Stronger TogetherCommunity Initiatives in Journal Management

Peter Burnhill and Adam Rusbridge, EDINA

Lorraine Estelle Executive Director Content and Discovery and Divisional CEO of Jisc Collections, Jisc

David ProsserExecutive Director, RLUK

John MacColl University Librarian and Director of Library Services, University of St Andrews

Support for Key Journal Management Questions

What content is available?KnowledgeBase+ (and NESLi2)

What do I have access to?KnowledgeBase+, SUNCAT, Copac & OpenURL Router

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

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

licence to use

Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have

ease and continuing accessto online scholarly resources projects

‘ease’ ‘continuing’

PB, 2009

discovery licensedpreservationpost-cancellation

back content

open

Use case: article–length work published in e-journals

access to content & services

[Search & Sharing (issuing) are additional considerations to ease and continuing access.]

usability

Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have

ease and continuing accessto online scholarly resources projects

‘ease’ ‘continuing’

preservationpost-cancellationback content

Use case: article–length work published in e-journals

access to content & services

Concepts

SERVICE OPERATION

SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY

<Co-Design>

CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT

<Consumer Feedback>

SERVICE CATALOGUE

PeCAN Study

SafeNet

KeepersExtra

LOCKSS Pilot UK LOCKSS Alliance2008

PEPRS & Pilot Keepers Registry2012

<JARVIG>

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Hiberlink

Some Consequences of Web• Essentials of supply chain have changed

• licensed to access, not sale of content

• Role of libraries as trusted keepers of information and culture has been disrupted– Preservation not a historic role of publishers– Libraries need to assure of continuity of access

• of all content for future generations• of the back copies, post-cancellation of the licence

• Does this mean that the Scholarly Record is at risk?

“The Library [Committee], which is made up of librarians and academics,

… wants reassurance about long-term preservation before confirming a University policy of going e-only.”

from email sent by a big UK Library

“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

and risks with commercial events in the publisher/supply chain

• transfers, cancellations, licensing issues

Recent addition to suggested reading:

• 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

A ‘global challenge’: trans-national action

Researchers (and therefore libraries) in any one country are dependent

upon content written and published in countries other than their own

US.LoC 20%

UK.BL 10%

Netherlands & Germany: c. 4.5% each

Brazil 4%

113,000 ISSNs have been issued for e-serials.

Published globally:

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:

Many archiving organisations is a Good Thing

“Digital information is best preserved by replicating it at multiple archives run by autonomous organizations”

B. Cooper and H. Garcia-Molina (2002)

Now have a global Registry of e-journal archiving

Enter title or ISSN

to search across metadata reported by leading archiving organisations

… to discover who is looking after what

*news* Library of Congress and Scholars Portal now reported in the Keepers Registry

[we have high hopes for some others …]

13

… but coverage of volumes is partial & patchy

This e-journal is being archived by 5 archiving agencies …

Example search: ‘Origins of Life’

… and discover details of its ‘archival status’

2. Sidebar remark on Reference Rot• ‘Reference Rot’: When what was referenced and cited

ceases to say the same thing, or ‘has ceased to be’

http://www.snorgtees.com/this-parrot-has-ceased-to-be

‘Reference Rot’ :

1. http:// link to a resource no longer works (the ‘404’ problem & more)• Link rot

2. The citation is inadequate• Not robust over time

3. The content referenced at the end of the linka) has evolved,

b) changed dramatically,

c) disappeared completely.

http://hiberlink.org #hiberlink

‘Reference Rot’ :

1. http:// link to a resource no longer works (the ‘404’ problem & more)• Link rot

2. The citation is inadequate• Not robust over time

3. The content referenced at the end of the linka) has evolved,

b) changed dramatically,

c) disappeared completely.

Funded by Andrew Mellon Foundatiion:

Los Alamos National Laboratory

University of Edinburgh (EDINA & Language Technology Group)

Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

References in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

References to other online scholarly works

References to online resources on the ‘wider Web’

Link Rot DOI, HTTP version of DOI

Content Decay

Fixity of content

Archiving: CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, Portico … (Keepers Registry)

Unexplored, so ourfocus for Hiberlink

This is becoming understood but issues, see

David Rosenthal blog post http://blog.dshr.org/2013/11/patio-perspectives-at-anadp-ii.html

Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

http://hiberlink.org #hiberlink

Two year project funded by Andrew Mellon FoundationLos Alamos National Laboratory, EDINA & Language Technology Group, U of Edinburgh

1. Problem Quantification. • Large scale text mining of scholarly literature • Determine availability on URIs in live web and in archives.

2. Archival Solution Infrastructure.

• Prototype tools to archive web resources at point of use or publication.

3. Temporal Reference Solutions.

• Prototype new citation models that allow time-specific references.

Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

Early results (0.5m PMC 1997 - 2012): 0.3m unique references to ‘Web at Large’.

31% still online & safe11% offline; safe in archives41% online; at risk of loss17% are lost

• Unique referenced Web at Large URIs:

327,782

Back To The Overview

E-journals should be easy – right?

… but is the e-journals problem is being solved?

3. Evidence from the Keepers Registry

Statistics on who is looking after what, & what is at risk

GREAT SCOTT!

Evidence from the Keepers Registry

a) 21,557 e-serial titles are reported as being ingested by the 10 Keepers

b) 113,092 ISSN assigned to ‘online serials’ in the ISSN Register

Measuring total progress with a key indicator:

• 2013: 19% on the radar of the Keepers (21,557 / 113,092)

• 2011: 17% on the radar of the Keepers (16,558 / 97,563)

Progress towards comprehensive coverage, but far from ‘job done’

Take the academic user perspectives…

… with usage logs for the UK OpenURL Router• 10.4m full text requests in 2012; ISSN-L to de-duplicate ISSN • 53,311 online titles requested by researchers & student from 108/160+

• Only 15% (7,862) are being kept by 3+ Keepers• Over two thirds (68%) held by none…

…36,326 accessed titles are ‘at risk’ of loss

So ‘preservation’ (or lack of it) is still a real and present problem!

Concepts

SERVICE OPERATION

SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY

<Co-Design>

CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT

<Consumer Feedback>

SERVICE CATALOGUE

KeepersExtra

PEPRS & Pilot Keepers Registry2012<JARVIG>

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

• Keepers Network– Keepers, Librarians & Publishers work together to improve coverage and

preservation assurances

• Keepers Community– Online tools to make preservation coverage and actions easy to understand– Online tools to make it easy to report changes, communicate with Keepers

• Research & Development– Standards, Data Quality, Data Presentation

• Continual Service Improvement for Keepers Registry

KEEPERS EXTRAIntroducing…

• A two year project to enhance & exploit the advantage of the Keepers Registry

– Builds on e-Journal Archiving Implementation Group (JARVIG) outcomes– Key piece of work to establish a sustainable Keepers Network around

a world-class Keepers Registry service

1. To assist publishers ‘do the right thing’

– A showcase for the real heroes: the archiving organisations

– Means to check what content is being reported as archived

– Provide libraries, publishers & archiving organisations with lists of titles that seem to be at risk of loss

2. To keep a close focus on volumes & issues

– Need for Publishers & Libraries to make sure all issued content is being kept safe

3. To assist collaboration between Keepers: ‘a safe places network

4. If it is worth preserving, it really should have an identifier

Breaking News (end of Q1 2014) :

Keepers Registry will introduce a Members Area with facilities to :

1. enable libraries (and others) to check archival status of a list of Titles: upload a list of ISSNs

2. enable 3rd Party websites to report archival status (via API)

will assist our objectives…

KEEPERS EXTRA

Concepts

SERVICE OPERATION

SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY

<Co-Design>

CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT

<Consumer Feedback>

SERVICE CATALOGUE

PeCAN Study

SafeNet

LOCKSS Pilot UK LOCKSS Alliance2008

<JARVIG>

PRESENTATION OVERVIEWSetting up Collaborative Archiving Models

“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

• 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

UK LOCKSS Alliance & the LOCKSS Program

• Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS), since 1998

• Give libraries custody and control over scholarship

• Library controls local access, even when they can’t access publisher copy

• Harvest an exact rendition copy from the publishers website

• Supply access to content via integration with link resolvers

• 100 global members, over 500 publishers and societies.

• 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

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

licence to use

Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have

ease and continuing accessto online scholarly resources projects

“ease” “continuing”

licensedpreservationpost-cancellation

back content

open

Use case: article–length work published in e-journals

access to content & services

authorisation

08/04/2023 slide 31

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) • 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

Publisher wishes to remains the priority access source

• 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

Benefits of SafeNet

What guarantees around continuing access?Ask a librarian: 3 possible answers

1. "Yes, we have it and you can access it now" – We've checked recently, both in the catalogue and in actuality

2. "No, but we know somebody that does (we trust)” – We can point you (or arrange access) to it now/soon-ish

3. "Sorry, we don't know …”- Perhaps nobody has it

- It may be lost forever, “although perhaps somebody somewhere ...”

Unless we act together

the 3rd answer could become common for a lot of e-journal content

Panel Questions

1. Looking back over the last 5 years

• Please describe your organization's actions and notable actions by others to assist or manage continuity of access to scholarly content.

2. Key Issues and Next Steps

• Please describe key issues that could shape the next 5 years of action, and suggest collaborative steps that might help to address them.

Panel Questions

3. Community Support

How do you think we can best provide support to library staff (through advice and training on e-journal archiving issues)?

4. Sustainability

How do you think we can work together and with e-journal archiving services to ensure sustainable, long-term operations?

5. Measuring Success

How can we develop a methodology for analysing e- journal archiving and post-cancellation access services to identify important gaps and measure progress?