- Email: [email protected]
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals Jennifer Watson Available online 5 July 2005
An increasing number of libraries are canceling their print journal subscriptions and subscribing to journals in purely electronic format. With the print version of a journal, when the subscription is cancelled, the library retains all the earlier issues of the journal to which it subscribed. With the online version, this may not be the case. A library canceling an online subscription may lose all access to the journal, including issues for which access had previously been paid. The author describes the policies and practices of selected e-journal vendors and libraries in relation to archival access. Serials Review 2005; 31:200–205. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Sally Morris defines barchivingQ in reference to electronic publications in three ways:
to sign multiyear contracts with vendors to keep price increases in check, and each contract, whether multiyear or single year, is unique as libraries negotiate their own terms with the vendor. As a result, archival access rights to a particular vendor’s materials may vary from library to library, depending on the vendor’s policy at the time the license was negotiated and the requirements the library placed on the vendor before signing. Cancellations of print versions of journals are due not only to patrons’ preference for online access, but also to budgetary constraints and reductions. Journal prices have increased by higher rates than inflation and library budgets.3 David Soloman describes the serials as bexorbitantly expensiveQ and calls the current situation ba serial crisis.Q 4 As libraries struggle to find ways to realize savings, canceling one format of a journal is often seen as preferable to canceling the title altogether. However, if a library faces further budgetary problems, cancellation of online journal access can become a necessity. With no print copy to fall back on, the library faces the possibility of losing access to the title altogether, including online issues that the library had previously purchased.
1. Preservation for posterity. 2. Preservation to enable medium-term use by scholars and researchers. 3. Arrangements which permit ongoing use, after termination, of previously licensed material.1 The issues surrounding the last definition of archiving are discussed here, specifically in reference to full-text electronic journals. An increasing number of libraries are canceling their print journal subscriptions and subscribing to journals in purely electronic format. When the subscription to the print version of a journal is cancelled, the library retains all the earlier issues of the journal to which it subscribed. With the online version, this may not be the case. A library canceling an online subscription may lose all access to the journal, including issues for which access had previously been paid. As Robert Terrio states, bThe future for libraries seems to lie in a policy of access rather than ownership.Q2 Archival access varies from vendor to vendor, and policies have changed over time. Many libraries prefer
Previous Studies of Archival Access Issues Research on e-journal archives has tended to focus on the broader issue of preserving digital content for the benefit of the scholarly community as a whole rather than the question of whether individual libraries are retaining access to e-journal issues for which they have paid. In 1996, Ann Okerson complained that electronic resources were leased rather than owned and that a
Watson is Electronic Services Librarian, Library and Biocommunications Center, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA; e-mail: [email protected]. The author wishes to thank Dr. David Armbruster for his helpful comments and advice. 0098-7913/$–see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.06.001
200
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
library’s investment became worthless if the library stopped subscribing to the resource. However, electronic journals were so new at that time that it was considered risky for a library to cancel its print subscriptions for fear electronic access would be discontinued or the format for access would become obsolete. However, even at this early stage some libraries and consortia reported success in negotiating archival access clauses into license agreements.5 In 1998, Ellen Finnie Duranceau analyzed the archiving policies of five full-text providers: JSTOR, OCLC (Online Computer Library Center), Blackwell, Project MUSE, and HighWire Press.6 Duranceau’s review provides a snapshot of archival practices in 1998 and an opportunity to see how practices have changed seven years later. A 1999 review of archival issues by Chad Buckley, of the Association of College and Research Libraries Science and Technology Section (ACRL/STS) Subject and Bibliographic Access Committee, focused almost exclusively on the issue of preservation of scholarly material, with only a brief mention of the rights of libraries to content for which they have paid.7 In 2000, Morris outlined three ways in which publishers were then making backfiles available to those who had cancelled subscriptions: charging a small access fee, providing free access, or allowing the library to mount files locally.8 The 2001 Digital Libraries Federation (DLF) Collection Practices Initiative urged libraries to brealistically assess the preservation and access risks of relying on electronic formats, and develop an archive strategy on the basis of local circumstances and risk tolerance.Q9 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has funded a number of studies related to the preservation of digital content, but again these focus on preservation of content in general, rather than on providing continued access to specific libraries that have purchased content.10 A recent symposium on e-journal archiving outlined several archiving initiatives, including PubMed Central (PMC), Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS), and JSTOR.11 PubMed Central is a digital archive of life sciences journals, created and managed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Content is available free to all and therefore unrelated to a library’s subscriptions, although 51 of the 179 titles in the collection either do not have 2005 content loaded as of this writing (April 2005) or require users to wait two to twelve months before accessing content.12 The NIH’s recently announced policy of making available NIHfunded research publications will dramatically increase the number of articles available through PMC,13 but this will result in piecemeal reproduction of journal issues that may leave library patrons frustrated. While Terrio may have claimed in 2003 that blibrarians have grown tired of the daccess vs. ownershipT debate,Q14 the issue of archival access continues to be a focus of attention in 2005. According to Tim Martin of OCLC, bArchiving and long term access continue to be a hot topic in libraries and in the publishing industry.Q15 A presentation at the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) conference in May 2005 analyzed Canadian academic libraries’
success in providing continued online access to journals that have changed publishers.16 At the same conference, a poster session presented the results of a survey of library policies towards archival access.17
JSTOR JSTOR provides online access to back runs of journals, mostly using a bmoving wallQ system in which only issues older than three to five years are accessible.18 Libraries must pay an initial fee and an annual access fee, typically several thousand dollars each, for each journal collection to which they wish to subscribe. The lengthy delay before access is granted and high fees do not make JSTOR a good alternative for libraries losing access to online titles to which they previously subscribed. In 1998, JSTOR provided purchased content on CD-ROM in the event of cancellation.19 This policy is no longer in effect. In a telephone conversation with the author on April 19, 2005, JSTOR’s Carol MacAdam and Bruce Heterick stated that the quantity of CD-ROMs required for archival access would be prohibitive and would not provide the searching capabilities needed to utilize the content effectively. To date, no libraries have cancelled their subscriptions due to budgetary constraints, so the loss of the CD-ROM provision has not yet been an issue. While JSTOR is marketed as an alternative to retaining print archives,20 many libraries are retaining print copies of journals for fear that they may have to cancel their JSTOR subscription in the future and thus lose access to the online archive.21 JSTOR’s own research indicates a minority of subscribers are discarding their print archives or moving them into remote storage.22 and MacAdam and Heterick credit ease of access, rather than archival issues, for the popularity of JSTOR.
OCLC Duranceau’s article analyzed the archive access available to OCLC’s Electronic Collections Online (ECO). OCLC had surveyed libraries while developing ECO and learned that archiving was the most frequently requested feature. As a result, an ECO subscription came with perpetual access rights to all of the issues purchased under the subscription.23 A University of Melbourne library evaluation of four electronic journal interfaces in 1998 and 1999 rated ECO most highly on the issue of archiving.24 Today, ECO features over 5000 journals and is available via OCLC FirstSearch.25 OCLC continues to offer archival access, provided the subscriber continues to purchase at least one FirstSearch title.26
Blackwell Blackwell’s Electronic Journal Navigator (EJN) also offered continued access in 1998, although it did not guarantee this access.27 EJN is no longer in existence, and Blackwell’s subscription agency was sold to Swets in 2000. However, Blackwell continues to offer online access to approximately 800 Blackwell publishing
201
Jennifer Watson
Serials Review
journals through its Web site, Blackwell Synergy. A premium subscription to these titles guarantees continuing access to subscribed years, even if the subscription is cancelled;28 standard access, which comes with all institutional print subscriptions, does not come with this guarantee.29 Swets replaced EJN with SwetsWise Online Content, which also offers continued access if permitted by the publisher. The former subscriber is still charged fees for accessing the Online Content interface.30
LOCKSS was officially launched in April 2004 and currently has about eighty libraries collecting data39 from seventy-seven titles.40 The youth and uniqueness of the program have led to some frustration that publishers are less than willing to cooperate with LOCKSS participants.41
License Agreements Addressing the Archival Issue One organization helping libraries to ensure that adequate archival access is guaranteed in license agreements is the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), which supports higher and further education institutions across the United Kingdom (UK), especially in regard to the use of technology.42 JISC created a model license for use by UK institutions, adding clauses in 1999 guaranteeing continued access via either the Internet or another means acceptable to the institution.43 By February 2003, JISC’s National Electronic Site Licensing Initiative (NESLI) Model Licence was widely used as the basis for license negotiation by UK academic institutions.44 The current Model NESLi2 Licence requires the publisher to provide continued access to the licensee without charge, in the event that the license is terminated.45 The Canadian National Site Licensing Project (CNSLP) also includes archival access as part of its model license but requires former subscribers to pay a fee to the publisher for continued access.46 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s sample license also includes language relating to archival access. It states that the institution can request a copy of the licensed materials and that the licensee can have perpetual access to the content in a format equivalent to that available during the period of the agreement.47 The University of California’s (UC) standard license contains similar wording.48 UC’s policy regarding electronic journals is to obtain a print copy for archival purposes.49 The University of Washington Libraries’ policy is that permanent access to licensed information should be granted by the license agreement; however, this is a preference and not a requirement.50 The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), which represents over 5000 libraries worldwide,51 states that consortia or libraries should have perpetual access to licensed content, either through the provider’s Web site or through the provision of data files, and that the subscriber should be permitted to make back-up copies of the content.52
Project MUSE In 1998, John Hopkins University Press’s policy was to offer a CD-ROM archival disk to Project MUSE customers. The CD-ROM was provided annually to subscribers during their subscription period.31 This provision continues in much the same manner to this day, except that the material is now provided, on request, on a DVD-ROM instead of a CD-ROM. Libraries can also download and save content onto a local server and use this saved content after a subscription is cancelled.32
HighWire Press In 1998, Stanford University’s HighWire Press was not offering perpetual access for the forty-nine journals it hosted at the time. The reason given was that technology was not sufficiently advanced. In particular, they felt that hypertext links, video, and audio could not be adequately represented in archival formats such as print, microform, and CD-ROM. However, as an alternative to offering archival access, HighWire was encouraging the publishers using its service to make their content freely available after one or two years.33 Today HighWire Press hosts 852 journals. Of these, 197 offer free back issues and 30 offer entirely free content.34 As in 1998, HighWire must work with its publishing partners in creating an archive policy, as it does not own the journals offered on its Web site. HighWire also promotes the use of LOCKSS, another Stanford University venture.35
LOCKSS The LOCKSS model requires an institution to cache its e-journal content. This content can then be made available at a later date to the institution or to another institution that has the right to view the content.36 The system is promoted as continuing libraries’ role in the print world of preserving multiple, distributed copies of journal titles.37 However, it also provides the function of preserving an individual library’s access to e-journal issues after the subscription has been cancelled.38 While local solutions are often disfavored by librarians as being cumbersome to manage and difficult to use, in a telephone conversation with the author on April 27, 2005, Vicky Reich, director of the LOCKSS program, explained that LOCKSS system was easy to administer and the content as usable as in its original format.
Surveys Addressing the Archiving Issue In February 2001, a survey of twelve Boston Library Consortium (BLC) libraries found that archival access was not a significant consideration when deciding on ejournal subscriptions. The survey ranked libraries’ reasons for subscribing to five e-journal packages— Academic Press’s Academic IDEAL (International Digital Electronic Access Library), Blackwell Synergy, Elsevier’s ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Wiley InterScience—and found that archival access was
202
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
ranked only fourth or fifth in importance out of ten factors. More important issues were price, content, faculty demand, and additional access to nonsubscribed titles. Archival access as a reason for not subscribing to a package provoked more mixed responses, being second in importance for Academic IDEAL, but only ranked seventh for SpringerLink, Wiley InterScience, and Blackwell Synergy. The low importance placed on archiving may be partly due to the fact that only 10 % of surveyed libraries cancelled print subscriptions in order to purchase the e-journal packages being reviewed by the survey.53 If the libraries surveyed had continuing print access to the titles being purchased electronically, this might give them less incentive to push for archival access to the content. In the fall of 2003, a JISC survey of nineteen higher and further education institutions in the UK54 found that many institutions were purchasing journals in purely electronic format due to convenient access for patrons, lack of space for print storage, access to a greater number of titles, and meeting patron demand. Only one institution required archival access; the rest did not due to ba combination of pragmatism and pressure.Q Those surveyed felt that archiving clauses in license agreements were too vague to be useful, archives were offered in a problematic format (such as CDROMs), publishers could not be trusted to deliver on the promise of archival access, or that publishers frequently went out of business, rendering any archival clauses useless. Some institutions just did not have the time to negotiate archival access. Pressure came from patrons demanding more electronic resources. Patron demand for online content was highlighted in another UK survey. The University of York found, in a March 2004 survey of its patrons, that 207 patrons favored electronic journals, while only thirty-five requested retention of the print. The perpetual access issue was not among reasons given for print retention.55 The Association of Research Libraries reported that 86 percent of respondents to a survey conducted in the summer of 2003 required particular clauses to be present in a license before they would sign. However, only 15 % of these libraries required a clause giving them perpetual access to purchased content. Legal issues of concern to the institution as a whole (governing law and venue and indemnifications) were by far the top priorities.56 A January 2004 survey of thirty-one libraries, predominantly in the UK, found that institutions often signed agreements that included archival access of unknown or inadequate format. Shrinking budgets often forced libraries to cancel print subscriptions in order to pay for electronic, despite the precarious archive situation. Some respondents planned to rely on interlibrary loan if archives were lost in the future. Lack of time and staffing precluded librarians from negotiating license agreements as intensively as they would have liked. In some cases, archival access was not seen as necessary because the titles were considered bso important that we can’t envisage ever canceling them.Q57
An informal survey of subscribers to the LIS-EJOURNALS, SERIALST, ERIL-L, and LIBLICENSE-L mailing lists in April 2005 produced surprisingly similar results to the January 2004 survey, even though the later survey’s respondents were primarily located in the United States.58 The responses suggested that archival access was a concern, but such access was not having a major influence on which products were subscribed to or how licenses were negotiated. Many of the twentytwo respondents had not cancelled enough e-journals to experience the effects of loss or retention of archival access. Archival access was not a worry for core titles, as these would never be cancelled, or for peripheral titles. Donna Perzeski of the Ohio Collection of Podiatric Medicine Medical Library comments: bThe journals that we only access electronically are expendable.Q59 Other issues were often considered more important in license negotiations, such as off-campus access and pricing. Some librarians did not trust e-journal providers to continue archival access, even if it were guaranteed in a license agreement. Many libraries continue their print subscriptions fearing lack of archival access online or, in some countries, high taxes on online-only subscriptions. Even when vendors do promise archival access, they cannot guarantee continued access when a journal changes publisher or a publisher changes its relationship with a third-party vendor. Very few libraries had used CD-ROMs for archival access, and some respondents said they would not want the extra work associated with locally loaded archives. Best archival access seemed to be available when libraries purchased e-journals through a consortium or through a national standard license. For example, HEAL-Link, a consortium of Greek academic institutions, requires archival access to e-journals, plus a print copy that is held at a central location.60 Meanwhile, individual libraries, especially smaller libraries, found that the time and possible additional cost involved in negotiating archival access into an agreement did not warrant the effort: bMany of us are just trying to get by.Q61 There was a disincentive to focus on archival issues when patrons were concerned mainly with access to current issues from as many titles as possible. In fact, patrons were sometimes confused when a library had only archival, but not current, access to a title.62 Librarians at smaller libraries may feel that archival issues are best left to other libraries. Danielle Hoggan states: bWe are a small library and cannot worry about that.Q63
Conclusion Libraries are increasingly dropping print subscriptions in favor of online but without guarantees regarding archival access. These libraries risk losing access to content for which they have paid, if they need to cancel the journal due to budget constraints. Literature on archival access has tended to focus on the broader issue of preserving digital content for the scholarly community as a whole rather than permanent access to paid-for content by individual libraries.
203
Jennifer Watson
Serials Review
8. Morris, bArchiving Electronic Publications,Q http://www.alpsp. org/arcsm00.pdf.
Vendors’ archival policies are surprisingly similar to those outlined in Duranceau’s 1998 article. While model license agreements, such as NESLi2 and those drafted by large American universities, do address the archival issue, recent surveys show that archival access is rarely the top priority in selecting ejournals. Patrons want access to current issues of as many journals as possible and budgets are tight, so price tends to be the determining factor. Many libraries are continuing their print subscriptions and thus place less value on archival access to online titles. Individual institutions often do not have the time or the staff to negotiate perpetual access, in an appropriate format, into their license agreements. Consortia presumably have more staff time to devote to this and have had more success in obtaining archival rights. Librarians continue to have an interest in and concern with the archival issue, but so far this interest has had little impact on selection or licensing policy. With pressure from patrons for current access to electronic journals and tight budgets, many librarians have taken the plunge into electronic-only subscriptions, despite their reservations regarding future access. Many libraries have been able to hold onto a significant portion of their print subscriptions and have not needed to cancel many e-journals. However, with continuing increases in subscription costs and flat budgets, loss of archival access seems inevitable. With access to previously subscribed titles suddenly cut off, libraries will come under fire for failing to safeguard the existing online collection. To prevent this scenario, librarians must reprioritize time and funds to ensure that future subscriptions include the needed guarantees regarding perpetual access.
9. Timothy D. Jewell, bSelection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources: Issues and Practices,Q (Washington, DC: Digital Libraries Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001), 29. 10. Linda Cantara, bArchiving Electronic Journals: Research Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation,Q http://www.diglib.org/ preserve/ejp.htm (accessed April 16, 2005). 11. Ramune K. Kubilius and Linda J. Walton, bSeize the E-Journal: Models for Archives Symposium: Report,Q Journal of the Medical Library Association 93 (January 2005): 126 – 129. 12. bPubMed Central Journals—Full List,Q http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/front-page/fp.fcgi?cmd=full_view (accessed April 4, 2005). 13. bNIH Calls on Scientists to Speed Public Release of Research Publications: Online Archives Will Make Articles Accessible to the Public,Q http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/od-03.htm (accessed April 4, 2005). 14. Terrio, bElectronic Metaphors,Q pp. 28–35. 15. Tim Martin, e-mail message to author, April 7, 2005. 16.
bPrograms with Times and Full Descriptions-NASIG 2005 Conference,Q http://www.nasig.org/conference/program_guide. htm (accessed April 29, 2005).
17. Victoria Peters, e-mail message to author, April 6, 2005. 18.
bJSTOR: The Moving Wall,Q http://www.jstor.org/about/ movingwall.html (accessed April 4, 2005).
19. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115. 20.
bJSTOR Archiving Practices,Q http://www.jstor.org/about/ archive.html (accessed April 13, 2005).
21. Nicholas Lewis, bdAre We Burning Our Boats?T Survey on Moving to Electronic-only,Q http://www.uea.ac.uk/~l002/eonlysurvey. html (accessed April 13, 2005). 22. bJSTOR: Bound Volume Survey Results,Q http://www.jstor.org/ about/bvs2003.html (accessed April 30, 2005).
Notes
23. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
1. Sally Morris, bArchiving Electronic Publications: What Are the Problems and Who Should Solve Them?Q http://www.alpsp.org/ arcsm00.pdf (accessed April 17, 2005).
24. Tony Arthur and Shirley Sullivan, bComparing Interfaces for Electronic Journal Delivery,Q http://www.vala.org.au/vala2000/ 2000pdf/Art_Sul.PDF (accessed April 6, 2005).
2.
Robert Terrio, bElectronic Metaphors and Paper Realities,Q Progressive Librarian 21 (Winter 2003): 28 – 35.
3.
Richard E. Quandt, bScholarly Materials: Paper or Digital?Q Library Trends 51 (Winter 2003): 349 – 375.
25. bOCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO),Q http://www.oclc. org/support/documentation/firstsearch/databases/dbdetails/ details/ECO.htm (accessed April 5, 2005). 26. Tim Martin, e-mail message to author, April 25, 2005.
4. David J. Soloman, bIs It Time to Take the Paper Out of Serial Publication?Q Medical Education Online 4 (1999), http:// www.msu.edu/~dsolomon//f0000016.pdf (accessed April 16, 2005). 5.
27. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115. 28. Emily Gillingham, e-mail message to author, April 7, 2005. 29.
Ann Shumelda Okerson, bBuy or Lease? Two Models for Scholarly Information at the End (or the Beginning) of an Era,Q Daedalus 125 (Fall 1996): 55 – 76.
30. Jeff Aipperspach, e-mail message to author, April 14, 2005. 31. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
6. Ellen Finnie Duranceau, bArchiving and Perpetual Access for Webbased Journals: A Look at the Issues and How Five E-journal Providers Are Addressing Them,Q Serials Review 24 (Summer 1998): 110 – 115. 7.
bOnline Information,Q http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ cservices/journal_online.asp?site=1 (accessed April 11, 2005).
32. bProject MUSE-Archiving and Preservation,Q http://muse.jhu.edu/ about/muse/archiving.html (accessed April 7, 2005). 33. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
ACRL/STS Subject and Bibliographic Access Committee, bElectronic Publishing of Scholarly Journals: a Bibliographic Essay of Current Issues,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Spring 1999), http://www.istl.org/99-spring/article4.html (accessed April 16, 2005).
34. bHighWire Press,Q http://highwire.stanford.edu/ (accessed April 7, 2005). 35. bHighWire Press—Content Archiving,Q http://highwire.stanford. edu/institutions/archiving.dtl (accessed April 7, 2005).
204
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
36.
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
Agreement,Q http://www.cdlib.org/vendors/checklist.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
Victoria A. Reich, bLots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe as a Cooperative Archiving Solution for E-Journals,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 36 (Fall 2002), http://www.istl. org/02-fall/article1.html (accessed April 4, 2005).
50.
37. bFor Librarians,Q http://lockss.stanford.edu/librarians/librarians. htm (accessed April 4, 2005). 38. Vicky Reich, e-mail message to author, April 18, 2005.
51. International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), bPress Release for Immediate Distribution—March 25, 1998,Q http:// www.library.yale.edu/consortia/icolcpr.htm (accessed April 17, 2005).
39. bPreserve Your Ejournals with LOCKSS: Victoria Reich Explains How You Can Preserve Ejournals for Generations of Users,Q Access, Asia’s Newspaper on Electronic Information Products and Services (December 2004), http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/ number51/othernews.cfm?othernews=01 (accessed April 11, 2005).
52. International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), bStatement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and Purchase of Electronic Information,Q http://www.library.yale.edu/ consortia/statement.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
40. bLOCKSS: A Persistent Access Preservation Program: Answers for Library Directors,Q http://lockss.stanford.edu/librarians/ DirectorHandout.pdf (accessed April 18, 2005).
53.
41. Jennifer Watson, e-mail to SERIALST mailing list, April 29, 2005. 42.
bJISC—The Joint Information Systems Committee,Q http:// www.jisc.ac.uk/ (accessed April 16, 2005).
55. University of York Information Committee, Library Committee, bElectronic Only Access to Journals Trial: Final Report, January 2005,Q http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/libdocs/ e-journalfinalreport0502.pdf (accessed April 29, 2005).
44. bReport on the JISC E-journals Licensing and Archiving Workshop Held on 17 February 2003,Q http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index. cfm?name=pres_ejournals_report (accessed April 16, 2005).
56.
45. b[Product] Licence (Based on the NESLi2, NESLI and PA/JISC Model Licences for Journals),Q http://www.nesli2.ac.uk/NESLi2_licence_journals_final011003.htm (accessed April 16, 2005).
47.
48.
Jonathan Nabe, bE-Journal Bundling and Its Impact on Academic Libraries: Some Early Results,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Spring 2001). http://www.istl. org/01-spring/article3.html (accessed April 16, 2005).
54. Maggie Jones, bArchiving E-Journals Consultancy—Final Report: Report Commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), October 2003,Q http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded _documents/ejournalsfinal.pdf (accessed March 24, 2005).
43. Maggie Jones, bJISC Consultancy on Archiving of Licensed Ejournals,Q D-Lib Magazine (December 2002), http://www. dlib.org/dlib/december02/12inbrief.html#JONES (accessed April 16, 2005).
46.
University of Washington Libraries Information Resources Council, bTask Force on Electronic Information Acquisition and Licensing: Draft Principles, Guidelines and Checklists,Q http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/IRC/comm-taskforces/tf _ licensing_checklists.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
Mary M. Case, bA Snapshot in Time: ARL Libraries and Electronic Journal Resources,Q ARL 235 (August 2004): 1 – 10.
57. Lewis, bAre We Burning Our Boats?Q http://www.uea.ac.uk/ ~l002/eonlysurvey.html.
bCanadian National Site Licensing Project (CNSLP); Projet Canadien de Licences de Site Nationales (PCLSN) License Agreement,Q http://researchknowledge.ca/pr/achievements/ CNSLP-License-12Feb01.pdf (accessed May 1, 2005).
58. Jennifer Watson, e-mail to SERIALST mailing list, April 29, 2005. 59. Donna M. Perzeski, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005. 60. Claudine Xenidou-Dervos, e-mail message to author, April 20, 2005.
bMIT License Agreement for Electronic Resources,Q http:// macfadden.mit.edu:9500/colserv/digital/licensing/MITSLA.doc (accessed April 17, 2005).
61. Michael Linksay, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005. 62. Melvin R. Morbey, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005.
bStandard License Agreement,Q http://www.cdlib.org/vendors/ CDLModelLicense.rtf (accessed April 17, 2005).
63. Danielle Bodrero Hoggan, e-mail message to author, April 18, 2005.
49. bCDL: Checklist of Points to be Addressed in a CDL License
205
An increasing number of libraries are canceling their print journal subscriptions and subscribing to journals in purely electronic format. With the print version of a journal, when the subscription is cancelled, the library retains all the earlier issues of the journal to which it subscribed. With the online version, this may not be the case. A library canceling an online subscription may lose all access to the journal, including issues for which access had previously been paid. The author describes the policies and practices of selected e-journal vendors and libraries in relation to archival access. Serials Review 2005; 31:200–205. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Sally Morris defines barchivingQ in reference to electronic publications in three ways:
to sign multiyear contracts with vendors to keep price increases in check, and each contract, whether multiyear or single year, is unique as libraries negotiate their own terms with the vendor. As a result, archival access rights to a particular vendor’s materials may vary from library to library, depending on the vendor’s policy at the time the license was negotiated and the requirements the library placed on the vendor before signing. Cancellations of print versions of journals are due not only to patrons’ preference for online access, but also to budgetary constraints and reductions. Journal prices have increased by higher rates than inflation and library budgets.3 David Soloman describes the serials as bexorbitantly expensiveQ and calls the current situation ba serial crisis.Q 4 As libraries struggle to find ways to realize savings, canceling one format of a journal is often seen as preferable to canceling the title altogether. However, if a library faces further budgetary problems, cancellation of online journal access can become a necessity. With no print copy to fall back on, the library faces the possibility of losing access to the title altogether, including online issues that the library had previously purchased.
1. Preservation for posterity. 2. Preservation to enable medium-term use by scholars and researchers. 3. Arrangements which permit ongoing use, after termination, of previously licensed material.1 The issues surrounding the last definition of archiving are discussed here, specifically in reference to full-text electronic journals. An increasing number of libraries are canceling their print journal subscriptions and subscribing to journals in purely electronic format. When the subscription to the print version of a journal is cancelled, the library retains all the earlier issues of the journal to which it subscribed. With the online version, this may not be the case. A library canceling an online subscription may lose all access to the journal, including issues for which access had previously been paid. As Robert Terrio states, bThe future for libraries seems to lie in a policy of access rather than ownership.Q2 Archival access varies from vendor to vendor, and policies have changed over time. Many libraries prefer
Previous Studies of Archival Access Issues Research on e-journal archives has tended to focus on the broader issue of preserving digital content for the benefit of the scholarly community as a whole rather than the question of whether individual libraries are retaining access to e-journal issues for which they have paid. In 1996, Ann Okerson complained that electronic resources were leased rather than owned and that a
Watson is Electronic Services Librarian, Library and Biocommunications Center, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA; e-mail: [email protected]. The author wishes to thank Dr. David Armbruster for his helpful comments and advice. 0098-7913/$–see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.06.001
200
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
library’s investment became worthless if the library stopped subscribing to the resource. However, electronic journals were so new at that time that it was considered risky for a library to cancel its print subscriptions for fear electronic access would be discontinued or the format for access would become obsolete. However, even at this early stage some libraries and consortia reported success in negotiating archival access clauses into license agreements.5 In 1998, Ellen Finnie Duranceau analyzed the archiving policies of five full-text providers: JSTOR, OCLC (Online Computer Library Center), Blackwell, Project MUSE, and HighWire Press.6 Duranceau’s review provides a snapshot of archival practices in 1998 and an opportunity to see how practices have changed seven years later. A 1999 review of archival issues by Chad Buckley, of the Association of College and Research Libraries Science and Technology Section (ACRL/STS) Subject and Bibliographic Access Committee, focused almost exclusively on the issue of preservation of scholarly material, with only a brief mention of the rights of libraries to content for which they have paid.7 In 2000, Morris outlined three ways in which publishers were then making backfiles available to those who had cancelled subscriptions: charging a small access fee, providing free access, or allowing the library to mount files locally.8 The 2001 Digital Libraries Federation (DLF) Collection Practices Initiative urged libraries to brealistically assess the preservation and access risks of relying on electronic formats, and develop an archive strategy on the basis of local circumstances and risk tolerance.Q9 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has funded a number of studies related to the preservation of digital content, but again these focus on preservation of content in general, rather than on providing continued access to specific libraries that have purchased content.10 A recent symposium on e-journal archiving outlined several archiving initiatives, including PubMed Central (PMC), Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS), and JSTOR.11 PubMed Central is a digital archive of life sciences journals, created and managed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Content is available free to all and therefore unrelated to a library’s subscriptions, although 51 of the 179 titles in the collection either do not have 2005 content loaded as of this writing (April 2005) or require users to wait two to twelve months before accessing content.12 The NIH’s recently announced policy of making available NIHfunded research publications will dramatically increase the number of articles available through PMC,13 but this will result in piecemeal reproduction of journal issues that may leave library patrons frustrated. While Terrio may have claimed in 2003 that blibrarians have grown tired of the daccess vs. ownershipT debate,Q14 the issue of archival access continues to be a focus of attention in 2005. According to Tim Martin of OCLC, bArchiving and long term access continue to be a hot topic in libraries and in the publishing industry.Q15 A presentation at the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) conference in May 2005 analyzed Canadian academic libraries’
success in providing continued online access to journals that have changed publishers.16 At the same conference, a poster session presented the results of a survey of library policies towards archival access.17
JSTOR JSTOR provides online access to back runs of journals, mostly using a bmoving wallQ system in which only issues older than three to five years are accessible.18 Libraries must pay an initial fee and an annual access fee, typically several thousand dollars each, for each journal collection to which they wish to subscribe. The lengthy delay before access is granted and high fees do not make JSTOR a good alternative for libraries losing access to online titles to which they previously subscribed. In 1998, JSTOR provided purchased content on CD-ROM in the event of cancellation.19 This policy is no longer in effect. In a telephone conversation with the author on April 19, 2005, JSTOR’s Carol MacAdam and Bruce Heterick stated that the quantity of CD-ROMs required for archival access would be prohibitive and would not provide the searching capabilities needed to utilize the content effectively. To date, no libraries have cancelled their subscriptions due to budgetary constraints, so the loss of the CD-ROM provision has not yet been an issue. While JSTOR is marketed as an alternative to retaining print archives,20 many libraries are retaining print copies of journals for fear that they may have to cancel their JSTOR subscription in the future and thus lose access to the online archive.21 JSTOR’s own research indicates a minority of subscribers are discarding their print archives or moving them into remote storage.22 and MacAdam and Heterick credit ease of access, rather than archival issues, for the popularity of JSTOR.
OCLC Duranceau’s article analyzed the archive access available to OCLC’s Electronic Collections Online (ECO). OCLC had surveyed libraries while developing ECO and learned that archiving was the most frequently requested feature. As a result, an ECO subscription came with perpetual access rights to all of the issues purchased under the subscription.23 A University of Melbourne library evaluation of four electronic journal interfaces in 1998 and 1999 rated ECO most highly on the issue of archiving.24 Today, ECO features over 5000 journals and is available via OCLC FirstSearch.25 OCLC continues to offer archival access, provided the subscriber continues to purchase at least one FirstSearch title.26
Blackwell Blackwell’s Electronic Journal Navigator (EJN) also offered continued access in 1998, although it did not guarantee this access.27 EJN is no longer in existence, and Blackwell’s subscription agency was sold to Swets in 2000. However, Blackwell continues to offer online access to approximately 800 Blackwell publishing
201
Jennifer Watson
Serials Review
journals through its Web site, Blackwell Synergy. A premium subscription to these titles guarantees continuing access to subscribed years, even if the subscription is cancelled;28 standard access, which comes with all institutional print subscriptions, does not come with this guarantee.29 Swets replaced EJN with SwetsWise Online Content, which also offers continued access if permitted by the publisher. The former subscriber is still charged fees for accessing the Online Content interface.30
LOCKSS was officially launched in April 2004 and currently has about eighty libraries collecting data39 from seventy-seven titles.40 The youth and uniqueness of the program have led to some frustration that publishers are less than willing to cooperate with LOCKSS participants.41
License Agreements Addressing the Archival Issue One organization helping libraries to ensure that adequate archival access is guaranteed in license agreements is the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), which supports higher and further education institutions across the United Kingdom (UK), especially in regard to the use of technology.42 JISC created a model license for use by UK institutions, adding clauses in 1999 guaranteeing continued access via either the Internet or another means acceptable to the institution.43 By February 2003, JISC’s National Electronic Site Licensing Initiative (NESLI) Model Licence was widely used as the basis for license negotiation by UK academic institutions.44 The current Model NESLi2 Licence requires the publisher to provide continued access to the licensee without charge, in the event that the license is terminated.45 The Canadian National Site Licensing Project (CNSLP) also includes archival access as part of its model license but requires former subscribers to pay a fee to the publisher for continued access.46 Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s sample license also includes language relating to archival access. It states that the institution can request a copy of the licensed materials and that the licensee can have perpetual access to the content in a format equivalent to that available during the period of the agreement.47 The University of California’s (UC) standard license contains similar wording.48 UC’s policy regarding electronic journals is to obtain a print copy for archival purposes.49 The University of Washington Libraries’ policy is that permanent access to licensed information should be granted by the license agreement; however, this is a preference and not a requirement.50 The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), which represents over 5000 libraries worldwide,51 states that consortia or libraries should have perpetual access to licensed content, either through the provider’s Web site or through the provision of data files, and that the subscriber should be permitted to make back-up copies of the content.52
Project MUSE In 1998, John Hopkins University Press’s policy was to offer a CD-ROM archival disk to Project MUSE customers. The CD-ROM was provided annually to subscribers during their subscription period.31 This provision continues in much the same manner to this day, except that the material is now provided, on request, on a DVD-ROM instead of a CD-ROM. Libraries can also download and save content onto a local server and use this saved content after a subscription is cancelled.32
HighWire Press In 1998, Stanford University’s HighWire Press was not offering perpetual access for the forty-nine journals it hosted at the time. The reason given was that technology was not sufficiently advanced. In particular, they felt that hypertext links, video, and audio could not be adequately represented in archival formats such as print, microform, and CD-ROM. However, as an alternative to offering archival access, HighWire was encouraging the publishers using its service to make their content freely available after one or two years.33 Today HighWire Press hosts 852 journals. Of these, 197 offer free back issues and 30 offer entirely free content.34 As in 1998, HighWire must work with its publishing partners in creating an archive policy, as it does not own the journals offered on its Web site. HighWire also promotes the use of LOCKSS, another Stanford University venture.35
LOCKSS The LOCKSS model requires an institution to cache its e-journal content. This content can then be made available at a later date to the institution or to another institution that has the right to view the content.36 The system is promoted as continuing libraries’ role in the print world of preserving multiple, distributed copies of journal titles.37 However, it also provides the function of preserving an individual library’s access to e-journal issues after the subscription has been cancelled.38 While local solutions are often disfavored by librarians as being cumbersome to manage and difficult to use, in a telephone conversation with the author on April 27, 2005, Vicky Reich, director of the LOCKSS program, explained that LOCKSS system was easy to administer and the content as usable as in its original format.
Surveys Addressing the Archiving Issue In February 2001, a survey of twelve Boston Library Consortium (BLC) libraries found that archival access was not a significant consideration when deciding on ejournal subscriptions. The survey ranked libraries’ reasons for subscribing to five e-journal packages— Academic Press’s Academic IDEAL (International Digital Electronic Access Library), Blackwell Synergy, Elsevier’s ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Wiley InterScience—and found that archival access was
202
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
ranked only fourth or fifth in importance out of ten factors. More important issues were price, content, faculty demand, and additional access to nonsubscribed titles. Archival access as a reason for not subscribing to a package provoked more mixed responses, being second in importance for Academic IDEAL, but only ranked seventh for SpringerLink, Wiley InterScience, and Blackwell Synergy. The low importance placed on archiving may be partly due to the fact that only 10 % of surveyed libraries cancelled print subscriptions in order to purchase the e-journal packages being reviewed by the survey.53 If the libraries surveyed had continuing print access to the titles being purchased electronically, this might give them less incentive to push for archival access to the content. In the fall of 2003, a JISC survey of nineteen higher and further education institutions in the UK54 found that many institutions were purchasing journals in purely electronic format due to convenient access for patrons, lack of space for print storage, access to a greater number of titles, and meeting patron demand. Only one institution required archival access; the rest did not due to ba combination of pragmatism and pressure.Q Those surveyed felt that archiving clauses in license agreements were too vague to be useful, archives were offered in a problematic format (such as CDROMs), publishers could not be trusted to deliver on the promise of archival access, or that publishers frequently went out of business, rendering any archival clauses useless. Some institutions just did not have the time to negotiate archival access. Pressure came from patrons demanding more electronic resources. Patron demand for online content was highlighted in another UK survey. The University of York found, in a March 2004 survey of its patrons, that 207 patrons favored electronic journals, while only thirty-five requested retention of the print. The perpetual access issue was not among reasons given for print retention.55 The Association of Research Libraries reported that 86 percent of respondents to a survey conducted in the summer of 2003 required particular clauses to be present in a license before they would sign. However, only 15 % of these libraries required a clause giving them perpetual access to purchased content. Legal issues of concern to the institution as a whole (governing law and venue and indemnifications) were by far the top priorities.56 A January 2004 survey of thirty-one libraries, predominantly in the UK, found that institutions often signed agreements that included archival access of unknown or inadequate format. Shrinking budgets often forced libraries to cancel print subscriptions in order to pay for electronic, despite the precarious archive situation. Some respondents planned to rely on interlibrary loan if archives were lost in the future. Lack of time and staffing precluded librarians from negotiating license agreements as intensively as they would have liked. In some cases, archival access was not seen as necessary because the titles were considered bso important that we can’t envisage ever canceling them.Q57
An informal survey of subscribers to the LIS-EJOURNALS, SERIALST, ERIL-L, and LIBLICENSE-L mailing lists in April 2005 produced surprisingly similar results to the January 2004 survey, even though the later survey’s respondents were primarily located in the United States.58 The responses suggested that archival access was a concern, but such access was not having a major influence on which products were subscribed to or how licenses were negotiated. Many of the twentytwo respondents had not cancelled enough e-journals to experience the effects of loss or retention of archival access. Archival access was not a worry for core titles, as these would never be cancelled, or for peripheral titles. Donna Perzeski of the Ohio Collection of Podiatric Medicine Medical Library comments: bThe journals that we only access electronically are expendable.Q59 Other issues were often considered more important in license negotiations, such as off-campus access and pricing. Some librarians did not trust e-journal providers to continue archival access, even if it were guaranteed in a license agreement. Many libraries continue their print subscriptions fearing lack of archival access online or, in some countries, high taxes on online-only subscriptions. Even when vendors do promise archival access, they cannot guarantee continued access when a journal changes publisher or a publisher changes its relationship with a third-party vendor. Very few libraries had used CD-ROMs for archival access, and some respondents said they would not want the extra work associated with locally loaded archives. Best archival access seemed to be available when libraries purchased e-journals through a consortium or through a national standard license. For example, HEAL-Link, a consortium of Greek academic institutions, requires archival access to e-journals, plus a print copy that is held at a central location.60 Meanwhile, individual libraries, especially smaller libraries, found that the time and possible additional cost involved in negotiating archival access into an agreement did not warrant the effort: bMany of us are just trying to get by.Q61 There was a disincentive to focus on archival issues when patrons were concerned mainly with access to current issues from as many titles as possible. In fact, patrons were sometimes confused when a library had only archival, but not current, access to a title.62 Librarians at smaller libraries may feel that archival issues are best left to other libraries. Danielle Hoggan states: bWe are a small library and cannot worry about that.Q63
Conclusion Libraries are increasingly dropping print subscriptions in favor of online but without guarantees regarding archival access. These libraries risk losing access to content for which they have paid, if they need to cancel the journal due to budget constraints. Literature on archival access has tended to focus on the broader issue of preserving digital content for the scholarly community as a whole rather than permanent access to paid-for content by individual libraries.
203
Jennifer Watson
Serials Review
8. Morris, bArchiving Electronic Publications,Q http://www.alpsp. org/arcsm00.pdf.
Vendors’ archival policies are surprisingly similar to those outlined in Duranceau’s 1998 article. While model license agreements, such as NESLi2 and those drafted by large American universities, do address the archival issue, recent surveys show that archival access is rarely the top priority in selecting ejournals. Patrons want access to current issues of as many journals as possible and budgets are tight, so price tends to be the determining factor. Many libraries are continuing their print subscriptions and thus place less value on archival access to online titles. Individual institutions often do not have the time or the staff to negotiate perpetual access, in an appropriate format, into their license agreements. Consortia presumably have more staff time to devote to this and have had more success in obtaining archival rights. Librarians continue to have an interest in and concern with the archival issue, but so far this interest has had little impact on selection or licensing policy. With pressure from patrons for current access to electronic journals and tight budgets, many librarians have taken the plunge into electronic-only subscriptions, despite their reservations regarding future access. Many libraries have been able to hold onto a significant portion of their print subscriptions and have not needed to cancel many e-journals. However, with continuing increases in subscription costs and flat budgets, loss of archival access seems inevitable. With access to previously subscribed titles suddenly cut off, libraries will come under fire for failing to safeguard the existing online collection. To prevent this scenario, librarians must reprioritize time and funds to ensure that future subscriptions include the needed guarantees regarding perpetual access.
9. Timothy D. Jewell, bSelection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources: Issues and Practices,Q (Washington, DC: Digital Libraries Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001), 29. 10. Linda Cantara, bArchiving Electronic Journals: Research Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation,Q http://www.diglib.org/ preserve/ejp.htm (accessed April 16, 2005). 11. Ramune K. Kubilius and Linda J. Walton, bSeize the E-Journal: Models for Archives Symposium: Report,Q Journal of the Medical Library Association 93 (January 2005): 126 – 129. 12. bPubMed Central Journals—Full List,Q http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/front-page/fp.fcgi?cmd=full_view (accessed April 4, 2005). 13. bNIH Calls on Scientists to Speed Public Release of Research Publications: Online Archives Will Make Articles Accessible to the Public,Q http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/od-03.htm (accessed April 4, 2005). 14. Terrio, bElectronic Metaphors,Q pp. 28–35. 15. Tim Martin, e-mail message to author, April 7, 2005. 16.
bPrograms with Times and Full Descriptions-NASIG 2005 Conference,Q http://www.nasig.org/conference/program_guide. htm (accessed April 29, 2005).
17. Victoria Peters, e-mail message to author, April 6, 2005. 18.
bJSTOR: The Moving Wall,Q http://www.jstor.org/about/ movingwall.html (accessed April 4, 2005).
19. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115. 20.
bJSTOR Archiving Practices,Q http://www.jstor.org/about/ archive.html (accessed April 13, 2005).
21. Nicholas Lewis, bdAre We Burning Our Boats?T Survey on Moving to Electronic-only,Q http://www.uea.ac.uk/~l002/eonlysurvey. html (accessed April 13, 2005). 22. bJSTOR: Bound Volume Survey Results,Q http://www.jstor.org/ about/bvs2003.html (accessed April 30, 2005).
Notes
23. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
1. Sally Morris, bArchiving Electronic Publications: What Are the Problems and Who Should Solve Them?Q http://www.alpsp.org/ arcsm00.pdf (accessed April 17, 2005).
24. Tony Arthur and Shirley Sullivan, bComparing Interfaces for Electronic Journal Delivery,Q http://www.vala.org.au/vala2000/ 2000pdf/Art_Sul.PDF (accessed April 6, 2005).
2.
Robert Terrio, bElectronic Metaphors and Paper Realities,Q Progressive Librarian 21 (Winter 2003): 28 – 35.
3.
Richard E. Quandt, bScholarly Materials: Paper or Digital?Q Library Trends 51 (Winter 2003): 349 – 375.
25. bOCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO),Q http://www.oclc. org/support/documentation/firstsearch/databases/dbdetails/ details/ECO.htm (accessed April 5, 2005). 26. Tim Martin, e-mail message to author, April 25, 2005.
4. David J. Soloman, bIs It Time to Take the Paper Out of Serial Publication?Q Medical Education Online 4 (1999), http:// www.msu.edu/~dsolomon//f0000016.pdf (accessed April 16, 2005). 5.
27. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115. 28. Emily Gillingham, e-mail message to author, April 7, 2005. 29.
Ann Shumelda Okerson, bBuy or Lease? Two Models for Scholarly Information at the End (or the Beginning) of an Era,Q Daedalus 125 (Fall 1996): 55 – 76.
30. Jeff Aipperspach, e-mail message to author, April 14, 2005. 31. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
6. Ellen Finnie Duranceau, bArchiving and Perpetual Access for Webbased Journals: A Look at the Issues and How Five E-journal Providers Are Addressing Them,Q Serials Review 24 (Summer 1998): 110 – 115. 7.
bOnline Information,Q http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ cservices/journal_online.asp?site=1 (accessed April 11, 2005).
32. bProject MUSE-Archiving and Preservation,Q http://muse.jhu.edu/ about/muse/archiving.html (accessed April 7, 2005). 33. Duranceau, bArchiving,Q pp. 110–115.
ACRL/STS Subject and Bibliographic Access Committee, bElectronic Publishing of Scholarly Journals: a Bibliographic Essay of Current Issues,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Spring 1999), http://www.istl.org/99-spring/article4.html (accessed April 16, 2005).
34. bHighWire Press,Q http://highwire.stanford.edu/ (accessed April 7, 2005). 35. bHighWire Press—Content Archiving,Q http://highwire.stanford. edu/institutions/archiving.dtl (accessed April 7, 2005).
204
Volume 31, Number 3, 2005
36.
You Get What You Pay for? Archival Access to Electronic Journals
Agreement,Q http://www.cdlib.org/vendors/checklist.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
Victoria A. Reich, bLots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe as a Cooperative Archiving Solution for E-Journals,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 36 (Fall 2002), http://www.istl. org/02-fall/article1.html (accessed April 4, 2005).
50.
37. bFor Librarians,Q http://lockss.stanford.edu/librarians/librarians. htm (accessed April 4, 2005). 38. Vicky Reich, e-mail message to author, April 18, 2005.
51. International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), bPress Release for Immediate Distribution—March 25, 1998,Q http:// www.library.yale.edu/consortia/icolcpr.htm (accessed April 17, 2005).
39. bPreserve Your Ejournals with LOCKSS: Victoria Reich Explains How You Can Preserve Ejournals for Generations of Users,Q Access, Asia’s Newspaper on Electronic Information Products and Services (December 2004), http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/ number51/othernews.cfm?othernews=01 (accessed April 11, 2005).
52. International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), bStatement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and Purchase of Electronic Information,Q http://www.library.yale.edu/ consortia/statement.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
40. bLOCKSS: A Persistent Access Preservation Program: Answers for Library Directors,Q http://lockss.stanford.edu/librarians/ DirectorHandout.pdf (accessed April 18, 2005).
53.
41. Jennifer Watson, e-mail to SERIALST mailing list, April 29, 2005. 42.
bJISC—The Joint Information Systems Committee,Q http:// www.jisc.ac.uk/ (accessed April 16, 2005).
55. University of York Information Committee, Library Committee, bElectronic Only Access to Journals Trial: Final Report, January 2005,Q http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/libdocs/ e-journalfinalreport0502.pdf (accessed April 29, 2005).
44. bReport on the JISC E-journals Licensing and Archiving Workshop Held on 17 February 2003,Q http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index. cfm?name=pres_ejournals_report (accessed April 16, 2005).
56.
45. b[Product] Licence (Based on the NESLi2, NESLI and PA/JISC Model Licences for Journals),Q http://www.nesli2.ac.uk/NESLi2_licence_journals_final011003.htm (accessed April 16, 2005).
47.
48.
Jonathan Nabe, bE-Journal Bundling and Its Impact on Academic Libraries: Some Early Results,Q Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Spring 2001). http://www.istl. org/01-spring/article3.html (accessed April 16, 2005).
54. Maggie Jones, bArchiving E-Journals Consultancy—Final Report: Report Commissioned by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), October 2003,Q http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded _documents/ejournalsfinal.pdf (accessed March 24, 2005).
43. Maggie Jones, bJISC Consultancy on Archiving of Licensed Ejournals,Q D-Lib Magazine (December 2002), http://www. dlib.org/dlib/december02/12inbrief.html#JONES (accessed April 16, 2005).
46.
University of Washington Libraries Information Resources Council, bTask Force on Electronic Information Acquisition and Licensing: Draft Principles, Guidelines and Checklists,Q http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/IRC/comm-taskforces/tf _ licensing_checklists.html (accessed April 17, 2005).
Mary M. Case, bA Snapshot in Time: ARL Libraries and Electronic Journal Resources,Q ARL 235 (August 2004): 1 – 10.
57. Lewis, bAre We Burning Our Boats?Q http://www.uea.ac.uk/ ~l002/eonlysurvey.html.
bCanadian National Site Licensing Project (CNSLP); Projet Canadien de Licences de Site Nationales (PCLSN) License Agreement,Q http://researchknowledge.ca/pr/achievements/ CNSLP-License-12Feb01.pdf (accessed May 1, 2005).
58. Jennifer Watson, e-mail to SERIALST mailing list, April 29, 2005. 59. Donna M. Perzeski, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005. 60. Claudine Xenidou-Dervos, e-mail message to author, April 20, 2005.
bMIT License Agreement for Electronic Resources,Q http:// macfadden.mit.edu:9500/colserv/digital/licensing/MITSLA.doc (accessed April 17, 2005).
61. Michael Linksay, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005. 62. Melvin R. Morbey, e-mail message to author, April 19, 2005.
bStandard License Agreement,Q http://www.cdlib.org/vendors/ CDLModelLicense.rtf (accessed April 17, 2005).
63. Danielle Bodrero Hoggan, e-mail message to author, April 18, 2005.
49. bCDL: Checklist of Points to be Addressed in a CDL License
205