Community Initiatives in Journal Preservation

Adam Rusbridge, EDINA21st March 2014

Key Questions of Journal Management

What content is available?

What do I have access to?

What do our academics and students actually use?

What guarantees around continuing access?

Jisc Initiatives in Journal Management

What content is available?KnowledgeBase+ (and NESLi2)

What do I have access to?KnowledgeBase+, SUNCAT and Copac

What do our academics and students actually use?Joint Usage and Statistics Portal (JUSP)

What guarantees around continuing access?UK Research Reserve, Keepers Registry, UK LOCKSS Alliance, SafeNet

“Who does forever?”

Many reports over past 10 years highlighted risks• ‘digital decay’: format obsolescence & bit rot

and warned against single points of failure:

• natural disasters (earthquake, fire and flood)• human folly (criminal and political action): hacking

+ risks with commercial events in the publisher/supply chain

Good overview: Preservation, Trust and Continuing Access for E-Journals Neil Beagrie, 2013, DPC Technology Watch Report 13-4, http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr13-04

Library cancels subscription

• Assurance of post-cancellation access

• Artifact of licensing of subscription content

Publisher stops access supply

• Assurance content available elsewhere

• Title transferred, title ceased, publisher bust, or publisher failure

• Problem for both subscription and open access content

Sustainable Electronic Access Policies

• After cost, continuing access concerns were the main barrier hindering a sectoral shift to e-only journal provision

• JISC/RIN/PRC/RLUK “Barriers” report (2009): http://bit.ly/5GT6Ig

• Sustainable e-collections allow libraries to discard print and free up space

• The library [can now] cancel or relegate print holdings that fit the definition of sustainable electronic content, when at least one of the following applies:

• The library has perpetual access rights to the content, via the web, including those titles archived by Portico and LOCKSS

• The journal is permanently open access for all years or certain years (Hybrid open access journals are not included in this category).

• The content is in one of the library's trusted services such as a JISC-funded archive.

http://www.hud.ac.uk/library/policy/collectionmanagementanddevelopmentpolicy/#appendix2

• Cooper, Ruth and Norris, David, To bin or not to bin? Deselecting print back-runs available electronically at Imperial College London Library,Serials, 2007, 20(3), 218-214.

– http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/20208

Implementing sustainable collection policiesKeepers Registry Use Cases

• Title or ISSN query– Respond to query from an academic – By ISSN or Title

• Browse by publisher

• Title List Comparison– Use this for collection management– Print rationalisation– Moving to e-only– Subscription cancellation

Free registration for the Members Area

Member Services

Example CSV Input File

Title List Upload: File details

Title List Upload: Report options

Summary email

Keepers Report

① Web-scale not-for-profit archiving agencies

e.g. CLOCKSS Archive & Portico

② National libraries (with legal deposit in mind)

e.g. e-Depot (Netherlands); British Library; Library of Congress, NSL China etc

③ Research libraries: consortia & specialist centres

e.g. Global LOCKSS Network, HathiTrust, Scholars Portal, Archaeology Data Service

A Variety of ‘Archiving Organisations’

Disclaimer: University of Edinburgh is a CLOCKSS Node & Board Member

NESLi2 Model License now specifies that journals must be archived in at least oneof LOCKSS, CLOCKSS or Portico.

It was a battle to include PCA clause 12 years ago; now accepted as standard

• Libraries have a role as memory organisations

• Each institution builds collections on a local LOCKSS box • Straightforward installation via ‘platform installation’• Key requirement is disk space• Typically an investment of £2000

• Library staff administration – a few hours a month • Periodically configure titles for collection in LOCKSS • Consult with academics to determine priorities

• University has ownership of preserved content • Library controls local access, even when they can’t access publisher copy

Background to the LOCKSS Program

The LOCKSS Program is an open-source, library-led digital preservation system built on the principle that “Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe.”

“The LOCKSS box is held locally and thus is under the control of the library. This involves some maintenance and administration but significantly it also means that the library decides what to archive”

– University of Warwick Case Study

Community Action for Assured Access

UK LOCKSS Alliance, since 2008

• Self-cooperative of institutions working together to ensure continuity of access to content

• JISC & EDINA support the UKLA community

• Providing tech support, coordination, and development

14 member institutionsDe Montfort University

King’s College London

London School of Economics

Natural History Museum

Open University

Royal Holloway, University of London

University of Birmingham

University of Edinburgh

University of Glasgow

University of Huddersfield

University of Oxford

University of St. Andrews

University of Warwick

University of York

Steering Committee to direct activity

Phil Adams (De Montfort University)

Lisa Cardy (London School of Economics)

James Fisher (University of Warwick) 

William Nixon (University of Glasgow)

Liz Stevenson (University of Edinburgh)

Lorraine Estelle (JISC Collections)

Peter Burnhill (EDINA)

Adam Rusbridge (EDINA)

LOCKSS Technical Infrastructure

• Distributed LOCKSS Network• Local collections satisfy local priorities

• Preserves content as published• Web archive of scholarly record

• Preserves integrity • Audit protocol to prevent damage

• Avoids point of failure • Model on success of print collections • Trust success of the library

• Integrate with link resolver software• Support for: Ex Libris SFX, Serials Solutions 360Link, Innovative Interfaces

WebBridge, OCLC WorldCat Local

• Library can provide access as and when needed

• By default, LOCKSS forwards requests to publishers before serving content• Serve from publisher if newer, LOCKSS if identical or unavailable

• Publisher retains hits and responsibility as a primary source

• Generate LOCKSS-specific COUNTER statistics so library can report usage

• Hierarchy of Bibliographic Information• Publisher, Titles, ISSNs, Years and Volumes

• Clear icons to identify collected material (ticks and crosses)• Filter information based on collection status

Display Content Status:Friendlier Reporting and Administration

• Automates much content administration• Record local coverage to a title• Automatically collect new volumes within that coverage

Subscription Manager:Friendlier Title Configuration

Find out more…

https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Catalogue/Overview/index/879

• Case Studies: http://www.lockssalliance.ac.uk/participating-institutions/case-studies• Publishers and titles: http://www.lockss.org/community/publishers-titles-gln/

• Now over 500 publishers!

• API and TRAC Audits in 2014

http://www.lockssalliance.ac.uk

A

B

C

D

E-F

£5,000

£3,750

£2,750

£2,250

£1,800

JISC Band Annual Fee

http://www.flickr.com/photos/codlibrary/2278168996/

12/04/2023 slide 22

SafeNet

Two year pilot project to setup a consortially-managed archive • Enabling universities & colleges to backup & preserve subscribed e-journal

content

1. Uses results of the PeCAN Study (EDINA & Jisc Collections) http://edina.ac.uk/projects/pecan2_summary.html

• Entitlement Registry + Archive• Assured & coordinated compliance with post-cancellation access clauses specified in

publisher license agreements.

2. Reconfigures the technical architecture of the UK LOCKSS Alliance Network • Managed service that removes local capacity & capability constraints• Providing libraries with policy & financial control over collection and access decisions

Introducing…

Option A

SafeNet Distributed Digital Archive (Core Service)

Institution B

Distributed Digital Archive Partner

Distributed Digital Archive Member

EDINA1

EDINA1

MIMAS3

MIMAS3

EDINA2

EDINA2

MIMAS4

MIMAS4

Other5

Other5

Other 6

Other 6

Option B

Store 7Store 7

Published

Content

No local storage

Authorized Post-Cancellation Access

Publishers

Governance & Management

EntitlementRegistry

High Level Architecture

Anticipate that publisher will remain the priority access source

12/04/2023

Project Objectives

slide 24

• Build a Private LOCKSS Network as national infrastructure for long-term preservation of e-journal content

• Develop a prototype Entitlement Registry that functions as a source of authorisation to licensed content

• Who has permission to access what? • Differentiate core subscribed vs. bundled titles

• Establish an advisory and governance board to ensure community involvement

• Negotiate participation with NESLi2 publishers.

• Ingest e-journal content from the collection already processed for the Global LOCKSS Network.

Use Cases for Entitlement Information

• When cancelling a subscription or big deal. To what content will we lose access?• When considering disposal of print stock, or when moving to e-only.• Errors during system change (Library LMS, Publisher Platforms, Institution Merge)• Change of subscription agents (lose access to historical entitlement information).• Verification when the A-Z title list does not match the access available.• Title transfers between publishers.• When carrying out an annual review of subscriptions to see what has changed.

CHALLENGES• Publishers don’t have easy access to entitlement information

• Split between access and billing systems• Systems not designed to report this

• Libraries don’t always have complete and authoritative records• Hard to get publishers and libraries to spend time on this – competing for resource

Populate KnowledgeBase+ with subscription informationEDINA and Jisc are planning further activity in this area…

• Shared service hosting a local copy of the scholarly assets invested in by UK HEIs

• Independent policy and financial control over collection and access decisions.

• Assured provision of post-cancellation access• Oversight of compliance with clauses specified in publisher license agreements.

• Framework for national licensing groups to strike favourable national PCA agreements with publishers

• Reduced barriers to entry

• Reduced effort needed by individual libraries to manage collections

• Flexibility for libraries who wish to preserve their own collections locally

• Greater efficiency and lower overall cost• Simplify understanding of PCA access; central coordination

Benefits of SafeNet

Goal is to build trusted archives

• Assured and licensed access to important, at-risk content• Spread responsibility across the community

• Libraries keep what they buy• Publishers preserve what they publish• Readers have continual access

www.flickr.com/photos/guitarlogy/5387073471/

Thanks for listening!

Questions and Discussion