1. May 2010, Brussels, Central Library Eurolib plenary meeting1 Presentation results Working Paper # 003 EU Grey Literature: Long-term preservation, access, and discovery 19-20 May 2011, Lisbon EMCDDA, CIJD Rapporteur/editor: Carol Bream Isabel Morán (CoR), Anne Waniart (EC), G.Zana (EP)

2. 2 Increased demand for access Higher expectation of finding information since the birth of the WWW; Policies on transparency. Difficulties in retrieving information already cited publicly not stored; not locatable; lost when old-fashioned tools discarded; never published in a sustainable format. Why are we concerned about EU grey literature?

3. 3 Provide a set of best practices and guidelines to achieve: longterm preservation; discovery; access. ObjectivesObjectives

4. 4 Grey literature can best be described as "fugitive literature or "the stuff that falls through the cracks. "Grey literature in library and information studies" Isbn 9783598117930. De Gruyter : Saur, 2010. Lack of "commercial control" ; Problems to locate or acquire; Lack of "bibliographical control" ; Inadequately referenced in catalogues and databases; Searches require specialised knowledge on sources and grey circuits. See also: http://www.greynet.org/greynethome/aboutgreynet.htmlhttp://www.greynet.org/greynethome/aboutgreynet.html What is grey literature?

5. 5 Poor organisation and metadata. Nowhere to deposit. Fast publication, e-publication. Ignorance of value. No reliable WORKFLOWS. What causes the cracks?

6. 6 A repository should be: Well-organised standard data fields. Use appropriate metadata Conform to standard metadata of the repository institution; To give best retrieval for all sources search. Have a digital curation/archiving policy. First things first

7. 7 A well organised database with appropriate metadata. A good search engine e.g. Federated search; Open to Google or other standard search engines; In a knowledge base. Search and retrieval

8. 8 Political backing Demonstrates its value to the organisation. Human resources Information experts involved in the design; Archive/digital curation experts involved in the maintenance policy. Sustainable infrastructure

9. 9 Survey. Other sources. Shared experience. Views of colleagues working with: publications; archives; Web. Recent literature. Related projects. MethodologyMethodology

10. 10 No panacea. DG Enterprise, Eurofound. EP and CoR contracts. Best practices?

11. 11 No unified/comprehensive finding aid. But EU funds projects that are not implemented or used as aids for best practice in house: Driver; Openaire; Other open access projects. Finding aids?

12. 12 IMMC - (Inter-institutional Metadata Management Committee) = move to harmonisation. CELLAR – authority data for headings and format. EUROVOC – subject data. Collaborative thesauri. Working Group on Legal Deposit. Ombudsman, pressure groups - open access. Commission initiative on open data – Commission data portal! DG Information Society E4 & DIGIT Relevant EU institution initiatives.

13. 13 Technical Yes - we know how to use metadata. Legal Yes – we can support legal deposit, watertight contracts,... Politics and management Yes – we can demonstrate ways to improve transparency, access,... Human resources. Yes – we have the skills to make the process more efficient. How can we help stop the rot?

14. 14 Work with other EUROLIB working groups WG Citation WG Knowledge Management Get involved in other EU initiatives? Harmonised metadata And metadata for digital curation? The Electronic Library, vol. 29 No. 2, 2011, p. 236-248 DOI 10.1108/02640471111125195 Where are we going?

15. 15 Stay alert to related initiatives. Make a contribution. Work for political support. Demonstrate our credentials to: solve access problems; design repositories and finding aids. Work together. Can we design a roadmap?

16. 16 Thanks for your contribution! Time for questions, suggestions,…