Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EDINA Serials UKLA SafeNet


Published on

Presentation given at the EDINA serials forum, March 2014, in London and Edinburgh

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EDINA Serials UKLA SafeNet

  1. 1. Community Initiatives in Journal Preservation Adam Rusbridge, EDINA 21st March 2014
  2. 2. 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?
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. “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, 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
  5. 5. 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): • 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. • 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. –
  6. 6. Implementing sustainable collection policies Keepers 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
  7. 7. Free registration for the Members Area
  8. 8. Member Services
  9. 9. Example CSV Input File
  10. 10. Title List Upload: File details
  11. 11. Title List Upload: Report options
  12. 12. Summary email
  13. 13. Keepers Report
  14. 14. 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 one of LOCKSS, CLOCKSS or Portico. It was a battle to include PCA clause 12 years ago; now accepted as standard
  15. 15. • 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
  16. 16. 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 institutions De 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)
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. • 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
  19. 19. • 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
  20. 20. • Automates much content administration • Record local coverage to a title • Automatically collect new volumes within that coverage Subscription Manager: Friendlier Title Configuration
  21. 21. Find out more… • Case Studies: • Publishers and titles: • Now over 500 publishers! • API and TRAC Audits in 2014 A B C D E-F £5,000 £3,750 £2,750 £2,250 £1,800 JISC Band Annual Fee
  22. 22. 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 Anticipate that publisher will remain the priority access source
  23. 23. Project Objectives 25/03/2014 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.
  24. 24. 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 information EDINA and Jisc are planning further activity in this area…
  25. 25. • 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. Thanks for listening! Questions and Discussion