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

1. Community Initiatives in Journal Preservation
Adam Rusbridge, EDINA
21st March 2014

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. 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. “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, http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr13-04
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. 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): http://bit.ly/5GT6Ig
• 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.
http://www.hud.ac.uk/library/policy/collectionmanagementanddevelopmentpolicy/#appendix2
• 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.
– http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/20208

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. Free registration for the Members Area

8. Member Services

9. Example CSV Input File

10. Title List Upload: File details

11. Title List Upload: Report options

12. Summary email

13. Keepers Report

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. • 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. 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. 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. • 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. • 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. • Automates much content administration
• Record local coverage to a title
• Automatically collect new volumes within that coverage
Subscription Manager:
Friendlier Title Configuration

21. Find out more…
https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Catalogue/Overview/index/879
• Case Studies: http://www.lockssalliance.ac.uk/participating-institutions/case-studies
• Publishers and titles: http://www.lockss.org/community/publishers-titles-gln/
• Now over 500 publishers!
• API and TRAC Audits in 2014
http://www.lockssalliance.ac.uk
A
B
C
D
E-F
£5,000
£3,750
£2,750
£2,250
£1,800
JISC Band Annual Fee
http://www.flickr.com/photos/codlibrary/2278168996/

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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…

26. • 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

27. 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
www.flickr.com/photos/guitarlogy/5387073471/

28. Thanks for listening!
Questions and Discussion