1. E-Journal Archiving: A Survey of the Landscape (a study sponsored by CLIR) Ann Okerson ICOLC Meeting 13 October 2006

2. Digital preservation represents one of the grand challenges facing higher education. Yet… the responsibility for preservation is diffuse and the responsible parties have been slow to identify and invest in the necessary infra- structure. The shift from print to electronic publication of scholarly journals is occurring at a particularly rapid pace; the digital portion of the scholarly record is in- creasingly at risk and solutions may require unique ar- rangements within the academy for sharing preservation responsibility. Adapted from "Urgent Action Needed to Preserve Scholarly Electronic Journals," Don Waters et al, 10/2005

3. History & process Fall 2005: idea emerges at ARL meeting 1/2006: series of conference calls and study commissioned with Anne Kenney & Cornell team 2/2006 - 6/2006, the team: Conducted interviews with library directors Did extensive literature and Web searches Studied the journal e-archiving landscape and chooses 12 representative initiatives Surveyed the initiatives Analyzed all information that has been gathered

4. History & process (2) Iteration with ARL directors at 5/2006 meeting Extensive back and forth with stakeholders, interested parties Recommendations were developed in 6/2006 External readers and editorial review in summer of 2006 Publication date October 2006 Wide promulgation and discussion ICOLC ARL And more

5. Contents Includes: the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of significant archiving programs operated by not-for-profit organizations in the domain of peer reviewed journal literature published in digital form. Excludes: preservation efforts covering digitized versions of print journals (i.e., JSTOR), library conversion projects, publisher efforts, and initiatives in planning stages.

6. The chosen dozen initiatives Government mandated/funded: CISTI - Csi: 5M articles loaded (Canada's national science library; Canada's scientific infostructure (2003) KB - e-Depot (Dutch national deposit library): 8 major publishers (2000) Kopal - DDB: (National Library of Germany & Ministry of Education & Research's project to accept journals under legal deposit arrangement, began 2004)

7. The chosen dozen (2) Government mandated/funded (cont'd): NLA-Pandora (Preserving and Accessing Networked Documentary Resources of Australia): currently lists about 2,000 e-journals, mostly non-commercial (1996) PubMed Central, National Institutes of Health-National Library of Medicine: about 250 titles with ambitions to become comprehensive (2000) LANL-RL (Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library, D of E): focus on physical sciences for local use and also serves a group of external clients (1995)

8. The chosen dozen (3) Membership/subscription initiatives: LOCKSS Alliance (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe): over 150 participating institutions in 20+ countries (2000) CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS): 6 libraries and 12 publishers to establish a comprehensive dark archive (2006) OCLC-ECO: over 5,000 titles from 40 publishers; libraries can select the content (1997) Portico: membership-based 3rd party "dark archive" service, includes 18 publishers, thousands of titles (2006)

9. The chosen dozen (4) Consortial implementations, providing access for library members: OhioLink Electronic Journal Center: nearly 7,000 journals from 40 publishers, 85+ members Ontario Scholars Portal: serves 20 university libraries in OCUL; nearly 7,000 journals

10. Access when? NOW CISTI LANL PANDORA OCLC OhioLink Ontario Scholars Portal PubMed Central TRIGGER LOCKSS CLOCKSS KB e-Depot (onsite) Kopal (onsite) Portico

11. Seven indicators of viability Both an explicit mission & necessary mandate to perform long-term archiving Negotiate all rights and responsibilities to carry out its obligations Identify exactly which titles are covered and for whom Offer a minimal set of defined services - receive, store, verify integrity, guard against loss, be auditable (certification) Make information available under clearly stated conditions Be organizationally sound Work as part of a network

13. Content coverage Difficult to identify which publications are being archived, by whom Not all publish lists; not all have complete, up to date titles (this is complicated) Not all of a publishers' titles are necessarily included in a collection (PubMed Central has largest number of publishers but smallest number of titles) Aggregators such as Muse, etc. add complexity

14. Content coverage (2) Participation in the 12: Number of unique publishers is 128 91 participate in only one program 20 participate in 2 programs 17 (major) publishers are in 3 or more programs Lots of redundancy for STM Other disciplines, smaller publishers, non-Roman, and dynamic Web publications are less well represented and less likely to have an archiving/preservation program

15. Minimal services This is the area of the report that: Is the most lengthy Is particularly clearly written Represents the area that we know least about (much technical activity with yet a long way to go to assure perpetual availability) Represents an area with emerging best practices and standards Some areas covered: formats for ingestion, what content is included, how to know it's all there, is it corrupted, cost effectiveness, guard against loss/backup, etc.

16. Access rights The 12 initiatives all describe quite well for whom and under what condition access is provided Light archives vs dark archives Trigger events - publishers cease operations, journal becomes public domain, journal ceases publication, catastrophic failure

17. Organizational viability Most appear to have the necessary organizational structure including: Commitment Documentation Adherence to standards Succession planning Good business planning, models Incoming revenue for support However, mostly a limited track record (very new)

18. Part of a network Networks can be formal or informal and provide: Idea exchange Sharing of documents Sharing software Coordinating content selection Reciprocal storage, mirroring Backup if other archives fail Shared resources, facilities Some of these initiatives are communicating productively with one or more other initiatives

19. Conclusions Trigger events will happen Libraries cannot do this alone Current license terms for libraries are mostly inadequate (perpetual access does not equal preservation) Viable options are emerging No single archiving program will meet all needs Coverage is very uneven Much content is at risk Libraries can and should influence developments Legislation needed -- legal deposit All programs need greater support, transparency, etc.

20. Recommendations for libraries Press publishers to enter archiving relationships Share information about what they are doing and how they are making decisions Join at least one initiative Press existing programs to meet their needs Develop a registry of archived publications Lobby programs to participate in networks for information sharing, best practices, etc.

21. Recommendations for publishers Enter into relationships with one or more e- journal archiving programs Provide adequate information and data to archivers Extend liberal archiving rights in their licensing agreements.

22. Recommendations for e-journal archiving programs Present evidence of minimal level of services for long-term, well managed collections (open to audit, certified) Be overt and explicit about what is archived Assure appropriate property rights Negotiate with regard to eventual placement in the public domain Form a network of mutual support and interdependence

23. CLIR pub 138: E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape by Anne R. Kenney, Richard Entlich, Peter B. Hirtle, Nancy Y. McGovern, and Ellie L. Buckley September, 2006. 120 pp. $30 ISBN 1-932326-26-X ISBN 978-1-932326-26-0