Options for A Central Archiving Service

1
Options for A Central Archiving Service

• Neil Beagrie
• Maggie Jones
• JISC

2
Whats Happening Now?

• E-journal archiving developments
• Related developments

3
Mellon-funded planning projects 2001-2002

• Concluded that archiving seems technically
  feasible using different approaches
• Increasingly shared understanding that e-version
  should be publication of record
• Participating publishers viewed archiving as
  competitive advantage
• New organisations will be necessary to act in the
  broad interests of the scholarly community and
  mediate the interest of libraries and publishers

4
Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe (LOCKSS)

• Creates low-cost caches of e-journals content
• Supported by NSF, Mellon, Sun Microsytems
• Working to build production software
• Has several participating publishers, including
  Blackwells, OUP, Project Muse, ACS, APS, BMJ
• Has several libraries participating world-wide
• U.K participating libraries are BL, Cambridge,
  Leeds, Imperial College

5
JSTOR

• very different model to LOCKSS
• centralised model
• established functional unit within JSTOR in
  October 02
• currently drafting technical requirements and
  initial systems design
• drafting potential business models
• launching study into library e-journal processing
  costs
• will also be looking at economics of e-journals
  from publishers perspective

6
LOCKSS/JSTOR

• Mellon funding both in belief that single
  definitive approach is unlikely
• Both have established credentials within library
  and publisher communities

7
OCLC Digital Archive

• building on co-operative model
• act as agent on behalf of membership with
  publishers
• have invested 2.4m in staff and administration
  and 675K in h/ware/s/ware costs to date
• economies of scale and deep infrastructure seen
  as key
• OCLC has been actively involved in digital
  preservation issues - metadata, attributes of
  trusted digital repository

8
Elsevier/KB Collaboration

• Elsevier providing all of its digital files to
  the KB (7.2 terabytes)
• The KB will act as Elseviers official archive
• Elsevier has signalled that it hopes to establish
  3 official archives worldwide
• KB can provide access to onsite users or
  externally in the event of disaster and/or
  collapse of Elsevier

9
Whats Happening in the U.K- DTI Report

• In order for the U.K to protect access to
  important research material and to ensure that
  small and not-for-profit publishers are not
  unfairly disadvantaged, the archiving of digital
  research should be organised at a national level
  by government. A content repository together
  with access rights should be created by
  government and industry for use by national
  academic and research institutions.
• Publishing in the Knowledge Economy, 2002.
  Action Point 22
• lthttp//www.uk-publishing.info/gt

10
Legal Deposit

• BL is working with other deposit libraries and
  with publishers pending legal deposit legislation
• Legal Deposit is critically important in
  preserving a nations cultural heritage
• Continued access to licensed e-journals is a
  separate matter

11
RSLG Report, 2003

• Recommends establishment of new body to lead and
  co-ordinate the provision of research information
  (RLN)
• Recommend work on needs and costs in preservation
  of digital materials
• Establish mechanisms for last resort archiving
  of material not reliably preserved elsewhere

12
NESLI/JISC Model Licence

• Have included specific archiving clauses since
  1999
• 2.2.2, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 refer to the need to
  provide users with access to the full text of the
  Licensed Material which was published and paid
  for within the Subscription Period

13
Options in Model Licence

• Continuing online access to the same material
  from the Publishers server or a third party
  server
• Supplying an archival copy to the Licensee or a
  central archiving facility operated on behalf of
  the UK HE Community

14
Publisher Archive

• Continued online access from publishers server
  implies publisher has sole responsibility for
  ensuring continued access to their content
• Larger publishers are investing in infrastructure
  to maintain digital assets

15
Publisher Archive

• Places responsibility with owners of content
• BUT publishers will need to recoup this cost
• will only retain material while it is
  commercially viable
• variable capacity/willingness to deliver
• subject to unpredictable market forces

16
Institutional Archive

• Licensee retains material they have licensed
• BUT this is mostly in CD-ROM format
• CD-ROM is not an archival format, most libraries
  are making a strategic move away from CD-ROM
• Randomly scattered copies likely to be both
  inefficient and ineffective

17
Central Archiving Facility

• Implies standalone facility
• Other options are
• Collaborative model with partners within the U.K
• Collaborative model outside the U.K
• Defer any action to establish an archiving service

18
Issues Common to any Archiving Service

• Needs to have active participation and
  co-operation of publishers
• Needs to conform to appropriate standards and
  attributes of trusted digital repositories
• Must be affordable/sustainable
• Needs to be able to provide secure access from
  the archive in accordance with licence provisions
• Needs to have solid legal basis

19
Steps Common to All Options

• Detailed discussion with publishers (via PALS?
  Special working group?)
• Refining requirements
• technical, legal, organisational
• Detailed costing
• Establishing business case and model
• Obtaining funding - possibly both capital (CSR
  2004?) and recurrent

20
Standalone Service Operated on Behalf of U.K HE/FE

• Additional steps would include
• Obtaining legal advice (licensing, entity)
• Issuing ITT and testing market

21
Benefits of Standalone Option

• Fulfils identified need
• Can be tailored to specific requirements of UK
  HE/FE
• Relatively simple to administer

22
Risks of Standalone Model

• Large capital costs
• Rapidly changing environment
• Size of UK market may be too small to be
  cost-effective
• Business development/archiving skills-base
  limited
• Difficult to predict potential impact of other
  developments (e.g. open access models)

23
Collaborative Model - U.K

• Additional steps would include
• Identifying partners (larger publishers and
  deposit libraries would be likely candidates)
• Identifying roles and responsibilities within the
  partnership

24
Benefits of Collaborative U.K Model

• Fulfils identified need
• Can be tailored to specific needs of U.K HE/FE
• Possibly cheaper than standalone model?
• Enables some economies of scale?

25
Risks of Collaborative U.K Model

• Rapidly changing environment
• Difficult to predict potential impact of other
  models
• Likely to take longer to establish?
• More complex to administer
• Risk of one or more partner withdrawing over time

26
Collaborative Model 2 - outside U.K

• Additional steps would include
• Identifying partners (possibilities are
  LOCKSS/JSTOR/OCLC)

27
Benefits of Collaborative 2 Model

• Fulfils identified need
• Uses existing infrastructure
• No development costs
• Potential for economies of scale
• Does not require large capital costs

28
Risks of Collaborative 2 Model

• Rapidly changing environment
• Difficult to predict potential impact of other
  developments
• May be more difficult to meet specific needs of
  U.K HE/FE

29
Defer Archiving Service

• Rationale
• May be premature, given current uncertainties
• Larger publishers are already investing in
  archives
• Need time to assess impact of alternative models
  of scholarly communication

30
Defer Archiving Service

• Steps would include
• Communicating decision to all relevant
  stakeholders
• Managing likely fallout within UK HE Community
• Putting in place closer working relationship with
  publishers
• Using Model Licence as main mechanism for
  consumer protection

31
Defer Archiving Service - Benefits

• No special effort or funding required to maintain
  status quo
• Gives some breathing space

32
Defer Archiving Service - Risks

• Current position is unsustainable
• Reinforces market distortions for small/medium
  publishers
• Libraries have no confidence in security of
  content and cost
• Publishers unable/unwilling to really guarantee
  continued access
• Publishers wont necessarily use Model Licence

33
The future.

• That period of time in which our affairs
  prosper, our friends are true and our happiness
  is assured.
• Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.

34
Our ideal future?

• Libraries able to move to e-only confident that
  they will have access for as long as they need
  and at a price they can afford
• Publishers able to focus on adding value to
  content