Unit 14: Perpetual Access

This week focused on perpetual access. People are more familiar with preservation of physical items, but preservation of electronic resources has the spotlight this week. Why is this important? Watson (2008) writes, "If a cohesive preservation strategy for electronic resources is not devised and implemented in the near future, there is a real danger that current research output may be lost to future generations." I thought perpetual access meant simply being able to access the content of an e-journal after the library no longer subscribes to it, but it turns out that there's a bit more and it gets a little complicated regarding definitions. Here's what Temper & Barribeau (2006) write about perpetual access:

• Perpetual access right to an electronic journal: the right to permanently access licensed materials paid for during the period of a license agreement (not to be confused with the right to copy journal content solely for preservation purposes).


• Perpetual access right VS Archving right: archiving right is the right to permanently retain an electronic copy of the licensed materials. "The emphasis of [perpetual access right] is retaining access, not on how such access is achieved (through the publisher's site, a locally retained copy, or a third-party site)."

So, as I understand it, perpetual access right is being able to always access the content (regardless of how dynamic it is) rather than just having the right to keep a static copy of the content you licensed. As I was working through the readings, I kept thinking about the similarities between OpenURL vs static links. Basically it comes down to this: when a library purchases physical materials, it would have back copies archived and available. However, e-content is another story, including anything that has been accessed through a subscription. Sure, a library could ILL the item, but Watson (2008) points out that more recently, ILL clauses found in licenses actually make it harder for institutions that still have the resources to loan them to other libraries.

The question then turns to how libraries and publishers are trying to make these resources accessible in both the short- and long-term because, "Just-in-time collection development is on the rise, and just-in-time delivery of content is becoming increasingly attractive to libraries" (Watson, 2008). I liked that quote because in one of my early SLIS classes, we discussed the old "just-in-case" model of collection development, and its evolution to "just-in-time," to which Watson (2008) also refers. The entire "ownership vs access" issues that are pillar to LIS are now not as cut and dried as they used to be (but really, were they ever?). :) Accreditation bodies, writes Watson (2008), are starting to change what even constitutes ownership in libraries.

Temper & Barribeau (2006) write, "What type of access a lapsed subscriber might have at such an archive and what license wording is specific enough to ensure such access are the critical issues." So the major concerns affecting preservation of e-resources are:

1. Maintaining perpetual access: Watson (2008) writes that the risk of losing perpetual access hasn't "had any significant impact on libraries' decision making in terms of the models and licenses they rely upon to provide their users with access to e-resources." Why? a) Patron pressure: they want current access, so libraries just need to ensure they provide current access. b) Availability of content: Watson (2008) predicts that someday in the near future, print copies of journals will have less content than the electronically published copies, plus more libraries are just collecting electronic, or at least mostly electronic. And lastly, c) Financial pressures: e-only eliminated some of the big costs of space, time, and upkeep. It isn't that perpetual access would be impossible to get, as Watson (2008) seems to think that publishers would be open to providing it, but people on the library side are in short supply or time crunches where negotiating for it is challenging and couldn't even supply staff to set up perpetual access for e-resources.


2. Data copying and migration: Rather than copying to paper in order to preserve, now looking at using digital means. However, digital storage can be expensive thanks to the cost of hardware, software, technical expertise, etc. Additionally, technology keeps changing so it might not be safe to keep digitally stored things in the same system that stored it a few years ago due to compatibility issues.


3. Preserving content in the "information explosion": Watson (2008) refers to the information explosion as a profound increase in the creation modification and distribution of digital content. For the most part, this means electronic content. In other words, finding a way to preserve things like websites, blogs, wikis, and online reference works. Having an archive of past versions of these media would benefit, for example, researchers in citing these sources or going back and verifying citations/using the original version of the work.

What is being done to address these concerns? "Libraries are driven by a shortage of funding and space, and patron demand for desktop access, to cancel and discard print journals in favor of online, but this same lack of funding restricts their ability to invest in or support preservation initiatives" (Watson, 2008). Despite lack of available funds, here is a list of the current initiatives for e-preservation that I've summarized from Watson (2008):

Third Parties:

• JSTOR: (Journal Storage Project) subscription-based, fee for service to back issues of journals on collection by collection basis not individual titles. Must have a subscription to keep getting this service, no perpetual access otherwise. JSTOR content supplements subscriptions to current content, “to this end, there is a rolling embargo, the length of that varies from publisher to publisher” (Watson 2008) in order to not damage current content sales from other publishers. Interesting note: JSTOR is working with University of California and Harvard to make a print archive of all its online holdings.
• LOCKSS: (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) Individual libraries have LOCKSS servers for all types of electronic content, but to put it in the server it needs to be in the license with the publisher to do it. Servers are backups to each other, creates a distributed environment. Benefit is that it sort of can be perpetual access for libraries’ cancelled subscription content. Started with funding from Mellon Foundation. Libraries maintain their own LOCKSS servers, pubs don’t have much control over content on LOCKSS servers. Not good for e-books.
• Portico: started with funding from Mellon Foundation in 2005. “dark” or unavailable, central archive until publisher stops offering back issues. put their stuff there and pay to have it stored. Manages the server for institutions (good option for libraries without tech support for it), a little more control for publishers than with LOCKSS. Eileen Fenton spoke about uncertainty of the field of electronic preservation and how even efforts like Portico don’t necessarily guarantee long-term access, and the importance of synergizing efforts from around the field to come up with solutions, also not good for e-books.
• Google Book Search, PubMed Central

Libraries:

• CIC: consortial effort, “Libraries determined to go e-only to save money may wish to allocate money for print retention projects and seek membership in a consortia that has such projects” (Temper & Barribeau, 2006).
• Institutional repositories: material produced by researchers within the institution can be stored (uncertain about completeness and long-term integrity of repositories, preprints/postprints not really good substitutes for the published journal article
• IFLA

Publishers:

• “...questions remain about how reliable publishers are as a solution to long-term preservation needs. Publishers are bought, sold, and go out of business. Their main concern is profit rather than preservation” (Watson, 2008). Going to third parties mostly in response to this.

Governments:

• Some countries require publishers to submit a print copy of all publications to a legal depository. Much like NIH’s mandate to deposit articles that received NIH funding to PubMed Central.

Foundations:

• Mostly there for the money to support the initiatives.

On the whole, there are a lot of unknowns in the topic of e-preservation. How will it be funded? Who should be in charge of it? What technology will last long enough to make it worth doing now? Much like with the discussion about e-books and accessibility, each initiative has different high points, so as future initiatives continue to evolve, the aforementioned questions will continue to be addressed by the key players.

Image credit: Wikimedia by Kris De Curis.