1. The NDLTD and a History of ETDs Gail McMillan Director, Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech OETDA, March 28, 2008 Gail McMillan Director, Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech OETDA, March 28, 2008

2. The NDLTD http://www.ndltd.org/ Since its inception in 1996, the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations has worked to improve graduate education, increase the availability of student research, empower students and universities, advance digital library technology, and lower the costs of submitting and handling electronic theses and dissertations.

3. Early VT ETD Goals  Graduate students  Learn about e-publishing and digital libraries, applying that knowledge as they engage in their research and build and submit their ETDs  Education improves through more effective sharing  Universities  Learn about digital libraries, as they collect, catalog, archive, and make ETDs accessible  Learn how to unlock the potential of their intellectual property/products  Technology and knowledge sharing speed up as graduate research results become more readily available  Graduate students  Learn about e-publishing and digital libraries, applying that knowledge as they engage in their research and build and submit their ETDs  Education improves through more effective sharing  Universities  Learn about digital libraries, as they collect, catalog, archive, and make ETDs accessible  Learn how to unlock the potential of their intellectual property/products  Technology and knowledge sharing speed up as graduate research results become more readily available

4. In the beginning… 1987 openly discussed ETDs at UMI meeting 1991 VT ETD initiative 1995 VT Graduate School invites Library to participate 1996 Library brings the players together, creates web site, drafts workflow scripts 1997 VT requires ETDs: CGS&P’s DRSCAP 1998 NDLTD: from National to Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations 1987 openly discussed ETDs at UMI meeting 1991 VT ETD initiative 1995 VT Graduate School invites Library to participate 1996 Library brings the players together, creates web site, drafts workflow scripts 1997 VT requires ETDs: CGS&P’s DRSCAP 1998 NDLTD: from National to Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations

5. VT ETD Funding  Grants  SURA: 1994: $30,000; 1996: $91,117  FIPSE, 9/96-8/99: $208,040  Contributions  Adobe: donation of software to the first 20 universities engaged in pilot testing.  Support  CNI  VTLS  Conference fees support conferences  Grants  SURA: 1994: $30,000; 1996: $91,117  FIPSE, 9/96-8/99: $208,040  Contributions  Adobe: donation of software to the first 20 universities engaged in pilot testing.  Support  CNI  VTLS  Conference fees support conferences

6. VT ETD: SURA Funding 1993 SURA and SOLINET support Monticello Electronic Library Project. Fox, and Eustis and McMillan attend Atlanta meeting separately. 1994 SURA funds VT workshop to develop plans for ETDs. Attendees select PDF and SGML for representation and archiving. 1996 SURA funds VT implementation, research, development, and dissemination of ETD experience, or develop and disseminate a standard method for making graduate students' final work available online. 1993 SURA and SOLINET support Monticello Electronic Library Project. Fox, and Eustis and McMillan attend Atlanta meeting separately. 1994 SURA funds VT workshop to develop plans for ETDs. Attendees select PDF and SGML for representation and archiving. 1996 SURA funds VT implementation, research, development, and dissemination of ETD experience, or develop and disseminate a standard method for making graduate students' final work available online.

7. VT ETD: SURA Funding Grant calls for Fox, Eaton, McMillan to  Develop a system "that people can use"  Implement library and user friendly search and delivery technology, plus programmatic archiving  Document and distribute training materials for this approach for other universities in the Southeast. Grant calls for Fox, Eaton, McMillan to  Develop a system "that people can use"  Implement library and user friendly search and delivery technology, plus programmatic archiving  Document and distribute training materials for this approach for other universities in the Southeast.

8. VT ETD Funding: FIPSE Although there are approximately 400,000 master's or doctoral degrees awarded nationally each year, many students are poorly prepared for a career in which electronic publishing and access to networked information systems will be commonplace. Fox 9/96 Although there are approximately 400,000 master's or doctoral degrees awarded nationally each year, many students are poorly prepared for a career in which electronic publishing and access to networked information systems will be commonplace. Fox 9/96

9. Hosted or Visited for ETD Support  Onsite at: Arizona State University, Georgia Southern, Brigham Young, Case Western Reserve, College of William and Mary, Cornell, Georgia, Michigan Tech, Pennsylvania State, Worchester Polytechnic, University of Florida, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt, ACRL, ALA, CNI, CAUSE, OCLC, RBMS, SAA...  Hosted: Clemson, Mississippi State, Naval Post Graduate School, Rhodes University (South Africa), SUNY Buffalo, University of New Brunswick, Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Military Institute, Wake Forest…  Onsite at: Arizona State University, Georgia Southern, Brigham Young, Case Western Reserve, College of William and Mary, Cornell, Georgia, Michigan Tech, Pennsylvania State, Worchester Polytechnic, University of Florida, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt, ACRL, ALA, CNI, CAUSE, OCLC, RBMS, SAA...  Hosted: Clemson, Mississippi State, Naval Post Graduate School, Rhodes University (South Africa), SUNY Buffalo, University of New Brunswick, Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Military Institute, Wake Forest…

10. From National to Networked DLTD Mission: Improve Graduate Education  Produce ETDs, use digital libraries, understand issues in publishing  Increase availability of student research  Lower the cost of processing TDs  Empower students to convey a richer message  Empower universities to unlock information resources  Advance digital library technologylibrary  Produce ETDs, use digital libraries, understand issues in publishing  Increase availability of student research  Lower the cost of processing TDs  Empower students to convey a richer message  Empower universities to unlock information resources  Advance digital library technologylibrary

11. NDLTD Membership: 1997-2003  To join send letter of interest from the institution expressing interest in ETDS and NDLTD  No obligations  Non-voting  122 US/international universities  16 US/international institutions  3 consortia  To join send letter of interest from the institution expressing interest in ETDS and NDLTD  No obligations  Non-voting  122 US/international universities  16 US/international institutions  3 consortia

12. NDLTD’s Key Constituencies  Faculty-Fox/VT, Moxley/USF, Pavani/PUC-Rio, etc.  Students--Allard/UKy, Edminster/USF  Graduate school administrators--Eaton/VT, Clark/OH  Organizations  International: OAS, UNESCO, World Bank, national libraries  US: CNI, ARL; not CGS  Librarians: grow information resources, services  Companies--Adobe, OCLC, UMI/ProQuest  Faculty-Fox/VT, Moxley/USF, Pavani/PUC-Rio, etc.  Students--Allard/UKy, Edminster/USF  Graduate school administrators--Eaton/VT, Clark/OH  Organizations  International: OAS, UNESCO, World Bank, national libraries  US: CNI, ARL; not CGS  Librarians: grow information resources, services  Companies--Adobe, OCLC, UMI/ProQuest

13. NDTLD Governance: 1997-2003  Informal, voluntary, advisory  Director: Ed Fox, VT professor of computer science  Steering Committee  ~30 members, met twice a year  International organizations  National libraries  Publishers  Technology companies  Consortia  Higher education institutions  Working groups: ETD MS, Strategic Planning  Informal, voluntary, advisory  Director: Ed Fox, VT professor of computer science  Steering Committee  ~30 members, met twice a year  International organizations  National libraries  Publishers  Technology companies  Consortia  Higher education institutions  Working groups: ETD MS, Strategic Planning

14. NDLTD Program Priorities  Standards and metadatametadata  Promotion, education, outreach  Annual conferences  Institutional representatives new to ETD initiative  Institutional representatives experienced with ETDs  Sponsors  Awards: innovation and leadership  Incorporation and non-profit status  Develop measures of success  Membership  Open access to ETDs  Standards and metadatametadata  Promotion, education, outreach  Annual conferences  Institutional representatives new to ETD initiative  Institutional representatives experienced with ETDs  Sponsors  Awards: innovation and leadership  Incorporation and non-profit status  Develop measures of success  Membership  Open access to ETDs

15. NDLTD: 501(c)(3)  In order to better serve its membership, in May 2003 the NDTLD was duly formed as a nonstock corporation for worldwide charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of US the Internal Revenue Code. NDLTD is now headed by a Board of Directors, working with members on various committees to further the aims of the organization.

16. NDLTD Bylaws: Board of Directors  3-35 persons with demonstrated interest in, concern for, ability to decide and address issues  Any national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race, creed, color, profession  3 year terms; 1/3 elected each year  Meet at annual meetings, at least  Quorum is a majority  Chair committees  3-35 persons with demonstrated interest in, concern for, ability to decide and address issues  Any national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race, creed, color, profession  3 year terms; 1/3 elected each year  Meet at annual meetings, at least  Quorum is a majority  Chair committees

17. NDLTD Bylaws: Officers  Executive Director  Operations manager  See that policies, orders, resolutions carried out  Ex officio member of all committees  Secretary  Attend all meetings of BoD  Prepare and maintain custody of minutes  Keep a true and complete record of the proceedings of all meetings  Treasurer  Keep correct and complete records of the financial condition; furnish at BoD meetings  Legal custodian of all monies, notes, securities, valuables  Immediately deposit all funds in some reliable bank/depository  Such other officers, agents as necessary  Executive Director  Operations manager  See that policies, orders, resolutions carried out  Ex officio member of all committees  Secretary  Attend all meetings of BoD  Prepare and maintain custody of minutes  Keep a true and complete record of the proceedings of all meetings  Treasurer  Keep correct and complete records of the financial condition; furnish at BoD meetings  Legal custodian of all monies, notes, securities, valuables  Immediately deposit all funds in some reliable bank/depository  Such other officers, agents as necessary

18. NDLTD Board of Directors 2008 Ellen Wagner Vinod Chachra Edward A. Fox Joseph Moxley Jude Edminster Suzie Allard William A. T. Clark Eric F. Van de Velde Gail McMillan John H. Hagen Denise A. D. Bedford Joan K. Lippincott Julia C. Blixrud Thomas B. Hickey Tony Cargnelutti Ana Pavani Hussein Suleman José Luis Borbinha Peter Schirmbacher Shalini R. Urs Christine Jewell Eva Müller Samson Soong Sharon Reeves Susan Copeland Xiaolin Zhang Austin McLean Tony Cargnelutti Ana Pavani Hussein Suleman José Luis Borbinha Peter Schirmbacher Shalini R. Urs Christine Jewell Eva Müller Samson Soong Sharon Reeves Susan Copeland Xiaolin Zhang Austin McLean

19. NDLTD Committees  Conference Planning  Services and Standards  Awards (Adobe and NDLTD), 2004 to date Awards  Innovative ETD  Innovating Learning through ETDs  Leadership  Development (w/international subcommittees)  Implementation  Public Relations  Governance: Executive, Finance, Nominating, Membership  ETD Guide: U of So. Florida, UNESCO ETD Guide  Union Catalog of ETDS: VTLS, OCLC  Conference Planning  Services and Standards  Awards (Adobe and NDLTD), 2004 to date Awards  Innovative ETD  Innovating Learning through ETDs  Leadership  Development (w/international subcommittees)  Implementation  Public Relations  Governance: Executive, Finance, Nominating, Membership  ETD Guide: U of So. Florida, UNESCO ETD Guide  Union Catalog of ETDS: VTLS, OCLC

20. The NDLTD Bylaws: Members  Categories  Universities  Consortia  Supporting organizations  Individuals  No voting rights  Primary interest of the Board  Expected to be actively involved in the conferences and committee activities  Categories  Universities  Consortia  Supporting organizations  Individuals  No voting rights  Primary interest of the Board  Expected to be actively involved in the conferences and committee activities

21. Benefits of NDLTD Membership  Eligible to be aided by a Mentoring Program  Discounts on conference registration fees  Discounts on exhibits/displays at the Annual Conference  Support for harvesting into the Union Catalog  Eligibility for NDLTD awards  May serve on Committees and Board of Directors  Access to member address (when shared)  NEW: Preservation Network  Join ETD-L: Send mail to listserv@listserv.vt.edu.  Eligible to be aided by a Mentoring Program  Discounts on conference registration fees  Discounts on exhibits/displays at the Annual Conference  Support for harvesting into the Union Catalog  Eligibility for NDLTD awards  May serve on Committees and Board of Directors  Access to member address (when shared)  NEW: Preservation Network  Join ETD-L: Send mail to listserv@listserv.vt.edu.

22. NDLTD Membership Fee Structure http://www.ndltd.org/join.en.html  $25: Individuals  $100-$300: Single degree-granting or supporting institution  Consortium or Multicampus University System:  $200-$2,600: Category II-III (up to 50 members)  $600-$7,800: Category I (up to 50 members)  $25: Individuals  $100-$300: Single degree-granting or supporting institution  Consortium or Multicampus University System:  $200-$2,600: Category II-III (up to 50 members)  $600-$7,800: Category I (up to 50 members)

23. The NDTLD Bylaws: Conferences  Annual  Provide a forum for members and guests  Hear papers  Promote discussions  Other appropriate activities  Technical demonstrations  Exhibits  Annual  Provide a forum for members and guests  Hear papers  Promote discussions  Other appropriate activities  Technical demonstrations  Exhibits

24. NDLTD Conferences  2009: University of Pittsburgh/West Virginia University  2008: Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland  2007: Uppsala University, Sweden  2006: Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada  2005: University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia  2004: University of Kentucky, Lexington  2003: Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany  2002: Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah  2001: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena  2000: University of South Florida, St. Petersburg  1999: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg  1998: MECCA - ITEC Conference, Tennessee  2009: University of Pittsburgh/West Virginia University  2008: Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland  2007: Uppsala University, Sweden  2006: Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada  2005: University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia  2004: University of Kentucky, Lexington  2003: Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany  2002: Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah  2001: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena  2000: University of South Florida, St. Petersburg  1999: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg  1998: MECCA - ITEC Conference, Tennessee

25. Availability of VT ETDs

26. Increasing Availability of VT ETDs

27. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  While preparing your ETD, where did you find answers to your questions?  60% VT ETD web site  18% Friends  12% My committee  Was this web site useful?  4% No  32% Somewhat  59% Useful - very useful  While preparing your ETD, where did you find answers to your questions?  60% VT ETD web site  18% Friends  12% My committee  Was this web site useful?  4% No  32% Somewhat  59% Useful - very useful

28. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  Compared to what you expected, how difficult was it to create a PDF file?  14 % More difficult  57% Less difficult  30% neutral  Compared to what you expected, how difficult was it to create a PDF file?  14 % More difficult  57% Less difficult  30% neutral

29. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  Where were you when you submitted?  35 % Off campus residence  25 % Campus office  13 % Off campus workplace  Where were you when you submitted?  35 % Off campus residence  25 % Campus office  13 % Off campus workplace

30. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  Compared to what you expected, how difficult was it to submit your ETD?  15 % more difficult  64 % less difficult  22 % neutral  Compared to what you expected, how difficult was it to submit your ETD?  15 % more difficult  64 % less difficult  22 % neutral

31. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  Within the next 1-2 years, what do you intend to publish from your ETD?  51% article  18% conference proceedings  4% book  3% chapter  4% nothing  17% don’t know  Within the next 1-2 years, what do you intend to publish from your ETD?  51% article  18% conference proceedings  4% book  3% chapter  4% nothing  17% don’t know

32. VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08  If you restricted access to your VT ETD, on what did you base this decision?  46% Advice of faculty  25% Personal choice  20% Other  4% Advice of others  3% Patent pending  3% Advice of publisher  If you restricted access to your VT ETD, on what did you base this decision?  46% Advice of faculty  25% Personal choice  20% Other  4% Advice of others  3% Patent pending  3% Advice of publisher

33. VT ETD User Survey 2007/08  If you are with a university, does it accept ETDs?  80% Yes  10% No  10% not from a university  If your university does not accept ETDs, do you think it should?  58% Yes  28% No opinion  14% No  If you are with a university, does it accept ETDs?  80% Yes  10% No  10% not from a university  If your university does not accept ETDs, do you think it should?  58% Yes  28% No opinion  14% No

34. VT ETD User Survey 2007/08  Have you submitted an ETD?  69% No  31% Yes  What is your reason for using this digital library?  85% Research  7% Personal interest  5% Learn about ETDs  2% Job related  Have you submitted an ETD?  69% No  31% Yes  What is your reason for using this digital library?  85% Research  7% Personal interest  5% Learn about ETDs  2% Job related

35. VT ETD User Survey 2007/08  If you searched for an ETD, how fast was the response to your search request?  6% Slow  84% Fairly fast, fast, very fast  9% didn’t search  If you downloaded any ETDs, how easy was it to find what you were looking for?  10% Difficult  90% Fairly easy, easy, very easy  If you searched for an ETD, how fast was the response to your search request?  6% Slow  84% Fairly fast, fast, very fast  9% didn’t search  If you downloaded any ETDs, how easy was it to find what you were looking for?  10% Difficult  90% Fairly easy, easy, very easy

36. Publishers’ surveys 1999-2002 http://lumiere.lib.vt.edu/surveys/  According to the editorial policy, [OA/university- only] constitutes prior publication:  Open access ETDs  9% science publishers  14% social science publishers  15% humanities publishers  University-only accessible ETDs  1% science publishers  4% social science publishers  6% humanities publishers  According to the editorial policy, [OA/university- only] constitutes prior publication:  Open access ETDs  9% science publishers  14% social science publishers  15% humanities publishers  University-only accessible ETDs  1% science publishers  4% social science publishers  6% humanities publishers

37. NDLTD and Preservation of ETDs  Primary concern for early initiatives  Paper seen as more enduring  Commercial alternatives: OCLC, ProQuest  MetaArchive survey 2008  75% no formal preservation plan  92% interested in NDLTD preservation strategy  Workshop at 2008 conference, Aberdeen  Primary concern for early initiatives  Paper seen as more enduring  Commercial alternatives: OCLC, ProQuest  MetaArchive survey 2008  75% no formal preservation plan  92% interested in NDLTD preservation strategy  Workshop at 2008 conference, Aberdeen

38. Digital preservation? The systematic management of digital works over an indefinite period of time.  Unlike traditional preservation, digital works demand ongoing attention--constant input of effort, time, and money. Technological and organizational change is the stumbling block for preserving digital information beyond a few years.  Digital preservation is processes and activities that ensure the continued access to works existing in digital formats. The systematic management of digital works over an indefinite period of time.  Unlike traditional preservation, digital works demand ongoing attention--constant input of effort, time, and money. Technological and organizational change is the stumbling block for preserving digital information beyond a few years.  Digital preservation is processes and activities that ensure the continued access to works existing in digital formats.

39. Backup/IRs vs. Digital Preservation  Backups are tactical measures--typically stored in a single location (often nearby or collocated with the servers backed up) and performed only periodically. Backups address short-term data loss via minimal investment of money and staff time resources. Backups are not a comprehensive solution to the problem of preserving information over time.  Digital preservation is strategic--a geographically dispersed set of secure caches of critical information. A true digital preservation program requires multi- institutional collaboration and at least some ongoing investment to realistically address the issues involved in preserving information over time.  Backups are tactical measures--typically stored in a single location (often nearby or collocated with the servers backed up) and performed only periodically. Backups address short-term data loss via minimal investment of money and staff time resources. Backups are not a comprehensive solution to the problem of preserving information over time.  Digital preservation is strategic--a geographically dispersed set of secure caches of critical information. A true digital preservation program requires multi- institutional collaboration and at least some ongoing investment to realistically address the issues involved in preserving information over time.

40. MetaArchive A distributed digital preservation cooperative for digital archives  Established under the auspices of and with funding from the National Digital Information and Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP) of the Library of Congress  Sustained by cooperative fee memberships and LC contracts  Provides training and models for other groups to establish similar distributed digital preservation networks  Fosters broader awareness of digital preservation issues A distributed digital preservation cooperative for digital archives  Established under the auspices of and with funding from the National Digital Information and Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP) of the Library of Congress  Sustained by cooperative fee memberships and LC contracts  Provides training and models for other groups to establish similar distributed digital preservation networks  Fosters broader awareness of digital preservation issues

41. Distributed Digital Preservation Network Effective preservation succeeds by replicating copies of content in secure, distributed locations over time.  Security reduces the likelihood that any single cache will be compromised.  Distribution reduces the likelihood that the loss of any single cache will lead to a loss of the preserved content.  A single organization is unlikely to have the capability to operate several geographically dispersed and securely maintained servers  Inter-institutional agreements will ensure commitment to act in concert over time. Effective preservation succeeds by replicating copies of content in secure, distributed locations over time.  Security reduces the likelihood that any single cache will be compromised.  Distribution reduces the likelihood that the loss of any single cache will lead to a loss of the preserved content.  A single organization is unlikely to have the capability to operate several geographically dispersed and securely maintained servers  Inter-institutional agreements will ensure commitment to act in concert over time.

42. MetaArchive: Distributed Digital Preservation Networks Across the World, a Region, a State:  Programmatically collects content from a host  Preserves content among partners’ servers  Low cost to administer and run  Standard hardware, free software  Audits content and repairs as needed from host or partners  Disseminates content to only the appropriate users  Host library’s clientele see the content from host’s site  Unless it isn’t available from there  Provide copies to partners only to audit and repair  Dark archive only  Programmatically collects content from a host  Preserves content among partners’ servers  Low cost to administer and run  Standard hardware, free software  Audits content and repairs as needed from host or partners  Disseminates content to only the appropriate users  Host library’s clientele see the content from host’s site  Unless it isn’t available from there  Provide copies to partners only to audit and repair  Dark archive only

43. Key Features of the MetaArchive  Distributed preservation strategy  Flexible organizational model  Formal content selection process  Capability for migrating archives  Dark archiving strategy  Low cost to deployment  Self-sustaining incentives  Simple exchange mechanisms  Distributed preservation strategy  Flexible organizational model  Formal content selection process  Capability for migrating archives  Dark archiving strategy  Low cost to deployment  Self-sustaining incentives  Simple exchange mechanisms

44. Successful Disaster Recovery Test  Focused on: Hardware, Content, Network  Simulated and experienced crashing primary node  Intentionally damaged content (truncate files)  Disabled access to plug-ins  Ran routine tests for “bad disk,” cache manager, conspectus database, yum repository, kickstart script, xml configuration file, etc.  Reconstructed primary node, resurrected network, reconstructed content  Documentation  Focused on: Hardware, Content, Network  Simulated and experienced crashing primary node  Intentionally damaged content (truncate files)  Disabled access to plug-ins  Ran routine tests for “bad disk,” cache manager, conspectus database, yum repository, kickstart script, xml configuration file, etc.  Reconstructed primary node, resurrected network, reconstructed content  Documentation

45. ETD Preservation Survey  Help gauge the digital library community’s interest in establishing an ETD-specific preservation network.  14 multiple choice and short answer questions  95 responses Jan.-Feb. 2008  Help gauge the digital library community’s interest in establishing an ETD-specific preservation network.  14 multiple choice and short answer questions  95 responses Jan.-Feb. 2008

46. ETD Preservation Survey How did you learn about this survey? 17% ARL: Association of Research Libraries 15% ASERL: Association of Southeastern Research Libraries 16% CGS: Council of Graduate Schools 13% DLF: Digital Library Federation 39% NDLTD: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations How did you learn about this survey? 17% ARL: Association of Research Libraries 15% ASERL: Association of Southeastern Research Libraries 16% CGS: Council of Graduate Schools 13% DLF: Digital Library Federation 39% NDLTD: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations

47. ETD Preservation Survey Does your institution accept ETDs?  20% NO80% YES If so, does your institution accept only electronic versions?  61% NO39% YES Does your institution accept ETDs?  20% NO80% YES If so, does your institution accept only electronic versions?  61% NO39% YES

48. ETD Preservation Survey Estimate the number of ETDs added to your collection annually.  5-10 6%  20-5015%  100-19928%  200-299 8%  300-39913%  500-599 7%  600-699 4%  700-799 6%  800-900 6%  1,000 7% Estimate the number of ETDs added to your collection annually.  5-10 6%  20-5015%  100-19928%  200-299 8%  300-39913%  500-599 7%  600-699 4%  700-799 6%  800-900 6%  1,000 7% Estimate the number of ETDs in your collection.  >10027%  100-19910%  200-49914%  500-99917%  1000-199913%  2000-499911%  10,000-20,180 7%

49. ETD Preservation Survey .pdf21% .jpg7% .wav7%  Other formats7% .gif6% .html5% .mov5%  Any format5% .avi5% .mp35% .tif5% .mpg4% .doc4% .xml4% .png3% .ppt2% .aif2% .qt2% .pdf21% .jpg7% .wav7%  Other formats7% .gif6% .html5% .mov5%  Any format5% .avi5% .mp35% .tif5% .mpg4% .doc4% .xml4% .png3% .ppt2% .aif2% .qt2% .aif2% .avi5% .doc4% .gif6% .html5% .jpg7% .mov5% .mp35% .mpg4% .pdf21% .png3% .ppt2% .qt2% .tif5% .wav7% .xml4%  Any format5%  Other formats7%

50. ETD Preservation Survey Does your institution have a formalized preservation plan for its ETDs? 73.68% NO(70/95 responses) 26.32% YES(25/95 responses) 97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered this question. Does your institution have a formalized preservation plan for its ETDs? 73.68% NO(70/95 responses) 26.32% YES(25/95 responses) 97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered this question.

51. ETD Preservation Survey Do you have experience with or knowledge of LOCKSS-based preservation networks? 30.11% NO(28/93 responses) 69.89% YES(65/93 responses) 95.88% of the people who took this survey (93/97) answered this question. Do you have experience with or knowledge of LOCKSS-based preservation networks? 30.11% NO(28/93 responses) 69.89% YES(65/93 responses) 95.88% of the people who took this survey (93/97) answered this question.

52. ETD Preservation Survey Would your institution be interested in participating in an ETD-specific LOCKSS-based collaborative distributed digital archive sponsored by the NDLTD? 49.47% MAYBE (47/95 responses) 42.11% YES(40/95 responses) 8.42% NO(8/95 responses) 97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered this question. Would your institution be interested in participating in an ETD-specific LOCKSS-based collaborative distributed digital archive sponsored by the NDLTD? 49.47% MAYBE (47/95 responses) 42.11% YES(40/95 responses) 8.42% NO(8/95 responses) 97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered this question.

53. ETD Preservation Survey If yes, would there be a preference for 17.95% Dark archiving(14/78 responses) 41.03% Public archive(32/78 responses) 41.03% Dim archiving (32/78 responses) 80.41% of the people who took this survey (78/97) answered this question. If yes, would there be a preference for 17.95% Dark archiving(14/78 responses) 41.03% Public archive(32/78 responses) 41.03% Dim archiving (32/78 responses) 80.41% of the people who took this survey (78/97) answered this question.

54. ETD Preservation Survey  What would be the level of participation for your institution in participating in the NDLTD distributed digital preservation archive? 45.95% Contributing 29.73% Preservation 24.32% Sustaining  What would be the level of participation for your institution in participating in the NDLTD distributed digital preservation archive? 45.95% Contributing 29.73% Preservation 24.32% Sustaining

55. ETD Preservation Survey  What platform or repository structure are you using to collect, disseminate, and store your ETDs? 10% ETDdb 1% Eprints 2% Fedora 19% DSpace 22% In-house solution 46% Other platform or repository (1-3: CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, DigiTool, OhioLink, ProQuest, …)  What platform or repository structure are you using to collect, disseminate, and store your ETDs? 10% ETDdb 1% Eprints 2% Fedora 19% DSpace 22% In-house solution 46% Other platform or repository (1-3: CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, DigiTool, OhioLink, ProQuest, …)

56. ETD Preservation Survey What information would your institution need to participate in an ETD DDPN?  Costs: 38  Staffing: 16  Technical issues: 12  Expectations, responsibilities: 12  Hardware: 9  Long term goals, sustainability: 6  Access: 6  Procedures: 4  Agreement, legal terms: 4 What information would your institution need to participate in an ETD DDPN?  Costs: 38  Staffing: 16  Technical issues: 12  Expectations, responsibilities: 12  Hardware: 9  Long term goals, sustainability: 6  Access: 6  Procedures: 4  Agreement, legal terms: 4

57. ETD Preservation Survey Comments/concerns, particularly the distributed model that the MetaArchive Cooperative is considering for ETDs  A welcome opportunity: 8  Still not enough: 5  Migration? 3  Confidential ETDs? 2  Not a priority: 2  Using CDs: 2 Comments/concerns, particularly the distributed model that the MetaArchive Cooperative is considering for ETDs  A welcome opportunity: 8  Still not enough: 5  Migration? 3  Confidential ETDs? 2  Not a priority: 2  Using CDs: 2

58. NDLTD Distributed Preservation Workshop June 4, 2008 11th International ETD Conference Aberdeen, Scotland: Robert Gordon University http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/DDPNWorkshop200806.pdf June 4, 2008 11th International ETD Conference Aberdeen, Scotland: Robert Gordon University http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/DDPNWorkshop200806.pdf