There has been a recent growth of initiatives to address common problems regarding current and long-term access to e-journal content. Jisc is at the forefront of many of these with the close participation and active input of educational institutions. This session aims to summarise the current state of key themes with pointers to future directions of areas such as sustainability, the move towards e-only environments, and shared consortia approaches. It will provide an overview and panel discussion on developing the supporting infrastructure to meet the needs of users. The discussion will focus on how institutions, community bodies and service providers can best work together to ensure sustainable, long-term initiatives by seeking to introduce uniformity, standardisation and collaboration to an even greater extent. The session will introduce two new Jisc-supported projects in this area, the Keepers Registry Extra and SafeNet initiatives, and discuss how these fit alongside existing Jisc services such as Knowledge Base+, UK LOCKSS Alliance, Journal Archives and JUSP (Journal Usage Statistics Portal). The panel will address how this catalogue of services contributes towards a coherent strategy in the management of e-journal content.

1. Stronger Together
Community Initiatives in Journal Management
Peter Burnhill and Adam Rusbridge, EDINA
Lorraine Estelle
Executive Director Content and Discovery and Divisional CEO of Jisc Collections, Jisc
David Prosser
Executive Director, RLUK
John MacColl
University Librarian and Director of Library Services, University of St Andrews

2. Support for Key Journal Management Questions
What content is available?
KnowledgeBase+ (and NESLi2)
What do I have access to?
KnowledgeBase+, SUNCAT, Copac & OpenURL Router
What do our academics and students actually use?
Joint Usage and Statistics Portal (JUSP)
What guarantees around continuing access?
UK Research Reserve, Keepers Registry and SafeNet

3. licence
to use
Ensuring
researchers, students and their teachers have
ease and continuing access
to online scholarly resources projects
PB, 2009
Use case: article–length work published in e-journals
access
to content & services
[Search & Sharing (issuing) are additional considerations to ease and continuing access.]

4. Ensuring
researchers, students and their teachers have
ease and continuing access
to online scholarly resources projects
Use case: article–length work published in e-journals
access
to content & services

5. Concepts
SERVICE OPERATION
SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY
<Co-Design>
CONTINUOUS SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
<Consumer Feedback>
SERVICE CATALOGUE
PeCAN Study
SafeNet
KeepersExtra
LOCKSS Pilot UK LOCKSS Alliance2008
PEPRS & Pilot Keepers Registry2012
<JARVIG>
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Hiberlink

6. Some Consequences of Web
• Essentials of supply chain have changed
• licensed to access, not sale of content
• Role of libraries as trusted keepers of information and
culture has been disrupted
– Preservation not a historic role of publishers
– Libraries need to assure of continuity of access
• of all content for future generations
• of the back copies, post-cancellation of the licence
• Does this mean that the Scholarly Record is at risk?
“The Library [Committee], which is made up
of librarians and academics,
… wants reassurance about long-term
preservation before confirming a University
policy of going e-only.”
from email sent by a big UK Library

7. “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
and risks with commercial events in the publisher/supply chain
• transfers, cancellations, licensing issues
Recent addition to suggested reading:
• 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

8. A ‘global challenge’: trans-national action
Researchers (and therefore libraries)
in any one country are dependent
upon content written and published
in countries other than their own
US.LoC 20%
UK.BL 10%
Netherlands
& Germany:
c. 4.5% each
Brazil 4%
113,000 ISSNs have been issued for e-serials.
Published globally:

9. 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:

10. Many archiving organisations is a Good Thing 
“Digital information is best preserved by replicating it at multiple
archives run by autonomous organizations”
B. Cooper and H. Garcia-Molina (2002)

11. Now have a global Registry of e-journal archiving
Enter title or
ISSN
to search across metadata
reported by leading
archiving organisations
… to discover who is looking after what
*news*
Library of Congress and Scholars Portal now reported in the Keepers Registry
[we have high hopes for some others …]

12. 13
… but coverage
of volumes is partial
& patchy
This e-journal is being archived
by 5 archiving agencies …
Example search: ‘Origins of Life’
… and discover details of its ‘archival status’

13. 2. Sidebar remark on Reference Rot
• ‘Reference Rot’: When what was referenced and cited
ceases to say the same thing, or ‘has ceased to be’
http://www.snorgtees.com/this-parrot-has-ceased-to-be
‘Reference Rot’ :
1. http:// link to a resource no longer works (the ‘404’ problem & more)
• Link rot
2. The citation is inadequate
• Not robust over time
3. The content referenced at the end of the link
a) has evolved,
b) changed dramatically,
c) disappeared completely.

14. http://hiberlink.org #hiberlink
‘Reference Rot’ :
1. http:// link to a resource no longer works (the ‘404’ problem & more)
• Link rot
2. The citation is inadequate
• Not robust over time
3. The content referenced at the end of the link
a) has evolved,
b) changed dramatically,
c) disappeared completely.
Funded by Andrew Mellon Foundatiion:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
University of Edinburgh (EDINA & Language Technology Group)
Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

15. References in Web-Based Scholarly
Communication
References to other online
scholarly works
References to online resources on
the ‘wider Web’
Link Rot DOI, HTTP version of DOI
Content
Decay
Fixity of content
Archiving: CLOCKSS,
LOCKSS, Portico …
(Keepers Registry)
Unexplored, so our
focus for Hiberlink
This is becoming
understood but issues, see
David Rosenthal blog post http://blog.dshr.org/2013/11/patio-perspectives-at-anadp-ii.html
Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication

16. http://hiberlink.org #hiberlink
Two year project funded by Andrew Mellon Foundation
Los Alamos National Laboratory, EDINA & Language Technology Group, U of Edinburgh
1. Problem Quantification.
• Large scale text mining of scholarly literature
• Determine availability on URIs in live web and in archives.
2. Archival Solution Infrastructure.
• Prototype tools to archive web resources at point of use or publication.
3. Temporal Reference Solutions.
• Prototype new citation models that allow time-specific references.
Investigating Reference Rot in Web-Based Scholarly Communication
Early results (0.5m PMC 1997 - 2012):
0.3m unique references to ‘Web at Large’.
31% still online & safe
11% offline; safe in archives
41% online; at risk of loss
17% are lost
• Unique referenced Web at Large URIs:
327,782

17. Back To The Overview
E-journals should be easy – right?
… but is the e-journals problem is being solved?
3. Evidence from the Keepers Registry
Statistics on who is looking after what,
& what is at risk
GREAT SCOTT!

18. Evidence from the Keepers Registry
a) 21,557 e-serial titles are reported as being ingested by the 10 Keepers
b) 113,092 ISSN assigned to ‘online serials’ in the ISSN Register
Measuring total progress with a key indicator:
• 2013: 19% on the radar of the Keepers (21,557 / 113,092)
• 2011: 17% on the radar of the Keepers (16,558 / 97,563)
Progress towards comprehensive coverage,
but far from ‘job done’

19. Take the academic user perspectives…
… with usage logs for the UK OpenURL Router
• 10.4m full text requests in 2012; ISSN-L to de-duplicate ISSN
• 53,311 online titles requested by researchers & student from 108/160+
• Only 15% (7,862) are being kept by 3+ Keepers
• Over two thirds (68%) held by none…
…36,326 accessed titles are ‘at risk’ of loss 
So ‘preservation’ (or lack of it) is still a real and present problem!

20. Concepts
SERVICE OPERATION
SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY
<Co-Design>
CONTINUOUS SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
<Consumer Feedback>
SERVICE CATALOGUE
KeepersExtra
PEPRS & Pilot Keepers Registry2012
<JARVIG>
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

22. 1. To assist publishers ‘do the right thing’
– A showcase for the real heroes: the archiving organisations
– Means to check what content is being reported as archived
– Provide libraries, publishers & archiving organisations with lists of titles that seem
to be at risk of loss
2. To keep a close focus on volumes & issues
– Need for Publishers & Libraries to make sure all issued content is being kept safe
3. To assist collaboration between Keepers: ‘a safe places network
4. If it is worth preserving, it really should have an identifier
Breaking News (end of Q1 2014) :
Keepers Registry will introduce a Members Area with facilities to :
1. enable libraries (and others) to check archival status of a list of Titles:
upload a list of ISSNs
2. enable 3rd Party websites to report archival status (via API)
will assist our objectives…
KEEPERS EXTRA

23. Concepts
SERVICE OPERATION
SERVICE TRANSITIONPROJECT ACTIVITY
<Co-Design>
CONTINUOUS SERVICE
IMPROVEMENT
<Consumer Feedback>
SERVICE CATALOGUE
PeCAN Study
SafeNet
LOCKSS Pilot UK LOCKSS Alliance2008
<JARVIG>
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Setting up Collaborative Archiving Models

24. “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

25. Sustainable Electronic Access Policies
• 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

26. UK LOCKSS Alliance & the LOCKSS Program
• Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS), since 1998
• Give libraries custody and control over scholarship
• Library controls local access, even when they can’t access publisher copy
• Harvest an exact rendition copy from the publishers website
• Supply access to content via integration with link resolvers
• 100 global members, over 500 publishers and societies.
• 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

27. 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

28. • 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

29. licence
to use
Ensuring
researchers, students and their teachers have
ease and continuing access
to online scholarly resources projects
Use case: article–length work published in e-journals
access
to content & services
authorisation

31. 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
Publisher wishes to remains
the priority access source

32. • 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
Benefits of SafeNet

33. What guarantees around continuing access?
Ask a librarian: 3 possible answers
1. "Yes, we have it and you can access it now"
– We've checked recently, both in the catalogue and in actuality
2. "No, but we know somebody that does (we trust)”
– We can point you (or arrange access) to it now/soon-ish
3. "Sorry, we don't know …”
- Perhaps nobody has it
- It may be lost forever, “although perhaps somebody somewhere ...”
Unless we act together
the 3rd answer could become common for a lot of e-journal content

34. Panel Questions
1. Looking back over the last 5 years
• Please describe your organization's actions and notable actions by others to assist
or manage continuity of access to scholarly content.
2. Key Issues and Next Steps
• Please describe key issues that could shape the next 5 years of action, and suggest
collaborative steps that might help to address them.

35. Panel Questions
3. Community Support
How do you think we can best provide support to library staff (through advice and training on e-
journal archiving issues)?
4. Sustainability
How do you think we can work together and with e-journal archiving services to ensure
sustainable, long-term operations?
5. Measuring Success
How can we develop a methodology for analysing e- journal archiving and post-cancellation
access services to identify important gaps and measure progress?