Briefing Session

Digital Preservation: An Overview

Prepared by: Fiona Bennett

Head, Rights and New Business Development

UKSG Annual Conference, 16-18 April 2007

Oxford University Press

• Introduction• Why is digital archiving and preservation such a

‘hot topic?’• CLIR Report: E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds

• Highlights and recommendations• Recent JISC, BL, DPC workshop

• Archiving solutions – look at some in more detail• PORTICO• LOCKSS• CLOCKSS

• What is the best approach?• References and sources of further information• Q&A

Summary of Briefing Session

Introduction

• Why am I stood up in front of you today as designated ‘expert?!’

• Head, Rights and New Business Development for Oxford Journals

• Traditional aspects of the role• Manage sale and licensing of rights to aggregators, A&I vendors • Permissions management• Publication rights policies for authors

• BUT more recently in response to changing needs and pressures

• Responsible for digital archiving and preservation strategy at Oxford Journals

• Manage agreements with archiving programs – Portico, LOCKSS etc• Work closely with Library Sales team to facilitate sales

Digital Preservation – why such a ‘hot topic?’

• are concerns for all stakeholders• Libraries, publishers, aggregators, consortia

• not just one issue but two key issues to consider here• Perpetual access: the need to maintain access to content

beyond subscription periods

• E-journal Archiving and preservation: the need to ensure continued availability for future users

• Possible to envisage e-journal archiving without current access BUT not perpetual access without an archiving program

• are calls from many for a collaborative consensus driven approach to tackling these issues

Digital Preservation – ‘hot topic?’

• move to electronic publishing• Difficulty determining exact number of peer reviewed journals

online

• June 2006 search of Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory• 14,338 online journals (1,429 were open access titles)• 62% of all 23,187 active titles

• Directory of Open Access Journals• 2,044 peer-reviewed open access journals in Feb 2006

• Publishers seeing increase in e-only subscriptions• Blackwell: 29% of their subscribers are e-only• Wiley: 60%• Elsevier: 40% of Science Direct current subs revenue is e-only

Digital Preservation – ‘hot topic?’

• British Library Study, 2003 • Project publishing trends to 2020

• Predicted that by 2016, half of all serials will be e-only

• Shift is leading publishers to consider eliminating print-runs

• Possibility of forced migration to e-only for some titles is a real one

• Users increasingly prefer to use online journals• Increased reliance on them

• RIN Study into user preferences for resource discovery etc

• Carol Tenopir: for scientists two-thirds of reading comes from e-resources

• retaining print or greater e-access: increased shift to the latter

Digital Preservation – ‘hot topic?’

• Library response and concerns• Increased percentage of serials expenditure is on e-only

• E-serials = 5% of serials spend in 1995, risen to 42% by 2004

• Increased cancellation of print version• 2004 PCG Survey: 84% of respondents said they would cancel the print when an e-version became available•‘Serials crisis’

• Concern about increased reliance on leased/licensed content

• Increasing demand for ‘perpetual access’ rights in e-licenses

• Concerns about continued availability of content

• Increase in number of institutional repositories

• Starting to couple open access movement with preservation• another debate entirely!

Digital Preservation

• What is needed to address these concerns?

• ‘Bullet-proof digital archiving of digital journals’ (Karen Hunter, 2006)

• Does such a thing exist?

• What is already being done?

• What still needs to be done?

• ENTER: CLIR Report: E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape (with permission of K. Smith, Director of Communications, CLIR – see end of slides for url)

CLIR Report - E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape

• Cornell University Library Research and Assessment Services Dept were commissioned by Council on Library and Information Services (CLIR)

• Authors:• Anne R Kenney, senior associate university librarian, Cornell

University

• Richard Englich, digital projects librarian, Cornell University

• Peter B Hirtle, technology strategist, Cornell University

• Nancy Y McGovern, digital preservation officer for Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at University of Michigan

• Ellie Buckley, digital research specialist, Cornell University

CLIR Report

• summarizes a review of 12 e-journal archiving programs

• research, discussions with colleagues etc

• academic library perspective• Identified their concerns and needs

• makes series of recommendations for• Academic libraries

• Publishers

• E-journal archiving programs

CLIR Report

• Identified 12 e-archiving programs

•CISTI•CLOCKSS•OCLC ECO•OhioLink EJC•Dutch KB•Kopal/DDB (Germany)

• will talk about CLOCKSS, LOCKSS and Portico in more detail in a moment

•Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Research Library•LOCKSS Alliance•Ontario Scholars Portal Canada• PANDORA (Australia)•Portico•PubMed Central

CLIR Report

• Criteria for identifying the programs to study

• Not-for-profit

• An explicit commitment to archiving journals

• Have formal arrangements in place with publishers

• Had to be doing something!

• Of benefit to libraries

CLIR Report

• Program indicators• Needed an explicit mission and mandate• Established rights and responsibilities• Content coverage • Minimal set of services• Access and trigger events clearly established• Viability• Networkability

• Research showed that more work was needed on• Content coverage• Minimal set of services• Networkability

CLIR Report

• Content coverage• Definitive list of participating publishers and titles hard to find

• LOCKSS and PORTICO now have lists on their sites

• Lot of overlap between programs• OUP and Springer participating in 9 of the 12 programs

• Minimal set of services• No universally agreed requirements

• More work needed on transparency of the programs• Audit Checklist for the Certification of Trusted Digital Repositories draft

• Concerns about sustainability of programs• funding? Who is going to pay for this?

CLIR Report Recommendations

• Academic Libraries

• Put pressure on publishers to work with e-journal programs

• Should collectively agree not to sign new licences without PA

• Share information among libraries about what they are doing

• Participate in at least one e-archiving program

• Press for programs that meet their needs

• Develop a registry of archived scholarly publications

• Lobby the programs to participate in a network that shares information, best practices etc

CLIR Report Recommendations

• Publishers• Be transparent about what they are doing• Work with one or more program• Provide detailed title information to the programs• Extend liberal archiving rights to aggregators and consortia

• E-journal archiving programs• Prove that they offer the minimal level of services for well

managed collections• Open to audit, be certified• Be transparent about their publisher and content coverage• Ensure content can’t be removed• Consider that some content may enter the public domain• Form a network of support and mutual dependence

BL/JISC/DPC Workshop, 27 March 2007

• JISC wants to play a key strategic role in digital preservation

• Two goals of the workshop• Overview of the programs

• Identify those areas that still needed further development with the aim of a consensus

• Discussion Paper: Principles for E-Journal Archiving Services• Derived from CLIR Report and Urgent Action Statement

• Speakers: Library perspective, BL, E-archiving programs, publishers

• concerns remain about terminology: JISC Briefing Paper explains all!

• called for collaborative partnerships

Digital Preservation Programs: a detailed look

• will take a more detailed look at three of these

• Portico

• LOCKSS

• CLOCKSS

Portico

• origins: 2002 JSTOR E-Archiving Initiative• Aim: build sustainable electronic archival model

• Facilitate secure reliance on electronic journals

• Developed the technology for two years

• Discussions with stakeholders

• supported by Andrew Mellon Foundation, Ithaka, JSTOR, Library of Congress

• Portico: launched in 2005• Not-for-profit organization

• Community based, co-operative approach

• Archive is open to all peer reviewed journals

Portico

The mission of Portico is to preserve scholarly literature published in electronic form and to ensure that these materials remain accessible to future scholars, researchers, and students

Portico’s Approach

• aims to preserve the intellectual content and not the ‘look and feel’

• takes source files from participating publishers

• converts the source files to an archival format – NLM DTD

• focus: long-term preservation and not immediate access

• access available to libraries that have contributed financially

Portico continued

• series of trigger events• If publisher ceases operation and titles no longer available anywhere• When a publisher ceases to make a title available• If back issues are removed from a publisher site and not available

elsewhere• Catastrophic failure of publisher platform

• trigger event: campus-wide access to journals irrespective of whether a previous subscribe or not

• Workflow of trigger event: Portico alerted to trigger, contacts the publisher and identifies the content

• until then: password controlled access for verification purposes only

• perpetual access provision• Optional with publishers if they agree to this

Portico – business model and participation

• Financial support from libraries and publishers

• Publisher contribution ranges from $250 to $75,000

• Libraries: Annual Archive Support ranges from $1500 to $24,000 annual

• Based on library’s materials expenditure• Archive Founders and consortia get some discounts

• Library Participants: 324

• Publisher Participants: 33

• Titles Committed: 5,914

• Titles in Archive: 647 from 7 publishers

• Articles in Archive: 420,824

LOCKSS

• Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe

• based at Stanford University

• open source software: provides librarians with ‘inexpensive way to collect, store, preserve, and provide access to their own, local authorized content’

• safeguards local community’s access to the content

• largely funded by contributions from member libraries of the LOCKSS Alliance

• also major funding from Andrew Mellon Foundation and National Science Foundation

LOCKSS – how does it work?

• LOCKSS technology converts a PC into a digital preservation appliance – the LOCKSS Box

• LOCKSS Box performs 4 functions:• Collects newly published content from target e-journals using a

web crawler

• Continually compares the content it has collected with the same content collected by other Boxes and repairs any differences

• Acts as a web proxy or cache, providing browsers in the library’s community with access to the publishers content or the preserved content

• Provides a web-based administrative interface that allows libraries to target new journals, monitor the state of journals being preserved, and control access to the journals

LOCKSS ctd

• Two things must happen before a LOCKSS box can collect the content

• Publisher must give permission (the ‘manifest) for the LOCKSS system to collect and preserve the journal

• LOCKSS box must know where to find this material and where it stops so don’t end up collecting the entire Web!

• LOCKSS boxes use the Internet to audit• Continual but slow process

• Provide transparent access to the content they preserve

• Separates payment from access

• Moves content forward through format migration process

LOCKSS

LOCKSS - benefits

• Libraries:• Provides easy and affordable local electronic archival collections

• Own rather than lease the information

• Retain their custodial role of scholarly information

• Provides continuing and perpetual access to their local community

• Publishers• Provide easy and affordable access to content with minimal risk to

business models

• Ensures perpetual access

• Fulfills librarian requirements for continuing and long term access to content

CLOCKSS

• community-based not-for-profit initiative: Controlled LOCKSS

• aims to build a trusted distributed dark archive

• protection against catastrophic events and other long-term interruptions

• core value: distributed governance and administration

• select host libraries will have dedicated CLOCKSS Boxes to house content from participating publishers

• content accessible after trigger events as determined and agreed upon by the Steering Group

• collaborative process between publishers and libraries

CLOCKSS – who is involved?

Libraries and Date Founded

Indiana University - 1820

New York Public Library - 1895

OCLC Online Computer Library Center - 1967

Rice University - 1912

Stanford University - 1891

University of Virginia - 1825

University of Edinburgh - 1582

Publishers and Date Founded

American Chemical Society - 1876

American Medical Association - 1847

American Physiological Society - 1887

Blackwell Publishing - 1897

Elsevier - 1880

Institute of Physics - 1874

Nature Publishing Group - 1869

Oxford University Press - 1478

SAGE Publications - 1965

Springer - 1842

Taylor and Francis - 1798

John Wiley & Sons - 1807

CLOCKSS

• uses the same technology as LOCKSS

• 2-year pilot• Currently ingesting content, developing business models• Will be communicating these to the library community as they develop• Aim is for it to be a long-term sustainable solution to preservation

• funding from participating publishers, libraries and Library of Congress

• Benefits:• Community-based ‘open’ process• Distributed governance and administration ensures that no single

entity can compromise long-term viability of initiative

• winner of 2007 ALA ACT Outstanding Collaboration Award!

What is the best approach?

• Early days

• we are not yet at the stage where there is a ‘bullet proof’ solution

• don’t put eggs in one basket approach• For both libraries and publishers, costs permitting

• increased collaboration is needed and will come over the next few years

• communication between the stakeholders will be key

References

• CLIR Report: http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub138abst.html

• JISC Briefing Paper: www.jisc.ac.uk/publications

• www.portico.org

• www.lockss.org

• www.clockss.org

• Research Information Network: www.rin.ac.uk

• Karen Hunter, 2006 “The End of Print Journals: (In)Frequently Asked Questions” Forthcoming in Journal of Library Administration (presented at University of Oklahoma Libraries Conference on Printed Resources and Digital Information

• Digital Preservation Coalition: www.dpc-online.org• For slides from recent BL/JISC/DPC conference

Questions

?

For further information, please contact

Fiona BennettHead, Rights and New Business Development

Tel: +44 (0) 1865 353561

Fax: +44 (0) 1865 353485

Email: fiona.bennett@oxfordjournals.org