Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Stronger together: community initiatives in journal management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Stronger together: community initiatives in journal management

  • 819 views
Published

There has been a recent growth of initiatives to address common problems regarding current and long-term access to e-journal content. Jisc is at the forefront of many of these with the close …

There has been a recent growth of initiatives to address common problems regarding current and long-term access to e-journal content. Jisc is at the forefront of many of these with the close participation and active input of educational institutions.

This session aims to summarise the current state of key themes with pointers to future directions of areas such as sustainability, the move towards e-only environments, and shared consortia approaches. It will provide an overview and panel discussion on developing the supporting infrastructure to meet the needs of users. The discussion will focus on how institutions, community bodies and service providers can best work together to ensure sustainable, long-term initiatives by seeking to introduce uniformity, standardisation and collaboration to an even greater extent.

The session will introduce two new Jisc-supported projects in this area, the Keepers Registry Extra and SafeNet initiatives, and discuss how these fit alongside existing Jisc services such as Knowledge Base+, UK LOCKSS Alliance, Journal Archives and JUSP (Journal Usage Statistics Portal). The panel will address how this catalogue of services contributes towards a coherent strategy in the management of e-journal content.

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
819
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Reports/e-journal-archiving-comparative-study/
  • E-journals, and online serials more generally, are a big part of the scholarly record – if we use the distribution of assigned ISSN as a guide, then we have some measure of just how international is the problem space:- centering the map on Singapore, Asia and the Pacific for a change yes a lot is published in US, UK, Netherlands and Germany – but over 60% is not – and that is an underestimate because so many online serials in countries in the centre of this map do not have ISSN assigned – they remain hidden to our arithmetic.
  • http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Reports/e-journal-archiving-comparative-study/
  • 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
  • This shows an example title from BioMedCentral’s Cell Biology.It looks exactly the same as on the publisher’s site. The only thing that’s changed is the URL at the top – the content has been served from a LOCKSS box.
  • Demand - There has been various requests from the community to change the way that e-journal archiving is conducted by the UK LOCKSS Alliance - This is the favoured solution to overcome identified constraints.Opportunity - Increasing experience and evidence (particularly from the US) that distributed digital preservation networks (often called Private LOCKSS Networks) are a cost-effective, robust and community-owned way of establishing preservation and disaster recovery capability. - Piloting a distributed digital archive in the UK will establish whether there is demand and scope for setting up a more substantial and sustainable service.It responds to the declared issue of some HE libraries that despite continuing to support the principles of the UK LOCKSS Alliance and wishing it to be sustained as part of the UK e-journal archiving structure, they are no longer able or willing to support a local instance of a LOCKSS server within their institutions.It uses a centrally managed entitlement knowledgebase to facilitate trusted access to published resourcesIt addresses a gap and provides a consortially managed (community-owned) disaster recovery and preservation service option for UK HE libraries.
  • by considering 3 answers that might be given to a user asking after a particular e-journal content – typically an article

Transcript

  • 1. Stronger Together Community 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 Prosser Executive Director, RLUK John MacColl University Librarian and Director of Library Services, University of St Andrews
  • 2. 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
  • 3. licence to use Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have ease and continuing access to online scholarly resources projects PB, 2009 Use case: article–length work published in e-journals access to content & services [Search & Sharing (issuing) are additional considerations to ease and continuing access.]
  • 4. Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have ease and continuing access to online scholarly resources projects Use case: article–length work published in e-journals access to content & services
  • 5. 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
  • 6. 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
  • 7. “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
  • 8. 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:
  • 9. 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:
  • 10. 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)
  • 11. 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 …]
  • 12. 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’
  • 13. 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 link a) has evolved, b) changed dramatically, c) disappeared completely.
  • 14. 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 link a) 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
  • 15. 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 our focus 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
  • 16. http://hiberlink.org #hiberlink Two year project funded by Andrew Mellon Foundation Los 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 & safe 11% offline; safe in archives 41% online; at risk of loss 17% are lost • Unique referenced Web at Large URIs: 327,782
  • 17. 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!
  • 18. 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’
  • 19. 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!
  • 20. Concepts SERVICE OPERATION SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY <Co-Design> CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT <Consumer Feedback> SERVICE CATALOGUE KeepersExtra PEPRS & Pilot Keepers Registry2012 <JARVIG> PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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 OVERVIEW Setting up Collaborative Archiving Models
  • 23. “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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. 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
  • 26. 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
  • 27. • 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
  • 28. licence to use Ensuring researchers, students and their teachers have ease and continuing access to online scholarly resources projects Use case: article–length work published in e-journals access to content & services authorisation
  • 29. Option A SafeNet Distributed Digital Archive (Core Service) Institution B Distributed Digital Archive Partner Distributed Digital Archive Member EDINA 1 MIMAS 3 EDINA 2 MIMAS 4 Other 5 Other 6 Option B Store 7 Published Content No local storage Authorized Post- Cancellation Access Publishers Governance & Management Entitlement Registry High Level Architecture Publisher wishes to remains the priority access source
  • 30. • 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
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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.
  • 33. 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?