Scenario 3 q q l Publisher has ceased operation (titles not transferred to another) Unlikely for large publishers, though impact would be high Scenario 4 q q q Catastrophic failure of publisher’s service Unable to deliver service for prolonged period Temporary access to preserved content enabled

Discussion l l l Small groups 5 minutes Whether you are customer or provider of serials, discuss what you are currently doing to preserve ejournals

Six initiatives - LOCKSS l LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) q q q l Advantages q q l 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 q q Needs some local technical support To date larger publishers not signed up (tho’ working with T&F)

Six initiatives - CLOCKSS l CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS) q q q l Advantages q l 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 q q Post-cancellation access not supported Only triggered when publication abandoned by publisher

Six initiatives - Portico l Portico q q q l Advantages q q l 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 q q May be relatively costly solution Some see dependence on publisher income a weakness

Six initiatives reviewed (cont. ) l e-Depot q q q l Advantages q q l 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 q q Large publishers - trigger events unlikely to happen Access by publisher agreement – generally onsite

Six initiatives reviewed (cont. ) l OCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO) q q q l 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 q q q 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

Findings – general points l Responsibility of all in information chain q l Publishers q l Now have a new responsibility to ensure preservation Libraries q q l 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 q q Demonstrate financial/organisational sustainability Technical insight and expertise

Recommendations: Libraries l Take initiative – raise awareness q q l Carry out q q l 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 q q BL should provide safety net for UK publications Provide greater clarity about their plans

Recommendations: Publishers & Agents l Publishers should q q q l l 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 l l Licensing agreements should define postcancellation access arrangements Libraries should strongly encourage publishers to work with one or more external archiving solutions

Recommendations: Archiving solutions l Need … q q q 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 l Need to work together to q q l develop cross-industry definitions of trigger events, protocols on conditions for release of preserved content. Ground rules for post-trigger event negotiation should be q q q clear, transparent, established in advance

Recommendations: Negotiators l Use their influence, contracts, q q l 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 l NESLi 2 Licence updated to include archiving q l Transfer Code of Practice V 2 released q l June 08 CLOCKSS – moved from prototype to production q l Sept 08 Portico - e-books archiving agreement with Elsevier q l July 08 June 08 UK LOCKSS – from pilot to membership organisation q Aug 08

Terry Morrow Tee Em Consulting tm_morrow@yahoo. co. uk