284 richman ssp archive presentation 5 08
TRANSCRIPT
SSP May 2008
Preservation
A Publisher’s Perspective
Carol RichmanDirector of Licensing
SAGE Publications
SSP May 2008
Why should we care?
“These timescales of many decades, even centuries, contrast with the typical 5-year lifetime for computing hardware and digital media…” “A Fresh Look at the Reliability of Long term Digital Storage.” Baker, Mary, et al.. EuroSys '06, April 18-21, 2006
SSP May 2008
Preservation: Digital information is impermanent
• Publisher: Safety – to insure ongoing availability of your
content• Librarians: Custodianship
– to insure continuity of the record of scientific progress
– Very long view: epistemology, history of science and culture
Why Care?
SSP May 2008
What Should be Preserved?
• Scholarly content• Research materials• Web-based, digitally born content
SSP May 2008
Preservation options• National archives
– Dutch National library (KB)– British Library– NIH – PubMedCentral?– Library of Congress?
• Institutional Repositories
• Community-based Archives
• Product Solution Archives
SSP May 2008
Summary Table Agency Primary
MissionData A/C Migration
KB Gov’t Preservation Pub Twilight Yes
Portico Ind. Failsafe Pub Dark Yes
LoC Gov’t Preservation Pub ? ?
LOCKSS Inst. Failsafe Pub Dark -
CLOCKSS Comm. Failsafe Pub Dark -
SSP May 2008
Summary:How Repositories Differ
• Stated purpose• Dark v. light • Complete backfile v. current only• Deposits
– Who: author v. publisher– What: manuscripts v. final work– Why: voluntary v. mandated
• Rights transfer• Access control• Costs
SSP May 2008
Preservation
A SAGE Example
SSP May 2008
SAGE and Preservation• SAGE’s commitment to customers and
partners• Critical to society arrangements• Essential for new e-sales (consortia +
single institutions) – Perpetual access• Business continuity• Long-term preservation• We are not preservation experts!
SSP May 2008
• Dutch KB• CLOCKSS• LOCKSS • Portico • Library of Congress• British Library
SAGE and Preservation
SSP May 2008
How we do it
• Provide details of digital availability• Provide sample of content• Provide details of content format (DTD)• Send all backfile for loading• Set up content flow for ongoing content
SSP May 2008
Not just a technical exercise!
SAGE and it’s trigger event. . .
SSP May 2008
GRAFT - • Discontinued title due to lack of subscription base• Opted to release to archives – Portico, CLOCKSS,
and the KB• Portico took lead on releasing the archive first and
assuming responsibility for DOIs• Portico only archive currently able to handle DOIs• SAGE assigned DOIs to Portico for re-deposit to
CrossRef• CLOCKSS released weeks after; Dutch KB yet to
release
SSP May 2008
Challenges - DOIs
• Archives (Portico) had not had to deposit for released content before – no precedence set
• Under current CrossRef rules, Portico is the owner of the DOIs. Portico is working with the CrossRef Board to determine the best method for other archives to take advantage of the DOI work that Portico has done.
• Multiple resolution does not currently work so only Portico will have pointers from CrossRef
• All DOIs had not been deposited for content; no precedence set for how to handle this
• Some articles had not DOIs – who should assign and under what DOI prefix?
• CrossRef had to create working group to create guidelines for how to deal with the release of content to archives (SAGE involved in working group)
SSP May 2008
Market Reaction • SAGE and Portico released press releases and
posted to list serves• Librarians took positively and negatively• Positive
– System appears to work for the release from dark archive– Content remains available in perpetuity– SAGE acted responsibly by releasing journal to archive– DOIs will remain active for content; minimal confusion
• Negative– SAGE ceased publication on a journal
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
SSP May 2008
