Print Backfiles in the Age of JSTOR

FIFTEENTH NORTH CAROLINA SERIALS CONFERENCE:

Crystal Clear? Today’s Libraries, Tomorrow’s Library Users

Friday, March 31, 2006

The William and Ida Friday Continuing Education CenterChapel Hill, NC

Presented by

John KiplingerJSTOR Director of Production

Rebecca KempSerials Supervisor, UNC Wilmington

Presentation Structure

• The Impact of Digital Archives on Legacy Print Serials Collections: A Look at the JSTOR Paper Repository Experience

• Libraries’ Responses to the JSTOR Digital Archives: Individual and Collective Decisions

The Impact of Digital Archives on Legacy Print Serials Collections: A

Look at the JSTOR Paper Repository Experience

John KiplingerJSTOR Director of Production

Context

• Libraries/librarians encountering an ever-pressing space crunch with, typically, little or no funds available for additional physical storage space

• Legacy print is being digitized at an accelerating pace by a growing number of organizations

• Digital archiving principles (for both digitized print and born-digital content) still evolving

• JSTOR tends to be recognized for the increased accessibility and searchability of the content, and not so much because of its preservation mission

Why Should JSTOR Save Paper?

• Three Elements of JSTOR’s Digitized Print Archiving Strategy– Maintenance of the digital files– Preservation of original source (print)

• JSTOR’s initial disposition of paper volumes• JSTOR’s evolving policy

– Third-party stewardship of both digital and paper archival versions

Why Should JSTOR Save Paper?

• Post-digitization, the paper artifact (particularly in the case of journal literature) has several roles:– Preservation of original format/context of

content (which can be essential for format migration in digital preservation)

– Disaster recovery– Other factors (e.g., aesthetic and/or historical

value, marginalia, library’s mission, rarity)

Why Should JSTOR Save Paper?

• JSTOR’s “migration” of digital files is a preservation methodology that requires access to the paper source issues.

• The need for collection of all the paper issues was recognized, but how would it be done?– Could we rely on major research libraries to

hold the paper version for us?– Could JSTOR maintain its own paper

repository?– Could JSTOR partner with libraries or other

organizations to do this?

Moving Toward a Paper Repository

• JSTOR Bound Volume Surveys (1999-2003)– http://www.jstor.org/about/bvs2003.html – All survey results reveal that libraries are

thinking and acting on remotely storing and de-accessioning paper volumes for JSTOR titles

– In the 2003 survey, respondents for the first time specifically raised the idea of collaborative retention programs for these volumes

Moving Toward a Paper Repository

• Center for Research Libraries– JSTOR and CRL discuss possible

collaboration– CRL begins to build its own onsite

repository of paper versions of all JSTOR titles (May 2000). As of January 6, 2006, 76% of all publicly available volumes are archived – http://www.crl.edu

– CRL implements Mellon funded distributed archive plan (2002-2003)

Moving Toward a Paper Repository

• JSTOR Paper Repository Advisory Group (Sept. 2002) identified needed characteristics for a paper repository:– Dark archive– Centralized– Environmentally-controlled– Validation at page-level– Acceptable price tag

• In late 2004, JSTOR signed agreements with both Harvard University and University of California/California Digital Library to archive all JSTOR titles publicly released through October 2003.

JSTOR Paper Repositories at a Glance

Agreements on:

Harvard UC

Access Dark Dim

Ownership JSTOR UC

Completeness

JSTOR primary

UC primary

Monitor/Report

Harvard UC

Cost Shared Shared

Current Scope

First 353 titles

First 353 titles

Validation

Current Status?

– Both libraries are on track for compiling the requisite back runs by February 2007

– Rejections of volumes for inclusion in the repository because of damaged/missing pages are being experienced, so the rigorous validation processes have been justified

– Collaborative approaches to problem resolution (e.g., locating replacement pages, finding rare issues) are being found

– Repository validation processes are turning up some issues not previously known to JSTOR, so the digital archive is being improved as well!

What’s next, both near and long term?

– JSTOR staff audits of UC and Harvard paper repository work

– Completion of compilation of back runs for initial 353 titles

– First successful use of repository materials by JSTOR, their return to the repository and re-validation

– Negotiation of agreements for next round of titles– Work with other interested libraries, institutions

and organizations on setting up their own repositories

Libraries’ Responses to the JSTOR Digital Archive:

Individual and Collective Decisions

Rebecca KempSerials Supervisor

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Many libraries have decided to discard their print volumes

• Many messages posted on SERIALST and other listservs regarding decisions to de-accession

• Informal study: 17 SERIALST posts, originating Dec. 5, 2002 and April 04, 2005

• Messages not necessarily representative of whole library population, but telling

Many libraries have decided to discard their print volumes (cont.)

• Of 17 respondents– 3 keeping print back-volumes in the

collection; 1 library also moving some back materials to off-site storage

– 2 moving to off-site storage– 2 part of collaborative print-sharing groups– 11 discarding; one institution retaining

volumes with important illustrations, one institution retaining “standards in the fields”

Many libraries have decided to discard their print volumes (cont.)

• Motivations for discarding– Space concern– Serving remote populations– Moving to online-only

• Motivations for retaining:– Space not a concern (We should all be so lucky!)– Faculty and students not accepting JSTOR– Unpredictability of digital archiving (per McKinzie,

Steve, “Troubling Choices: Full-text Access and the Old Hard Copy Back Runs,” Against the Grain 17.1(2005):60-61.)

Cooperative Endeavors: Having our cake and eating

it, too? • Best of both worlds for e- and print access?• Another informal study: what distributed

print depositories or centralized consortial depositories exist for housing JSTOR volumes?

• 9 projects reported• 6 centralized (with 2 also allowing for non-

centralized storage), 3 distributed depositories

Centralized DepositoriesMost fully developed:• UC Southern Regional Library Facility (in

conjunction with JSTOR)• Five Colleges, Inc. (Massachusetts)• Five Colleges (Ohio) – CONSTOR (although they

allow storage at individual facilities as well)In the works:• Northwest Ohio Regional Book Depository• Northeastern Ohio Cooperative Regional Library

Depository• North Carolina Triangle Libraries

Distributed DepositoriesExamples• CRL/JSTOR efforts• Utah Academic Library Consortium• Swedish University Libraries• Western North Carolina Library

Network

Embarking upon collaborative endeavors -

Best Practicesfrom Schottlaender, Brian, “ ‘You say you want an evolution...’ The emerging UC libraries shared collection,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 28 (2004): 13-24.

• Distinguish between necessary and unnecessary redundancy

• Different service “layers:” local, regional, national; bright, dim, dark

Best Practices (cont.)

from Arthur, Michael A., “Developing a Distributed Print Depository System: Challenges and Opportunities,” The Serials Librarian 48.3/4(2005):343-348.

• Designate purpose of the collection (dark archive / light?)

• Have written, legal agreements regarding responsibilities

Best Practices (cont.)from Center for Research Libraries, “Towards a national hard copy strategy,” Focus 21.3(2002):1-7.

• “Build on existing infrastructure and structures”

• Voluntary• “Proper governance and transparency”

– Disclose responsibilities, agreements, statistics, policies, reports, minutes

• Economically sustainable

What would it take a build a statewide network in NC?

• Building blocks: WNCLN, Triangle Libraries

• Cooperation among ULAC libraries?• Bigger things: a national distributed

repository system?• Feedback?

Thank you!

Presenter Contact Information

Rebecca Kemp, Serials SupervisorUNC Wilmington Randall Library601 S. College Rd.Wilmington, NC 28403kempr@uncw.edu

John KiplingerJSTOR Director of Production301 E. Liberty, Suite 310Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2262jkip@jstor.org