1. Electronic Archiving & JSTOR Kevin Guthrie e-icolc, Thessanoliki, Greece October 2002 www.jstor.org

2. Overview E-Archiving – Defining the Problem The Mellon Foundation Grant Program Explanation Lessons Learned E-Archiving Economics JSTOR E-Archiving Approach

3. E-Archiving – Defining the Problem

4. The Print Archive It occurs as a by-product of access. Journals or books are purchased because of need and then retained. The content must be held locally. It is a system of countless local decisions and there is no system-wide planning effort. The buildings housing the libraries lend themselves nicely to fund raising. Library volume counts impact competitive standing. There is a significant but relatively stable and predictable cost stream for maintenance.

5. How is an E-Archive Different? Challenges –The dynamic nature of the formats –We cannot predict the course of future software developments – there can be no black box technological solution –We must establish new relationships between preservation and use so that usage leads to preservation. Benign neglect is not effective Opportunities –Freedom from time and space –Economies of scale in distribution

6. E-Archiving is a Growing Problem We are in a time of transition Users find the electronic version more convenient – “copy of record” Many libraries bearing double costs, but increasingly they are cancelling print subscriptions, taking only electronic There is no systematic archiving solution in place

7. E-Archiving: Assumptions and Basic Premise The academic community needs a system of trusted archives of “born digital” journal content The trusted archives must have a sustainable economic model and be able to preserve the content for the very long-term

8. E-Archiving – The Mellon Foundation Grant Program

9. E-Archiving: Mellon Foundation Program There were seven grant recipients The goal was to find a workable and sustainable model for an ongoing e-archiving effort. To explore “presentation file” and “source file” options. Cornell Harvard MIT NYPL Stanford (LOCKSS) University of Pennsylvania Yale

10. Working Assumptions of the Source File Archives Archive should be independent of publishers –responsibility of institutions for whom archiving is a core mission Archiving requires active publisher partnership Address long timeframes Archive design based on Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model

11. Working Assumptions of the Source File Archives Archive negotiates relationship with publisher Publisher deposits content regularly Content accompanied by metadata to support discovery and preservation Archived content only accessible under specific conditions Archive assumes responsibility for long-term preservation

12. Questions that Arose What is archived? In what format? When is archive accessible? Who can access archived content? What does the archive “preserve”? Who does archiving? How is the archive paid for? How is the archive governed?

13. Content of e-journals not just full- length articles Journal description Editorial board Instructions to authors Rights and usage terms Copyright statement Ordering information Reprint information Indexes, membership lists, errata, etc.

14. Challenging Content Masthead, “front matter” stored as web pages, not in content management systems No control over the format of supplementary materials (datasets, images, tables, etc.) Advertising very complex –dynamic, frequently from third party, can involve country-specific complexities Links frequently separate from articles –regularly updated, sometimes dynamic

15. File Formats? PDF? SGML/XML? HTML? All or none? PDF ubiquitous but there are concerns –Proprietary –Emphasizes presentation, not meaning –Is it preservable? Sometimes only choice

16. File Formats? PDF? SGML/XML? HTML? All or none? XML increasingly common Migration path seems more clear –flexible Many different DTDs. Can we develop a standard archival exchange DTD? NLM/Mulberry/Inera/Harvard effort

17. Interchange DTD How low is the common denominator? What gets lost? –inevitably sacrifices some functionality and original appearance Transformation from publisher’s “native” DTD involves risks Some technically difficult areas –extended character sets, mathematical and chemical formulae, tables. “generated text”

18. Access Terms Publishers prefer “dark” archives –does not compete with publisher’s service If “dark”, what “trigger events” make it accessible? –after a given period of time (‘moving wall”)? –when content is not otherwise accessible (“failsafe”)? –only when content enters the public domain?

19. Why is Access Important? How do you verify that what you are preserving is accessible? Users are good auditors Where do you find the resources to underwrite the costs associated with archiving? Archiving is a public good. Clean air, public park. A mechanism for payment?

20. Who Should Pay for the Archive? Who benefits? –Publishers, libraries, authors, scholarly societies… –Is there a way to share costs? Cost categories include –Preparation of “archivable” objects –Ingestion and quality control –Long-term storage –Preservation activity

21. Mellon Foundation Program Findings Archiving seems technically feasible Publishers indicate that archiving is important to them Progress on developing a common archival exchange DTD Shared understanding that archives are necessary to establish e-versions as the publications of record and for it to be possible to let go of paper subscriptions

22. Challenges in the Organizational Model –Follow-on grant proposals required substantial $ but were potentially duplicative and in some ways overlapping. There appear to be economies of scale. –Difficult to effect coordinated activity by distinct universities.  Individual universities found it difficult to develop a business model that would distribute fairly the costs, benefits, and incentives associated with e-journal archiving.  It was difficult to organize and justify a process for any one university to take on the archival responsibility for others at the scale required. E-Archiving: Mellon Foundation Program Findings

23. Mellon concluded that an organizational entity which is separate from the universities and which is dedicated to the task of e-archiving journal literature is needed. The largest issue is: How to create a sustainable economic model in support of an e-archive? E-Archiving: Mellon Foundation Program Findings

24. E-Archiving Economics

25. Archiving Economics: What About an E-Archive? Presently, publishers are offering access to the content. We are truly talking about is the long-term preservation of this content, unbundled from the access. The content and the archive are valued, but is there a willingness to pay? Are institutions willing to pay insurance premiums for archival protection? The lack of an economy associated with electronic archiving is a huge challenge facing the community, because we have no model in place.

26. JSTOR’s Mission To help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in information technologies. To develop a trusted archive of core scholarly journal literature, emphasizing conversion of entire journal backfiles and preservation of future e-versions. To enhance the accessibility of older journal literature In pursuing its mission, JSTOR takes a system-wide perspective, seeking benefits for libraries, publishers and scholars & students.

27. Why Is JSTOR an Archive? An archive must consider things such as: –Technological Choices –Data Backup and Redundancy –Publisher Relationships – Perpetual Rights to the Source Content –Financial Strategies and Economics –“Moving Wall” to Preserve Future e-Versions Mission is critical.

28. Archiving Economics: The JSTOR Example A&S I – approximately 7,700 volumes Building, storage & maintenance: –Prime space: $125,000 –Remote storage: $31,000 Circulation –Prime space: $1 per use –Remote Storage: $3 per use JSTOR Fees –Archive Capital Fee: $10,000 - $45,000 –Annual Access Fee: $2,000 - $5,000

29. Archiving Economics: JSTOR purchase as an example Even research librarians do not focus on the JSTOR archival mission, they often just see JSTOR as a useful database. Therefore, JSTOR is typically purchased from the acquisitions budget. It does not recognize the overall value, nor the overall savings to the institution. The capital part of the value is not fungible and not recognized, but it exists. Who is the archiving czar? Is there an archive budget?

30. Archiving Economics: How To Pay For Complex E-Archive There are no organizational and accounting systems set up to underwrite the “archiving” function. No one is used to paying someone else for central archiving. There is no building to name and no volume count to promote. There is no budgetary line item. Despite the rhetoric, will institutions be willing to underwrite a centrally held archive to preserve little-used materials? Article in Educause Review: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm00164.pdf

31. Archiving Economics: Conclusion E-archiving requires some level of central planning and coordination. Institutions will have to establish a mechanism to provide funds to support such an effort. Governments may need to subsidize archives in order to build them on a massive scale. The financial systems must be consistent with the principles being pursued. Some form of access may need to be bundled with the archiving/preservation function

32. JSTOR’s Approach to E-Archiving

33. JSTOR E-Archive Focused on planning for the receipt of electronic data in accordance with moving walls First lessons in data ingest connected to Current Issues Linking effort Internal organizational approach has been to use existing staff working as part of an e- archiving working group

34. JSTOR E-Archive Establishing new unit dedicated to e-archiving. Have been granted $1.3M in start up funding from the Mellon Foundation. Additional funding for the unit will come from JSTOR, a “paying customer” of the new unit. We will have the same principals as with the print, but a new business model is needed.

35. Why JSTOR as Organizational Home Not-for-profit status Mission Non-competitive with publishers Dedicated to long term preseravtion Relationships with over 1,400 libraries in 70 countries Relationships with nearly 180 publishers

36. Why JSTOR as Organizational Home Appreciation for IP issues and evolving law Experience converting over 10M journal pages and providing continual access to the archive Experience developing sustainable access and business models Positive and strong relationships with various granting agencies

37. JSTOR E-Archive Anticipated Activities Mellon Grant: 18 month grant period. The Goal: To establish a credible and sustainable operation for e-archiving that includes all the key components required for an ongoing archiving enterprise.

38. JSTOR E-Archive Anticipated Activities Establish the parameters of content. –Determine what content will be preserved. Establish an access model which balances the needs of publishers, librarians & scholars. –Address the “public good” problem. Secure agreements with publishers. –Begin with current JSTOR publishers. –Explore other publisher relationships.

39. JSTOR E-Archive Anticipated Activities Establish a production operation. –Apply quality control lessons gained through experience digitizing print. –Build on progress made by Mellon program participants. Build a technical infrastructure –Compatible with the OAIS Reference Model

40. Where we’re starting Exciting Challenges: –Continue with the print. –Begin archiving the electronic version of the titles currently within JSTOR.

41. Kevin Guthrie President, JSTOR www.jstor.org