- Email: [email protected]
Relying on the kindness of strangers: Archiving electronic journals on gopher
RELYINGONTHEXINDNESS
ALONG
OF STRANGERS:
ELE~TRO~C JOURNALSON GOPHER Donnice Cochenour and Tom Moothart with a sidebar by Gopher and Archie Review Panel, MIT Libraries
Introduction The anticipated and much acclaimed era of the virtual library is approaching reality as the Internet traffic increases at an estimated 20 percent to 25 percent each month. l Much has been written about this new environment’s potential to solve some of libraries’ budget problems: high serials costs, space, access, preservation. An assumption buried at the pit of this discussion is that someone, somewhere will assume the responsibility for preserving, or “archiving,” electronic publications. The critical question of who should fill this role has barely been broached. Libraries have traditionally served this role and they should continue to do so for electronic publications with the same intensity of purpose that has been applied to collecting printed materials in the past.’ Background
Cochenour is serials librarian and Moo&art is science reference librarian, Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, Colorado. Acknowledgment: “Relying on the Kindness of Strangers” the authors wish to acknowledge Howard Pastemack, Brown U~versity, for first applying the phrase to the archiving of electronic journals in a discussion on the electronic discussion group, VPIEJ-L, on 12 January 1994. - RELYXNG ON TEE KXNONESS OF
STRANGERS -
Electronic journals,’ distinguished from their paper counterparts primarily in terms of how they are distribute, are begi~ing to reach a critical mass. The fourth edition of Director of Etectronic ~o~r~~ts, Newsletters, and Discussion Lists4 cites over 400 journals and newsletters with topics ranging from disaster research to chronic fatigue syndrome. CICNet’s Electronic Journal Collection contains over 600 titles.s New electronic publications are announced over the Internet weekly. Some publishers are eliminating paper-bask distribution and providing only electronic versions of their journals.6 Others are makiig electronic versions of their subscription-based paper journals available freely over the Internet with the expectation SPRING1995 67
SIDEBAR:ACCESS GUIDELINESFOR INTERNETRESOURCES Gopher and Archie Review Panel, MIT Libraries MlT Libraries is committed to providing electronic access to e-journals and full-text electronic documents. As announcements of new e-journals become commonplace on the Internet, it is increasingly evident that we must make decisions regarding methods of providing access to these large bodies of text. Sizeable collections of materials result in costs to the library, whether in electronic or print form. In addition to the cost of digital space (disks,diskpacs, and so on) there is the cost of personnel time involved in acquiring and providing access to electronic materials. However, the gopher and other client/server software provide the possibility of sharing collections without duplicating the costs associated with acquisition and storage of large amounts of text by simply “pointing to” materials collected elsewhere on the Internet. We have found, however, that in some cases it is preferable to collect a journal at MIT, even though it is available elsewhere on the Net. The following criteria are proposed as guidelines in deciding whether to provide access through local or remote electronic collections. Subject specialists are responsible for selection decisions in both print and electronic media. Consequently, these guidelines address the issue of local or remote access, and not the issue of content evaluation. I. Authority and Reliability of Collection and Site If a journal or document set is available in its entirety at a remote reliable location on the Internet, it is a candidate for remote access. The collection should be complete, containing authoritative versions or editions of the material. The site must be physically reliable, well maintained, and accessible day and night. Examples of stable and reliable archives are those administered by universities that have demonstrated a commitment to electronic projects. II. Display Quality
and title information in lieu of or in addition to tile name arrangements. III. Full-Text Searching One reason the gopher server was selected for providing access to electronic journals at MIT is that it is possible to provide WAIS indexing in conjunction with the gopher for materials stored in our files. This automatic indexing capability allows us to provide full-text searching of journals and documents using Boolean operators and keyword strings. Not all electronic collections provide this capability. If an indexed version of the journal or text is not available, we suggest acquisition of the files in order to provide indexing for our patrons. MIT has an opportunity to make a contribution to the Internet community by indexing existing sources. IV. Commitment to MIT Publications If a publication is produced by MIT we have an obligation to archive it as well as make it accessible to our patrons. This would especially apply to materials that are not adequately archived elsewhere at MIT. In some cases we may act as a second archive, but in other cases MITosis may be the sole repository. V. Agreements with Publishers As publishers begin to charge for subscriptions to ejournals, different types of subscription agreements are being worked out between publishers and libraries. Subscription agreements frequently restrict access. Registration and passwords may be required. In some cases our agreement with publishers may require us to store e-journals locally or provide a backup archive. Gopher and Archie Review Panel members are as follows:
If a journal or document set is available over the Internet in a display format that can be easily understood and used, it is a candidate for remote access. However, if the display is not intuitive or easy to follow, then we suggest acquisition of the materials in order to redisplay them in a more user-friendly fashion. This may entail the rearrangement of files, the renaming of menu items, or the extraction of components within a file to add information to a display. For example, displays should include author
Lippert is chair, GARP, and associate head for information services, Engineering and Science Libraries; Geffer was serials cataloger at MIT when this article was written. She is currently Internet product specialist, Readmore Automation, Belmont, Massachusetts; Munoff is collection manager, Humanities Library; Morgan is subject specialist in economics, and Snowden is systems training and documentation specialist, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
that electronic access won’t adversely affect the subscription base.’ Martin J. Dillon, director of the Office of Research at OCLC, predicted that electronic journals may account for 20 percent of all academic
journals by the year 2000.* The majority of currently available electronic journals are free of charge by electronic subscription or by retrieving the files using FTP (File Transfer
68
SERIALS REVIEW
- DONNICECOCHENOURAND TOM MOOTHART-
Protocol). Until recently, a familiarity with Unix software commands and a knowledge of where the files resided on the Internet was necessary to access the journals, but a software program called Gopher’ has created a means to both make files available locally and to “point” to files held elsewhere. Many libraries are now using this software to make electronic journals accessible on their campuses and over the Internet. The Gopher software was cited as one of the most significant developments in network-based electronic serials during 1992.” Gopher software provides a client/server architecture whereby files are loaded onto a Gopher server. Gopher client software, available for a variety of computer operating systems, can access the files. A hierarchical menu arrangement permits the user to browse for information without having to be concerned with such things as terminal emulation or Unix commands. The client software provides a simple mechanism for the user to read, download, e-mail, or print the file locally. Retrieval of the files (or journal articles) is quite transparent even if the Gopher server is pointing to files held at another institution. Many libraries are using the powerful pointing features of Gopher to provide access to electronic journals without do~oading files and maintaining local archives. This treatment represents a major philosophical shift for libraries that borders on an abdication of their primary mission. Eketronic Journals on Gopher: Current Practice On 10 January 1994, the authors posted an e-mail message containing five questions to two LISTSERV discussiongroups;” the purpose was to gather information regarding electronic document access utilizing the Gopher software (see figure 1). The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine whether libraries were downloading the electronic journal files or if they were only using Gopher to point to other remote archives for access to these files. After one month, 14 academic libraries had responded to the qu~tionnaire. In an effort to increase the responses, the same message was posted to the PACS-L12 discussion group and was re-posted to both of the original discussion groups. Six additional responses were received, two from consortiums and four from academic libraries. Although the number of responses was not overwhelming, the consensus of the responses was. Except for publications originating locally or where the official archives were maintained for a publication, nearly all libraries were pointing to remote Gopher files to provide access to electronic journals and newsletters for their patrons. One consortium stated that they were pointing to the CICNet - RELYING
ON TEE KllVDNESS OF f+lRANGERS
-
collection and a CICNet library commented that as soon as the CICNet electronic journal files were stable, they would cease mainten~ce of local files. Only four other libraries were subscribing to a select list of journals, downloading files, and manipulating them for local access. Even these sites considered their efforts to be experimental. For example, one respondent said in some cases her library was dow~oading issues locally. However, since that requires periodic updating, until a maintenance group could be identified they were reluctant to download more than a few titles. Pointing to other Gopher sites was their primary means of providing access. Two sites commented that the quality of menus and file structures available on other Gopher servers would influence their decision to maintain local files and that electronic journals that had subscription fees would be downloaded and maintained locally per agreements with the publishers. Based on these responses and other efforts to examine Gopher sites across the Internet, the authors feel comfo~able concluding that few libraries are currently maintaining local files for electronic publications. Like many other libraries, in 1992 the Libraries at Colorado State University began to experiment with the various technical issues involved with providing access to electronic resources using Gopher. Subscriptions were established for four electronic journals. The files associated with these titles were downloaded, stored locally, and Gopher menus created. Pointers were created for two additional titles to test remote access for our users. The problems of subscription setup, file m~ipulation, menu creation, and OPAC records were all eventually solved. Providing patron access over the campuswide computer system was arranged with the assistance of the library’s computer technicians and the campus computer center. The question that continue to perplex is whether it is appropriate to rely on access to remote files or if the library should maintain local files for all electronic publications deemed appropriate for the collection. Reliance on Remote Files As was discussed in the introduction and demonstrated by the survey, one advantage of using Gopher as a campuswide information system is that files do not have to be stored locally. A pointer can be created to provide transparent access to files on another Gopher server. Some authors feel that libraries that choose to point to other Gopher sites’ files are using the full potential of client/server sotiware.13 For example, if a library wanted to provide access to Psycoloquy, a search using the Gopher finding aid, Veronica, would identify several locations that hold the journal. Once the location is determined, it is a relatively simple SPRING1995
69
PLEASE disregard this message if you are not using GOPHER to store and access electronic journals __ I am interested in determining how libraries who use the GOPHER software are choosing to make electronic journals available to their patrons. My primary question is whether the local library is downloading the files to a local computer or if they are only using GOPHER to point to another remote archive for these files. If you could take a few minutes to answer the following 5 questions, I would appreciate your assistance. [Note: These questions have been cross-posted to VPIFJ-L and SERIALST.] ************************************************~~*~**~*~~**~ 1) How many electronic journal titles (menu choices) do you have on your GOPHER server? # of titles/menu choices 2) How many electronic journal titles do you have stored on your local (institution or library) computer? # of titles stored locally 3) What is the name of your institution? 4) Please give the address and menu path to your electronic journals on your GOPHER server. 5) If I have other questions about your GOPHER server and electronic journals, who can I contact?
Figure 1: Authors’ e-mail message used to gather information from others who were experimenting with the Gopher Software for access to electronic documents.
matter to create a pointer from the local Gopher server to access the remote files. For example, the user sees the Gopher menu as shown in figure 2. To create the menu item for Psycoloquyand provide remote access to the title all that is required is to provide the five items shown in figure 3. As the survey shows, it isn’t too difficult to imagine a Gopher server that has loaded no local files.” Neither is it difficult to imagine a Gopher server that points to another server that doesn’t own the file either but is merefy pointing to a third server. With Gopher it is not necessary or even common practice to ask permission before pointing to another Gopher server’s files, nor is it possible for a site to determine who is pointing to its Gopher server. In the example of providing access to Psycoloquy, if Princeton modifies the structure of the menu hierarchy or files are placed in a different section of the menu, access to the title at the “pointing” site will no longer be possible. If the Gopher server is down or the archiving site decides to restrict access to on-campus users, remote access to the title can be lost altogether.” Spending a short 70
SERIALS REVIEW
time burrowing through Gopher quickly illustrates the problem of “down servers” and “lost pointers.” A secondary consequence of pointing to other Gopher servers’ files is the loss of control over menu structure and format. Consistency of screen design across electronic journals cannot be achieved since the menus for each title are created by a different administrator. Some menus are created with a sense of aesthetics while others appear in the more stilted computer ale-n~ing protocols. A look at titles from various sites will illustrate the problem. Some menus list only the author’s last name, while others provide a more descriptive menu including the article titles. A third consequence of pointing to another server is the growth that the Internet has experienced. At one time the Internet was a system used predominately by government and academic instimtions. With private businesses and public schools connecting to the Internet, and easy-to-use software like Gopher, traffic has become heavy. Response time is noticeably slower and it is difficult to get into some systems such as the Veronica servers. The CICNet Gopher, the most pop-
Internet
Gopher
Information
Electronic
Client
~1.11
Journals
1. Academe This Week--including “Chronicle" Job Ads/ 2. E-Journal/ 3. Electronic Journal of Communications/Revue/ 4. Electronic Journal of Differential Equations/ 5. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal/ 6. Journal of Extension/ 7. Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research/ 8. Journal of Statistics Education/ 9. Journal of World Anthropology/ 10. New Horizons in Adult Education/ 11. Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues/ 12. Postmodern Culture/ -->13. Psycoloquy/ 14. Public Access Computer Systems Review/
Press
? for Help,
Figure
q to Quit,
2. Local
u to go up a menu
Gopher
menu
of electronic
Page:
l/2
journals.
Name=Psycoloquy Type=1 Port=70 Path=ftp:princeton.edu@/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/ Host=gopher.princeton.edu
Figure
3. Data
necessary
ular electronic journal archive, estimates that its Gopher receives a request every ten seconds, 24 hours a day.16 The Gopher software determines a server is down if it has not responded within a predetermined amount of time. With the current traffic on Internet, it is possible that what appears to be a “down server” may just be a server that has not responded within the time limit.” While an archive maintained at a single site simplism the process of providing access in the shortterm, there are serious long-term risks. The print distribution model has the advantage of being highly distributed and highly robust. Once a printed work is acquired by libraries it is unlikely that all copies will be either lost or altered. The lack of redundancy in the single archive approach does not offer this protection. To quote Lynch, “a reasonable number of independently controlled archive sites for certain material are necessary to provide ~on~dence in the continue integrity and accessibility of our scholarly, historical, and cultural record.“‘* Perhaps the electronic equivalent of the burning of the Alexandria library is a computer virus or hacker’s vandalism.
to point
to a remote
server.
Creating Local Archives The institutions that are loading electronic journals locally seem to follow similar procedures that a library would use when purchasing a print publication. These procedures have been described in several recent articles.‘g In this model a title is ordered, processed upon receipt, and placed on the file server to provide patron access. Creating local archives can be a relatively simple matter of moving the files from the serials department’s electronic files to a local server and creating menu access through the Gopher software. But, the process is not without pitfalls. manipulation of the files is more difficult when the publication is in a format other than ASCII and increasingly publishers are choosing to use alternative formats (i.e., PostScript, LaTeX, TIFF). For example, the Electronic Journal of Diflerential Equations publishes its issues in both LaTeX and PostScript formats. It may be assumed that users of this publication, probably mathematics faculty and graduate students, will have the software to display or print readable copy from these files. The Journal of the SPRING 1995
71
InternationalAcademy of HospitalityResearch has published an issue in ASCII with the accompanying figures in PostScript format. The authors question whether the majority of users of this title will have the software and equipment available to display and print PostScript files. The original Gopher was designed to handle ASCII documents. Gopher+ was developed to display a variety of file formats in addition to ASCII using viewer software. Some Gopher + clients allow the user to define and invoke the necessary viewer program without leaving the Gopher software. Each file format or “view” requires different viewer software that must be accessible to the client software. For example, if a user retrieves a graphics file formatted in GIF, the Gopher+ client will utilize the viewer software and display the file if the user has installed a viewer program for GIF. In the past if the library purchased publications in an alternative format such as microfilm or CD-ROM, it was assumed that the equipment necessary to read them would also be provided. It is appropriate to assume that libraries will provide the viewer software to display non-ASCII formats on the equipment housed within the library. However, viewer programs may be limited to the formats of documents specifically chosen to be included on the local Gopher menus. The library won’t be able to provide viewer software and the technical expertise to set up client software if the user is working on a computer in his or her office or home. If the user is accessing the Gopher system through the “curses” client provided by the server, the display is limited to ASCII. In order to avoid these problems the Gopher administrator may be forced to “undesktop publish” documents whose appearances were carefully crafted using these alternative text formats.” At what point is the message lost when the appearance is changed? With graphics or sound files this process borders on the ridiculous. To address the need to handle files in other than ASCII format, some institutions are moving from Gopher clients to a new software, NCSA Mosaic, developed by the Software Development Group at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. “As a distributed hypermedia browser designed for information discovery and retrieval, NCSA Mosaic provides a unified interface to the diverse protocols, data formats, and information archives used on the Internet. n21Mosaic allows the user to “retrieve information from Gopher, WAIS, and anonymous FTP servers without moving to a different application for each one. n2L “The Gopher software may be superseded, albeit slowly, by Mosaic and similar applications.“Z However, because Mosaic requires a graphical user interface (GUI), it is likely that Gopher will continue 72
SERIALS REVIEW
to be used to support earlier generations of machines and operating systems for some time. In addition, many of the specialized software programs needed to view non-ASCII files must be installed in the Mosaic software. It appears that libraries will continually have to deal with the problem of software updates and obsolescence until the development of standards in the area of electronic text and images ameliorate this situation.= Consortia1 Archives An alternative to loading files locally is to create a consortium that will share the downloading, cataloging, and maintenance of the electronic journal files. CICNet has done exactly this. CICNet’s original proposal says, “It is clear that we cannot depend on producers of these electronic forums to maintain full archives of the title, anymore than we have been able to count on print publishers to maintain a historical archive of their works. “ZJCICNet provides a central storage of free electronic journals and newsletters for its member libraries. Unfortunately, CICNet staff have a massive task of collecting, cataloging, and providing access to these electronic publications. The work of updating the files for each title should not be underestimated. In a recent discussion on one of the LISTSERVs, several sites were criticized for not keeping titles up-to-date.26 One must assume that the reason so many libraries are pointing to the CICNet Gopher is because of the time and resources required to maintain a local collection of electronic journals. However, a consortium such as CICNet is not obligated to provide access to other Gopher servers outside the consortium. In their report CICNet found that “a significant portion of current usage is from users outside of the CIC.“” Because of the traffic on the server, CICNet may decide to eliminate access to non-CIC sitesF8 Libraries should not depend on the charity of a few sites such as CICNet to provide universal access to these publications. Publisher-based Archives It has been suggested by Charles Bailey, publisher of PACS-L Review, and other electronic journal publishers, that publishers create a master archive for all Gopher servers to point to rather than libraries creating local archives.2g The majority of electronic journals are currently produced by not-for-profit organizations, which means the permanent archives will be affected by both the direction of the organization and the whim of the publisher. As publishers, and perhaps the supporting organization, change, there must be a commitment somewhere to maintain complete -
DONNICEC~~HENOUR AND TOM MOOTHART-
archives. Permanent archives will also be a problem in the future for publications from smaller scholarly societies and professional org~~ations where the editorship and publishing responsibilities seem to be passed around regularly. As commercial publishers begin producing electronic journals the creation and maintenance of publisher archives becomes less certain. In the past, commercial publishers have shown little interest in maintaining print archives, much less electronic archives.= If commercial document delivery interests assume this role, there will be a strong impetus to keep the lucrative articles online while others are pulled off to tape vaults or discarded.3’ Cooperative Archives by Scholarly Organizations An alternative to publisher-created and maintained archives is beginning to emerge. The first of these was the Scholarly Co~~~tio~ Project, which combined traditional library roles with electronic publishing. The Scholarly Communications Project was established in 1989 by the University Libraries at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University with the mission statement “to pioneer intheelectronic communication of scholarly materials. n32Through a variety of access methods, ftp, Gopher, WASI, WoridWideWeb, and Mosaic, as of August 1994, they are publishing four full-text journals, online abstracts for a fifth journal, a full-text newspaper, and providing data sets for a print journal. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is also experimenting with digital images and video, and plans to add nine electronic journals within the next year.33 They are committed to maintaining archives of their publications online indeflnitely.34 A similar joint project of the Association of American University Presses and the Coalition for Networked Information is just beginning and will involve 13 university presses.35 Project Muse is a joint venture between the Johns Hopkins University Press, the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, and Harwood Academic Computing to provide Internet access to three journals begi~ing in February 1994, as a prototype. If funding permits, they expect to expand this effort to offer approximately 40 titles in the future.36 Also as part of the AAUP and CNI project, MIT Press is joining forces with the MIT Libraries to provide access to their new electronic journal, Chicago Journal of l?zeoreticd Computer Science. Their press release said, “Please join in our vision of a new relationship between publishers and libraries. We have avisionthat university presses and university libraries, working together, can publish and maintain electronic scholarly journals.. . . ‘r37 The Association of Research Libraries has formed a “Working Group on Networked Resources: Acquisi-
RELYINGON TEE KINDNESSOF STRANGERS-
tions, Storage, Dissemination and Service. * Working under the ARL Scholarly Communications Committee, the group will explore in detail the topic of archiving e-journals.38 These projects are an encouraging sign that libraries will continue to be involved in their traditional mission of information access and preservation even in the electronic environment. Non-Electronic Archives Although it may seem counterintuitive, the only archival decision possible for some libraries may be to preserve these publications in a format other than online electronic files. This is an appropriate choice that some electronic publishers are providing during these traditional years. For example, backfiles of the electronicpublicationPostnaodernCuZtureareavailable from Oxford University Press in microfiche or on diskette. The first three volumes of PACS-L Review are available in book form from Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) through the American Library Association’s Publishing Services. Several other producers of electronic publications offer printed backfiles for a fee. Libraries also have the choice to print off the electronic files and bind them locally to create their own backfiles. For some libraries these choices may be the only realistic options. Copyright and Ekctronic Journals One factor that affects libraries’ freedom of choice regarding archiving is the publisher’s choice of copyright restrictions. The majority of electronic journal publishers have a broad interpretation of copyright. Most allow their publications to be freely copied onto local servers and made accessible to the entire Internet as long as the files are kept intact, credit is given to the publication, and no fees are charged for access. Two publications that differ are the Electronic Journal of Communication and MIT Press’ new publication, Chicago Journal of 7heoreticd Computer Science. Until recently, the Electronic Journal of Communicfftio~ allowed files to be copied and stored on a local server free of charge, but access was restricted to local users. Tim Stephen from the Electronic Journal of Communication found a number of sites that had his publication available to the entire Internet community in violation of copyright. Those sites have now restricted access to the journal. Beginning with volume 4, libraries whose parent institutions are not members of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship (CIOS) will have to pay a subscription fee to receive the journal. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is also a paid subscription ($125 for instituSPRING1995
73
tions). Subscribers will be allowed to download all files to a local archive; however, access must be restricted to local users. The MIT Press and MIT Libraries have established an agreement for the library to become the official archive for the journal. If the economic development of electronic publishing follows the lead of the ElectronicJournal of Communicationand the Chicago Journalof Ilheoretical~rn~~ter~~ien~e, libraries will have little choice but to download the files to a local archiveunless they want to depend upon thepublisher’s archive. Conclusion Creating local and consortium archives leads one to ask, “Do our patrons really want THESE journals and in THIS format?“39 It has been suggested that the materials published electronically are ephemeral and long-term storage is not necessary. In addition, such formats as TIFF, PostScript, and LaTeX are transitional. Software updates or discontinuations could make the archived files unreadable. However, electronic journals are an attempt to bring formal scholarship to the electronic environment.@ An article that has been accepted and published online should be stored and preserved in the same manner that traditional publications are permanently held by research institutions.41 Just as libraries must now determine whether paper publications are ephemera or scholarly and thus worthy of preserving, so must they decide which electronic publications to preserve perm~ently. Researchers have suggested to the authors that after a particular project is finished, they have no interest in maintaining files to provide long-term access for others’ study. Rather, this archival function is viewed as one of the library’s primary missions. The scholar will have been lured off to other research opportunities and won’t wish to be bothered with what is perceived to be housekeeping functions. However, it seems that many academic libraries are ignoring the innovations that have been developing on the Internet over the past two years. To quote Lynch, Rather than stepping up to the challenge of developing the network as an arena for scholarly discourse, many libraries are choosing to ignore it in favor of “traditional” missions related to print-based publications. Yet, as a percentage of budget, libraries could do a great deal with a very small investment.42
Libraries should “step up to the challenge” to providetbesame collectiondevelopment decisions they now exercise over the print literature. Criteria libraries might use to determine whether to maintain local 74
SERIALS REVIEW
archives or depend on a remote site for an electronic journal are 0 l l
0 l l
subscription fee versus free, authorized archive provided by publisher, restricted access required by publisher, quality of remote menu (structure and content), quality of remote files (files kept up-to-date), and local equipment and staff resources.
If the library’s decision is to depend upon remote archives, it is paramount that regular checks be made to verify that the pointer is still accessing the title and that the archive is being maintained (i.e., the latest issues are available). The publisher’s official archive should be the site of choice since it will have new files available as soon as they are released. Other sites will, of necessity, be slower to process and make new files available. One of the great strengths of the Internet has been the very anarchy that allows any site the opportunity to mount any file thought to be of value -- and to remove that file at will. Likewise, one of the greatest frustrations with the Internet and its vast, chaotic collection of electronic files is the lack of any filtering system, any organizations structure, and the sense that “good things are out there” but not within grasp. If libraries intend to continue to serve their vital role in organizing, providing access, and preserving the scholarly record for our society, the move into electronic publications cannot be ignored. There are a variety of models from which to choose: local archives, consortia1 archives, and in some cases remote archives. Even though this article has focused on current activities using the Gopher software, at issue is the underlying question concerning library policies. The transitional nature of supposing software will vary the details; but, whether by using Gopher, Gopher+, World Wide Web, or some other package, the information professionals need to be involved in decisions about access to and preservation of electronic information.
NOTES 1. George Landow and Paul Delany, eds., lllze Digital Word: Text-based Computing in the vanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 20.
2. Paula Kaufman, “Archiving Electronic Journals: Who’s Responsible 3.
for What,” Library Issues 11, no. 6 (July 1991):
3. For the purposes of this article, we will be referring to those publications that are electronically “produced, -
DONNICECOCHENOURAND TOM MOOTHART-
published and distributed, nationally and internationally via electronic networks such as Internet, BITNET, and Usenet” as defined in Gail McMillan, “Embracing the Electronic Journal: One Library’s Plan, * Serials Librarian 21, no. 213 (1991): 97. 4. Directory of Electronic Journal, ~~sletters Academic Discussion Lists, 4th ed. (Washington, Association of Research Libraries, 1994).
and DC:
5. Gene Wiemers and John Hankins, “CfCNet Project Builds Electronic Journal Collection,” AX: A bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions 173 (March 1994): 8. CICNet, an incorporated nonprofit organization, was founded by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation to connect academic, research, nonprofit, and commercial organizations in a seven state region. The CIC is the academic analog to the Big Ten Athletic Conference plus the University of Chicago. 6. The journal of legion will cease to be produced in paper format after the Winter 1993 issue according to an announcement in that issue, Journal of Extension 3 1 (Winter 1993): 2. To receive announcements of new issues including table of contents and abstracts send an e-mail message to ~~A~OE.E~.~.EDU with the message: ;oruseURL:gopher://joe.ext.vt.edu/l l/joe. 7. EugeneGarfield, “Commentary: Electronic Publishing Extends Reach of Scientists and of me Scientist,” The scientist 7, no. 3 (8 February 1993): 12. 8. Kim A. McDonald, “Despite Benefits, Electronic Journals Will Not Replace Print, Experts Say,” Chronicle of Higher Education 37, no. 24 (27 February 1991): A6, quoted in Linda Langschied, “The Changing Shape of the Electronic Journal,” SeriaL Review 17, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 8. 9. Rich Wiggins, “The University of Minnesota’s Internet Gopher System: A Tool for Accessing Network-based Electronic Information, ” l%e Public-Access Computer Systems Review 4, no. 2 (1993): 4-60. To retrieve this file, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVMl or ~~SERV~~~l.UH.EDU with the message: < get WIGGINS1 PRV4N2 F=MAIL> and ; oruseURL:gopher://info.lib.uh.edu:70/1l/articles/e-joumals/uhlibrary/pacsreview.
MVM.BITNET (Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum, an informal electronic forum for most aspects of serials processing in libraries, moderated by Birdie MacL.ennan). 12. Public-Access Computer [email protected].
11. The message was posted to VPI~-~VTVMl.B~TNET (adiscussionlist concerned with electronic publishing issues, especially those related to scholarly electronic journals, moderated by James Powell), and SERIALST@JV-
- RELYING ON ‘ITIE
KINDNESS
OF %R4NGERS
-
Forum
at PACS-
13. D. Scott Brandt, “Campus-wide Computing,” Academic and Library Computing 9, no. 10 (November/December 1992): 20; and Marlene Manoff, et al., “The MIT Electronic Journals Project: Reports on Patron Access and Technical Processing,” SeriaLr Review 19, no. 3 (1993): 23. 14.
Wiggins,
24.
15. Greg R. Notess, “Using Gophers to Burrow through the Internet,” Online 17, no. 3 (May 1993): 102; Jagtar Singh and Jack Meadows, “Electronic Serials for Library and Information Specialists on Internet,” Aslib Proceedings 45, no. 9 (September 1993): 236. 16. E-mail message of 15 February 1994 from Paul Southworth, Systems Research Programmer at CICNet, to Tom Moothart. 17. E-mail message of 2 1 February 1994 from Richard W. Wiggins, Gopher coordinator, Michigan State University Computer Lab, and e-mail message of 7 April 1994 from Mark P. MC&hill, Gopherspace engineer, University of Minnesota, to Tom Moothart. 18. Clifford Lynch, “Rethinking the Integrity of the Scholarly Record in the Networked Information Age,” Educom Review 29, no. 2 (March/April 1994): 39. 19. Gail M~Mill~, “Technical Processing of Electronic Journals, n Library Resources & Technical Services 36, no. 4 (October 1992): 471-472; Lawrence R. Keating, Christa Easton Reinke, and Judi A. Goodman, “Electronic Journal Subscriptions,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & theory 17 (1993): 455-463; Manoff, 29-40. 20.
Wiggins,
42.
21. Frank M. Baker, “Navigating the Network with NCSA Mosaic,” Educom Review 29, no. 1 (January/February 1994): 46. 22.
10. Michael Strangelove, *Electronic Journals and Newsletters, Introduction, * in Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsktters and Academic Discussion Lists, 3d ed. (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1993), 54.
Systems
Baker, 47.
23. Christinger Tomer, “The Limits of Gopher,” in Richard J. Smith and Jim Gerland, “Navigating the Internet: Let’s Go Gopherin ’ , ” an e-mail, distance education course offered over the Internet during October/November 1993, and available on Gopher at U~goph~//c~s.~.~u: 7O/Other_Gophers_and_Information_Resources, and select “Gopher (free course)/Lesson 25.”
SPRING1995 75
24.
Kaufman,
3.
CIC 25. “Revised Proposal to Develop a Centralized Archive of Electronic Journals and Archives,” CICNet, November 1992, as posted to the Internet, and quoted in Singh and Meadows, 236. 26. See archive files of VPIEJ-L, 12-14 January 1994 with subject line: Gopher archives for electronic journals. For complete listing of all access points for VPIEJ-L see Linda Langschied, “Electronic Journal Forum: VPIEJ-L: An Online Discussion Group for Electronic Journal Publishing Concerns,” Serials Review 20, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 89-94, 80; or use URL:gopher://borg.lib.vt.edu:5070/1 l/pub/vpiejl/discussion_logs. 27. “Committee on Institutional Cooperation. Task Force on the CIC Electronic Collection. Report to the CIC Directors. * 1 October 1993. Part 1. Section D.2. Report is available at URL:gopher://cic.net:70/CICNet/Reports, and select “CIC Electronic Collection Task Force Report (Text). n 28.
Committee
on Institutional
29.
See note 26.
33. Personal communication of 26 August 1994, from Gail McMillan, director, Scholarly Communications Project, to Tom Moothart. 34.
Personal communication
from McMillan
to Moothart.
35. David L. Wilson, “Project Seeks to Expand Use of Electronic Networks for Publishing,” Chronicle of Higher Educarion 40, no. 21 (26 January 1994): A24-A25. 36. Todd Kelley and Susan Lewis, “Project Muse: A New Venture in Electronic Scholarly Communication,” Newskrter on Serials Pricing Issues 109 (9 March 1994). To retrieve this issue, send an e-mail message to [email protected] with the message: . 37. Press release from MIT Press Journals 1993.
dated October
38. Fax communication of 26 August 1994 from Dru Mogge, Officeof Scientificand Academic Publishing, ARL, to Donnice Cochenour.
Cooperation. 39. Bill Kownacki, “Electronic Information: The View from Reference,” Serials Review 17, no. 4 (1991): 81.
30. Margo Sasse and B. Jean Winkler, “Electronic Journals: A Formidable Challenge for Libraries, ” Advances in Librarianship 17 (1993): 164.
40. Michael E. Stoller, “Electronic Journals in the Humanities: A Survey and Critique,” Library Trends 40, no. 4 (Spring 1992): 665.
31.
41. Jerome Yavarkovsky, “A University-based Electronic Publishing Network," Educom Review 25, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 15.
Lynch,
39.
Communications Project, University 32. “Scholarly Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,n 24 January 1994, available at URL:gopher://borg.lib.vt.edu, and select “About the Scholarly Communications Project. ”
(Continuedfrom page 10) 0 Make the preservation and advancement of “universal service” an explicit objective of the Communications Act, in order to establish the goal that advanced services be available to rural and urban lower income users, to users in areas where the costs of service are high, and to social institutions, especially schools and health care facilities. l
76
Charge the FCC and the states with continuing responsibility to review the definition of universal service to meet changing technological, economic, and societal circumstances.
SERIALS REVIEW
42. Clifford Lynch, “Transformation of Scholarly Communication and the Role of the Library in the Age of Networked Information,” Serials Librarian 23, no. 314 (1993): 18.
0
Establish a Federal/State Joint Board to make recommendations concerning FCC and state action on the fundamental elements of universal service. In its deliberations, the Joint Board must gather input from nongovernmental organizations.
0
Oblige those who provide telecommunications services to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service. However, the FCC, in consultation with the states, would be authorized to permit “sliding scale” contributions (e.g., to avoid burdening small providers and new entrants), or “in-kind” contributions in lieu of cash payments (e.g., to reduce the monetary payments owed by providers that offer to connect with schools, hospitals, etc.).
- DONNICECOCHENOURANDTOMMOOTHART-
ALONG
OF STRANGERS:
ELE~TRO~C JOURNALSON GOPHER Donnice Cochenour and Tom Moothart with a sidebar by Gopher and Archie Review Panel, MIT Libraries
Introduction The anticipated and much acclaimed era of the virtual library is approaching reality as the Internet traffic increases at an estimated 20 percent to 25 percent each month. l Much has been written about this new environment’s potential to solve some of libraries’ budget problems: high serials costs, space, access, preservation. An assumption buried at the pit of this discussion is that someone, somewhere will assume the responsibility for preserving, or “archiving,” electronic publications. The critical question of who should fill this role has barely been broached. Libraries have traditionally served this role and they should continue to do so for electronic publications with the same intensity of purpose that has been applied to collecting printed materials in the past.’ Background
Cochenour is serials librarian and Moo&art is science reference librarian, Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, Colorado. Acknowledgment: “Relying on the Kindness of Strangers” the authors wish to acknowledge Howard Pastemack, Brown U~versity, for first applying the phrase to the archiving of electronic journals in a discussion on the electronic discussion group, VPIEJ-L, on 12 January 1994. - RELYXNG ON TEE KXNONESS OF
STRANGERS -
Electronic journals,’ distinguished from their paper counterparts primarily in terms of how they are distribute, are begi~ing to reach a critical mass. The fourth edition of Director of Etectronic ~o~r~~ts, Newsletters, and Discussion Lists4 cites over 400 journals and newsletters with topics ranging from disaster research to chronic fatigue syndrome. CICNet’s Electronic Journal Collection contains over 600 titles.s New electronic publications are announced over the Internet weekly. Some publishers are eliminating paper-bask distribution and providing only electronic versions of their journals.6 Others are makiig electronic versions of their subscription-based paper journals available freely over the Internet with the expectation SPRING1995 67
SIDEBAR:ACCESS GUIDELINESFOR INTERNETRESOURCES Gopher and Archie Review Panel, MIT Libraries MlT Libraries is committed to providing electronic access to e-journals and full-text electronic documents. As announcements of new e-journals become commonplace on the Internet, it is increasingly evident that we must make decisions regarding methods of providing access to these large bodies of text. Sizeable collections of materials result in costs to the library, whether in electronic or print form. In addition to the cost of digital space (disks,diskpacs, and so on) there is the cost of personnel time involved in acquiring and providing access to electronic materials. However, the gopher and other client/server software provide the possibility of sharing collections without duplicating the costs associated with acquisition and storage of large amounts of text by simply “pointing to” materials collected elsewhere on the Internet. We have found, however, that in some cases it is preferable to collect a journal at MIT, even though it is available elsewhere on the Net. The following criteria are proposed as guidelines in deciding whether to provide access through local or remote electronic collections. Subject specialists are responsible for selection decisions in both print and electronic media. Consequently, these guidelines address the issue of local or remote access, and not the issue of content evaluation. I. Authority and Reliability of Collection and Site If a journal or document set is available in its entirety at a remote reliable location on the Internet, it is a candidate for remote access. The collection should be complete, containing authoritative versions or editions of the material. The site must be physically reliable, well maintained, and accessible day and night. Examples of stable and reliable archives are those administered by universities that have demonstrated a commitment to electronic projects. II. Display Quality
and title information in lieu of or in addition to tile name arrangements. III. Full-Text Searching One reason the gopher server was selected for providing access to electronic journals at MIT is that it is possible to provide WAIS indexing in conjunction with the gopher for materials stored in our files. This automatic indexing capability allows us to provide full-text searching of journals and documents using Boolean operators and keyword strings. Not all electronic collections provide this capability. If an indexed version of the journal or text is not available, we suggest acquisition of the files in order to provide indexing for our patrons. MIT has an opportunity to make a contribution to the Internet community by indexing existing sources. IV. Commitment to MIT Publications If a publication is produced by MIT we have an obligation to archive it as well as make it accessible to our patrons. This would especially apply to materials that are not adequately archived elsewhere at MIT. In some cases we may act as a second archive, but in other cases MITosis may be the sole repository. V. Agreements with Publishers As publishers begin to charge for subscriptions to ejournals, different types of subscription agreements are being worked out between publishers and libraries. Subscription agreements frequently restrict access. Registration and passwords may be required. In some cases our agreement with publishers may require us to store e-journals locally or provide a backup archive. Gopher and Archie Review Panel members are as follows:
If a journal or document set is available over the Internet in a display format that can be easily understood and used, it is a candidate for remote access. However, if the display is not intuitive or easy to follow, then we suggest acquisition of the materials in order to redisplay them in a more user-friendly fashion. This may entail the rearrangement of files, the renaming of menu items, or the extraction of components within a file to add information to a display. For example, displays should include author
Lippert is chair, GARP, and associate head for information services, Engineering and Science Libraries; Geffer was serials cataloger at MIT when this article was written. She is currently Internet product specialist, Readmore Automation, Belmont, Massachusetts; Munoff is collection manager, Humanities Library; Morgan is subject specialist in economics, and Snowden is systems training and documentation specialist, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
that electronic access won’t adversely affect the subscription base.’ Martin J. Dillon, director of the Office of Research at OCLC, predicted that electronic journals may account for 20 percent of all academic
journals by the year 2000.* The majority of currently available electronic journals are free of charge by electronic subscription or by retrieving the files using FTP (File Transfer
68
SERIALS REVIEW
- DONNICECOCHENOURAND TOM MOOTHART-
Protocol). Until recently, a familiarity with Unix software commands and a knowledge of where the files resided on the Internet was necessary to access the journals, but a software program called Gopher’ has created a means to both make files available locally and to “point” to files held elsewhere. Many libraries are now using this software to make electronic journals accessible on their campuses and over the Internet. The Gopher software was cited as one of the most significant developments in network-based electronic serials during 1992.” Gopher software provides a client/server architecture whereby files are loaded onto a Gopher server. Gopher client software, available for a variety of computer operating systems, can access the files. A hierarchical menu arrangement permits the user to browse for information without having to be concerned with such things as terminal emulation or Unix commands. The client software provides a simple mechanism for the user to read, download, e-mail, or print the file locally. Retrieval of the files (or journal articles) is quite transparent even if the Gopher server is pointing to files held at another institution. Many libraries are using the powerful pointing features of Gopher to provide access to electronic journals without do~oading files and maintaining local archives. This treatment represents a major philosophical shift for libraries that borders on an abdication of their primary mission. Eketronic Journals on Gopher: Current Practice On 10 January 1994, the authors posted an e-mail message containing five questions to two LISTSERV discussiongroups;” the purpose was to gather information regarding electronic document access utilizing the Gopher software (see figure 1). The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine whether libraries were downloading the electronic journal files or if they were only using Gopher to point to other remote archives for access to these files. After one month, 14 academic libraries had responded to the qu~tionnaire. In an effort to increase the responses, the same message was posted to the PACS-L12 discussion group and was re-posted to both of the original discussion groups. Six additional responses were received, two from consortiums and four from academic libraries. Although the number of responses was not overwhelming, the consensus of the responses was. Except for publications originating locally or where the official archives were maintained for a publication, nearly all libraries were pointing to remote Gopher files to provide access to electronic journals and newsletters for their patrons. One consortium stated that they were pointing to the CICNet - RELYING
ON TEE KllVDNESS OF f+lRANGERS
-
collection and a CICNet library commented that as soon as the CICNet electronic journal files were stable, they would cease mainten~ce of local files. Only four other libraries were subscribing to a select list of journals, downloading files, and manipulating them for local access. Even these sites considered their efforts to be experimental. For example, one respondent said in some cases her library was dow~oading issues locally. However, since that requires periodic updating, until a maintenance group could be identified they were reluctant to download more than a few titles. Pointing to other Gopher sites was their primary means of providing access. Two sites commented that the quality of menus and file structures available on other Gopher servers would influence their decision to maintain local files and that electronic journals that had subscription fees would be downloaded and maintained locally per agreements with the publishers. Based on these responses and other efforts to examine Gopher sites across the Internet, the authors feel comfo~able concluding that few libraries are currently maintaining local files for electronic publications. Like many other libraries, in 1992 the Libraries at Colorado State University began to experiment with the various technical issues involved with providing access to electronic resources using Gopher. Subscriptions were established for four electronic journals. The files associated with these titles were downloaded, stored locally, and Gopher menus created. Pointers were created for two additional titles to test remote access for our users. The problems of subscription setup, file m~ipulation, menu creation, and OPAC records were all eventually solved. Providing patron access over the campuswide computer system was arranged with the assistance of the library’s computer technicians and the campus computer center. The question that continue to perplex is whether it is appropriate to rely on access to remote files or if the library should maintain local files for all electronic publications deemed appropriate for the collection. Reliance on Remote Files As was discussed in the introduction and demonstrated by the survey, one advantage of using Gopher as a campuswide information system is that files do not have to be stored locally. A pointer can be created to provide transparent access to files on another Gopher server. Some authors feel that libraries that choose to point to other Gopher sites’ files are using the full potential of client/server sotiware.13 For example, if a library wanted to provide access to Psycoloquy, a search using the Gopher finding aid, Veronica, would identify several locations that hold the journal. Once the location is determined, it is a relatively simple SPRING1995
69
PLEASE disregard this message if you are not using GOPHER to store and access electronic journals __ I am interested in determining how libraries who use the GOPHER software are choosing to make electronic journals available to their patrons. My primary question is whether the local library is downloading the files to a local computer or if they are only using GOPHER to point to another remote archive for these files. If you could take a few minutes to answer the following 5 questions, I would appreciate your assistance. [Note: These questions have been cross-posted to VPIFJ-L and SERIALST.] ************************************************~~*~**~*~~**~ 1) How many electronic journal titles (menu choices) do you have on your GOPHER server? # of titles/menu choices 2) How many electronic journal titles do you have stored on your local (institution or library) computer? # of titles stored locally 3) What is the name of your institution? 4) Please give the address and menu path to your electronic journals on your GOPHER server. 5) If I have other questions about your GOPHER server and electronic journals, who can I contact?
Figure 1: Authors’ e-mail message used to gather information from others who were experimenting with the Gopher Software for access to electronic documents.
matter to create a pointer from the local Gopher server to access the remote files. For example, the user sees the Gopher menu as shown in figure 2. To create the menu item for Psycoloquyand provide remote access to the title all that is required is to provide the five items shown in figure 3. As the survey shows, it isn’t too difficult to imagine a Gopher server that has loaded no local files.” Neither is it difficult to imagine a Gopher server that points to another server that doesn’t own the file either but is merefy pointing to a third server. With Gopher it is not necessary or even common practice to ask permission before pointing to another Gopher server’s files, nor is it possible for a site to determine who is pointing to its Gopher server. In the example of providing access to Psycoloquy, if Princeton modifies the structure of the menu hierarchy or files are placed in a different section of the menu, access to the title at the “pointing” site will no longer be possible. If the Gopher server is down or the archiving site decides to restrict access to on-campus users, remote access to the title can be lost altogether.” Spending a short 70
SERIALS REVIEW
time burrowing through Gopher quickly illustrates the problem of “down servers” and “lost pointers.” A secondary consequence of pointing to other Gopher servers’ files is the loss of control over menu structure and format. Consistency of screen design across electronic journals cannot be achieved since the menus for each title are created by a different administrator. Some menus are created with a sense of aesthetics while others appear in the more stilted computer ale-n~ing protocols. A look at titles from various sites will illustrate the problem. Some menus list only the author’s last name, while others provide a more descriptive menu including the article titles. A third consequence of pointing to another server is the growth that the Internet has experienced. At one time the Internet was a system used predominately by government and academic instimtions. With private businesses and public schools connecting to the Internet, and easy-to-use software like Gopher, traffic has become heavy. Response time is noticeably slower and it is difficult to get into some systems such as the Veronica servers. The CICNet Gopher, the most pop-
Internet
Gopher
Information
Electronic
Client
~1.11
Journals
1. Academe This Week--including “Chronicle" Job Ads/ 2. E-Journal/ 3. Electronic Journal of Communications/Revue/ 4. Electronic Journal of Differential Equations/ 5. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal/ 6. Journal of Extension/ 7. Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research/ 8. Journal of Statistics Education/ 9. Journal of World Anthropology/ 10. New Horizons in Adult Education/ 11. Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues/ 12. Postmodern Culture/ -->13. Psycoloquy/ 14. Public Access Computer Systems Review/
Press
? for Help,
Figure
q to Quit,
2. Local
u to go up a menu
Gopher
menu
of electronic
Page:
l/2
journals.
Name=Psycoloquy Type=1 Port=70 Path=ftp:princeton.edu@/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/ Host=gopher.princeton.edu
Figure
3. Data
necessary
ular electronic journal archive, estimates that its Gopher receives a request every ten seconds, 24 hours a day.16 The Gopher software determines a server is down if it has not responded within a predetermined amount of time. With the current traffic on Internet, it is possible that what appears to be a “down server” may just be a server that has not responded within the time limit.” While an archive maintained at a single site simplism the process of providing access in the shortterm, there are serious long-term risks. The print distribution model has the advantage of being highly distributed and highly robust. Once a printed work is acquired by libraries it is unlikely that all copies will be either lost or altered. The lack of redundancy in the single archive approach does not offer this protection. To quote Lynch, “a reasonable number of independently controlled archive sites for certain material are necessary to provide ~on~dence in the continue integrity and accessibility of our scholarly, historical, and cultural record.“‘* Perhaps the electronic equivalent of the burning of the Alexandria library is a computer virus or hacker’s vandalism.
to point
to a remote
server.
Creating Local Archives The institutions that are loading electronic journals locally seem to follow similar procedures that a library would use when purchasing a print publication. These procedures have been described in several recent articles.‘g In this model a title is ordered, processed upon receipt, and placed on the file server to provide patron access. Creating local archives can be a relatively simple matter of moving the files from the serials department’s electronic files to a local server and creating menu access through the Gopher software. But, the process is not without pitfalls. manipulation of the files is more difficult when the publication is in a format other than ASCII and increasingly publishers are choosing to use alternative formats (i.e., PostScript, LaTeX, TIFF). For example, the Electronic Journal of Diflerential Equations publishes its issues in both LaTeX and PostScript formats. It may be assumed that users of this publication, probably mathematics faculty and graduate students, will have the software to display or print readable copy from these files. The Journal of the SPRING 1995
71
InternationalAcademy of HospitalityResearch has published an issue in ASCII with the accompanying figures in PostScript format. The authors question whether the majority of users of this title will have the software and equipment available to display and print PostScript files. The original Gopher was designed to handle ASCII documents. Gopher+ was developed to display a variety of file formats in addition to ASCII using viewer software. Some Gopher + clients allow the user to define and invoke the necessary viewer program without leaving the Gopher software. Each file format or “view” requires different viewer software that must be accessible to the client software. For example, if a user retrieves a graphics file formatted in GIF, the Gopher+ client will utilize the viewer software and display the file if the user has installed a viewer program for GIF. In the past if the library purchased publications in an alternative format such as microfilm or CD-ROM, it was assumed that the equipment necessary to read them would also be provided. It is appropriate to assume that libraries will provide the viewer software to display non-ASCII formats on the equipment housed within the library. However, viewer programs may be limited to the formats of documents specifically chosen to be included on the local Gopher menus. The library won’t be able to provide viewer software and the technical expertise to set up client software if the user is working on a computer in his or her office or home. If the user is accessing the Gopher system through the “curses” client provided by the server, the display is limited to ASCII. In order to avoid these problems the Gopher administrator may be forced to “undesktop publish” documents whose appearances were carefully crafted using these alternative text formats.” At what point is the message lost when the appearance is changed? With graphics or sound files this process borders on the ridiculous. To address the need to handle files in other than ASCII format, some institutions are moving from Gopher clients to a new software, NCSA Mosaic, developed by the Software Development Group at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. “As a distributed hypermedia browser designed for information discovery and retrieval, NCSA Mosaic provides a unified interface to the diverse protocols, data formats, and information archives used on the Internet. n21Mosaic allows the user to “retrieve information from Gopher, WAIS, and anonymous FTP servers without moving to a different application for each one. n2L “The Gopher software may be superseded, albeit slowly, by Mosaic and similar applications.“Z However, because Mosaic requires a graphical user interface (GUI), it is likely that Gopher will continue 72
SERIALS REVIEW
to be used to support earlier generations of machines and operating systems for some time. In addition, many of the specialized software programs needed to view non-ASCII files must be installed in the Mosaic software. It appears that libraries will continually have to deal with the problem of software updates and obsolescence until the development of standards in the area of electronic text and images ameliorate this situation.= Consortia1 Archives An alternative to loading files locally is to create a consortium that will share the downloading, cataloging, and maintenance of the electronic journal files. CICNet has done exactly this. CICNet’s original proposal says, “It is clear that we cannot depend on producers of these electronic forums to maintain full archives of the title, anymore than we have been able to count on print publishers to maintain a historical archive of their works. “ZJCICNet provides a central storage of free electronic journals and newsletters for its member libraries. Unfortunately, CICNet staff have a massive task of collecting, cataloging, and providing access to these electronic publications. The work of updating the files for each title should not be underestimated. In a recent discussion on one of the LISTSERVs, several sites were criticized for not keeping titles up-to-date.26 One must assume that the reason so many libraries are pointing to the CICNet Gopher is because of the time and resources required to maintain a local collection of electronic journals. However, a consortium such as CICNet is not obligated to provide access to other Gopher servers outside the consortium. In their report CICNet found that “a significant portion of current usage is from users outside of the CIC.“” Because of the traffic on the server, CICNet may decide to eliminate access to non-CIC sitesF8 Libraries should not depend on the charity of a few sites such as CICNet to provide universal access to these publications. Publisher-based Archives It has been suggested by Charles Bailey, publisher of PACS-L Review, and other electronic journal publishers, that publishers create a master archive for all Gopher servers to point to rather than libraries creating local archives.2g The majority of electronic journals are currently produced by not-for-profit organizations, which means the permanent archives will be affected by both the direction of the organization and the whim of the publisher. As publishers, and perhaps the supporting organization, change, there must be a commitment somewhere to maintain complete -
DONNICEC~~HENOUR AND TOM MOOTHART-
archives. Permanent archives will also be a problem in the future for publications from smaller scholarly societies and professional org~~ations where the editorship and publishing responsibilities seem to be passed around regularly. As commercial publishers begin producing electronic journals the creation and maintenance of publisher archives becomes less certain. In the past, commercial publishers have shown little interest in maintaining print archives, much less electronic archives.= If commercial document delivery interests assume this role, there will be a strong impetus to keep the lucrative articles online while others are pulled off to tape vaults or discarded.3’ Cooperative Archives by Scholarly Organizations An alternative to publisher-created and maintained archives is beginning to emerge. The first of these was the Scholarly Co~~~tio~ Project, which combined traditional library roles with electronic publishing. The Scholarly Communications Project was established in 1989 by the University Libraries at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University with the mission statement “to pioneer intheelectronic communication of scholarly materials. n32Through a variety of access methods, ftp, Gopher, WASI, WoridWideWeb, and Mosaic, as of August 1994, they are publishing four full-text journals, online abstracts for a fifth journal, a full-text newspaper, and providing data sets for a print journal. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is also experimenting with digital images and video, and plans to add nine electronic journals within the next year.33 They are committed to maintaining archives of their publications online indeflnitely.34 A similar joint project of the Association of American University Presses and the Coalition for Networked Information is just beginning and will involve 13 university presses.35 Project Muse is a joint venture between the Johns Hopkins University Press, the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, and Harwood Academic Computing to provide Internet access to three journals begi~ing in February 1994, as a prototype. If funding permits, they expect to expand this effort to offer approximately 40 titles in the future.36 Also as part of the AAUP and CNI project, MIT Press is joining forces with the MIT Libraries to provide access to their new electronic journal, Chicago Journal of l?zeoreticd Computer Science. Their press release said, “Please join in our vision of a new relationship between publishers and libraries. We have avisionthat university presses and university libraries, working together, can publish and maintain electronic scholarly journals.. . . ‘r37 The Association of Research Libraries has formed a “Working Group on Networked Resources: Acquisi-
RELYINGON TEE KINDNESSOF STRANGERS-
tions, Storage, Dissemination and Service. * Working under the ARL Scholarly Communications Committee, the group will explore in detail the topic of archiving e-journals.38 These projects are an encouraging sign that libraries will continue to be involved in their traditional mission of information access and preservation even in the electronic environment. Non-Electronic Archives Although it may seem counterintuitive, the only archival decision possible for some libraries may be to preserve these publications in a format other than online electronic files. This is an appropriate choice that some electronic publishers are providing during these traditional years. For example, backfiles of the electronicpublicationPostnaodernCuZtureareavailable from Oxford University Press in microfiche or on diskette. The first three volumes of PACS-L Review are available in book form from Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) through the American Library Association’s Publishing Services. Several other producers of electronic publications offer printed backfiles for a fee. Libraries also have the choice to print off the electronic files and bind them locally to create their own backfiles. For some libraries these choices may be the only realistic options. Copyright and Ekctronic Journals One factor that affects libraries’ freedom of choice regarding archiving is the publisher’s choice of copyright restrictions. The majority of electronic journal publishers have a broad interpretation of copyright. Most allow their publications to be freely copied onto local servers and made accessible to the entire Internet as long as the files are kept intact, credit is given to the publication, and no fees are charged for access. Two publications that differ are the Electronic Journal of Communication and MIT Press’ new publication, Chicago Journal of 7heoreticd Computer Science. Until recently, the Electronic Journal of Communicfftio~ allowed files to be copied and stored on a local server free of charge, but access was restricted to local users. Tim Stephen from the Electronic Journal of Communication found a number of sites that had his publication available to the entire Internet community in violation of copyright. Those sites have now restricted access to the journal. Beginning with volume 4, libraries whose parent institutions are not members of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship (CIOS) will have to pay a subscription fee to receive the journal. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is also a paid subscription ($125 for instituSPRING1995
73
tions). Subscribers will be allowed to download all files to a local archive; however, access must be restricted to local users. The MIT Press and MIT Libraries have established an agreement for the library to become the official archive for the journal. If the economic development of electronic publishing follows the lead of the ElectronicJournal of Communicationand the Chicago Journalof Ilheoretical~rn~~ter~~ien~e, libraries will have little choice but to download the files to a local archiveunless they want to depend upon thepublisher’s archive. Conclusion Creating local and consortium archives leads one to ask, “Do our patrons really want THESE journals and in THIS format?“39 It has been suggested that the materials published electronically are ephemeral and long-term storage is not necessary. In addition, such formats as TIFF, PostScript, and LaTeX are transitional. Software updates or discontinuations could make the archived files unreadable. However, electronic journals are an attempt to bring formal scholarship to the electronic environment.@ An article that has been accepted and published online should be stored and preserved in the same manner that traditional publications are permanently held by research institutions.41 Just as libraries must now determine whether paper publications are ephemera or scholarly and thus worthy of preserving, so must they decide which electronic publications to preserve perm~ently. Researchers have suggested to the authors that after a particular project is finished, they have no interest in maintaining files to provide long-term access for others’ study. Rather, this archival function is viewed as one of the library’s primary missions. The scholar will have been lured off to other research opportunities and won’t wish to be bothered with what is perceived to be housekeeping functions. However, it seems that many academic libraries are ignoring the innovations that have been developing on the Internet over the past two years. To quote Lynch, Rather than stepping up to the challenge of developing the network as an arena for scholarly discourse, many libraries are choosing to ignore it in favor of “traditional” missions related to print-based publications. Yet, as a percentage of budget, libraries could do a great deal with a very small investment.42
Libraries should “step up to the challenge” to providetbesame collectiondevelopment decisions they now exercise over the print literature. Criteria libraries might use to determine whether to maintain local 74
SERIALS REVIEW
archives or depend on a remote site for an electronic journal are 0 l l
0 l l
subscription fee versus free, authorized archive provided by publisher, restricted access required by publisher, quality of remote menu (structure and content), quality of remote files (files kept up-to-date), and local equipment and staff resources.
If the library’s decision is to depend upon remote archives, it is paramount that regular checks be made to verify that the pointer is still accessing the title and that the archive is being maintained (i.e., the latest issues are available). The publisher’s official archive should be the site of choice since it will have new files available as soon as they are released. Other sites will, of necessity, be slower to process and make new files available. One of the great strengths of the Internet has been the very anarchy that allows any site the opportunity to mount any file thought to be of value -- and to remove that file at will. Likewise, one of the greatest frustrations with the Internet and its vast, chaotic collection of electronic files is the lack of any filtering system, any organizations structure, and the sense that “good things are out there” but not within grasp. If libraries intend to continue to serve their vital role in organizing, providing access, and preserving the scholarly record for our society, the move into electronic publications cannot be ignored. There are a variety of models from which to choose: local archives, consortia1 archives, and in some cases remote archives. Even though this article has focused on current activities using the Gopher software, at issue is the underlying question concerning library policies. The transitional nature of supposing software will vary the details; but, whether by using Gopher, Gopher+, World Wide Web, or some other package, the information professionals need to be involved in decisions about access to and preservation of electronic information.
NOTES 1. George Landow and Paul Delany, eds., lllze Digital Word: Text-based Computing in the vanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 20.
2. Paula Kaufman, “Archiving Electronic Journals: Who’s Responsible 3.
for What,” Library Issues 11, no. 6 (July 1991):
3. For the purposes of this article, we will be referring to those publications that are electronically “produced, -
DONNICECOCHENOURAND TOM MOOTHART-
published and distributed, nationally and internationally via electronic networks such as Internet, BITNET, and Usenet” as defined in Gail McMillan, “Embracing the Electronic Journal: One Library’s Plan, * Serials Librarian 21, no. 213 (1991): 97. 4. Directory of Electronic Journal, ~~sletters Academic Discussion Lists, 4th ed. (Washington, Association of Research Libraries, 1994).
and DC:
5. Gene Wiemers and John Hankins, “CfCNet Project Builds Electronic Journal Collection,” AX: A bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions 173 (March 1994): 8. CICNet, an incorporated nonprofit organization, was founded by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation to connect academic, research, nonprofit, and commercial organizations in a seven state region. The CIC is the academic analog to the Big Ten Athletic Conference plus the University of Chicago. 6. The journal of legion will cease to be produced in paper format after the Winter 1993 issue according to an announcement in that issue, Journal of Extension 3 1 (Winter 1993): 2. To receive announcements of new issues including table of contents and abstracts send an e-mail message to ~~A~OE.E~.~.EDU with the message:
MVM.BITNET (Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum, an informal electronic forum for most aspects of serials processing in libraries, moderated by Birdie MacL.ennan). 12. Public-Access Computer [email protected].
11. The message was posted to VPI~-~VTVMl.B~TNET (adiscussionlist concerned with electronic publishing issues, especially those related to scholarly electronic journals, moderated by James Powell), and SERIALST@JV-
- RELYING ON ‘ITIE
KINDNESS
OF %R4NGERS
-
Forum
at PACS-
13. D. Scott Brandt, “Campus-wide Computing,” Academic and Library Computing 9, no. 10 (November/December 1992): 20; and Marlene Manoff, et al., “The MIT Electronic Journals Project: Reports on Patron Access and Technical Processing,” SeriaLr Review 19, no. 3 (1993): 23. 14.
Wiggins,
24.
15. Greg R. Notess, “Using Gophers to Burrow through the Internet,” Online 17, no. 3 (May 1993): 102; Jagtar Singh and Jack Meadows, “Electronic Serials for Library and Information Specialists on Internet,” Aslib Proceedings 45, no. 9 (September 1993): 236. 16. E-mail message of 15 February 1994 from Paul Southworth, Systems Research Programmer at CICNet, to Tom Moothart. 17. E-mail message of 2 1 February 1994 from Richard W. Wiggins, Gopher coordinator, Michigan State University Computer Lab, and e-mail message of 7 April 1994 from Mark P. MC&hill, Gopherspace engineer, University of Minnesota, to Tom Moothart. 18. Clifford Lynch, “Rethinking the Integrity of the Scholarly Record in the Networked Information Age,” Educom Review 29, no. 2 (March/April 1994): 39. 19. Gail M~Mill~, “Technical Processing of Electronic Journals, n Library Resources & Technical Services 36, no. 4 (October 1992): 471-472; Lawrence R. Keating, Christa Easton Reinke, and Judi A. Goodman, “Electronic Journal Subscriptions,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & theory 17 (1993): 455-463; Manoff, 29-40. 20.
Wiggins,
42.
21. Frank M. Baker, “Navigating the Network with NCSA Mosaic,” Educom Review 29, no. 1 (January/February 1994): 46. 22.
10. Michael Strangelove, *Electronic Journals and Newsletters, Introduction, * in Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsktters and Academic Discussion Lists, 3d ed. (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1993), 54.
Systems
Baker, 47.
23. Christinger Tomer, “The Limits of Gopher,” in Richard J. Smith and Jim Gerland, “Navigating the Internet: Let’s Go Gopherin ’ , ” an e-mail, distance education course offered over the Internet during October/November 1993, and available on Gopher at U~goph~//c~s.~.~u: 7O/Other_Gophers_and_Information_Resources, and select “Gopher (free course)/Lesson 25.”
SPRING1995 75
24.
Kaufman,
3.
CIC 25. “Revised Proposal to Develop a Centralized Archive of Electronic Journals and Archives,” CICNet, November 1992, as posted to the Internet, and quoted in Singh and Meadows, 236. 26. See archive files of VPIEJ-L, 12-14 January 1994 with subject line: Gopher archives for electronic journals. For complete listing of all access points for VPIEJ-L see Linda Langschied, “Electronic Journal Forum: VPIEJ-L: An Online Discussion Group for Electronic Journal Publishing Concerns,” Serials Review 20, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 89-94, 80; or use URL:gopher://borg.lib.vt.edu:5070/1 l/pub/vpiejl/discussion_logs. 27. “Committee on Institutional Cooperation. Task Force on the CIC Electronic Collection. Report to the CIC Directors. * 1 October 1993. Part 1. Section D.2. Report is available at URL:gopher://cic.net:70/CICNet/Reports, and select “CIC Electronic Collection Task Force Report (Text). n 28.
Committee
on Institutional
29.
See note 26.
33. Personal communication of 26 August 1994, from Gail McMillan, director, Scholarly Communications Project, to Tom Moothart. 34.
Personal communication
from McMillan
to Moothart.
35. David L. Wilson, “Project Seeks to Expand Use of Electronic Networks for Publishing,” Chronicle of Higher Educarion 40, no. 21 (26 January 1994): A24-A25. 36. Todd Kelley and Susan Lewis, “Project Muse: A New Venture in Electronic Scholarly Communication,” Newskrter on Serials Pricing Issues 109 (9 March 1994). To retrieve this issue, send an e-mail message to [email protected] with the message:
dated October
38. Fax communication of 26 August 1994 from Dru Mogge, Officeof Scientificand Academic Publishing, ARL, to Donnice Cochenour.
Cooperation. 39. Bill Kownacki, “Electronic Information: The View from Reference,” Serials Review 17, no. 4 (1991): 81.
30. Margo Sasse and B. Jean Winkler, “Electronic Journals: A Formidable Challenge for Libraries, ” Advances in Librarianship 17 (1993): 164.
40. Michael E. Stoller, “Electronic Journals in the Humanities: A Survey and Critique,” Library Trends 40, no. 4 (Spring 1992): 665.
31.
41. Jerome Yavarkovsky, “A University-based Electronic Publishing Network," Educom Review 25, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 15.
Lynch,
39.
Communications Project, University 32. “Scholarly Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,n 24 January 1994, available at URL:gopher://borg.lib.vt.edu, and select “About the Scholarly Communications Project. ”
(Continuedfrom page 10) 0 Make the preservation and advancement of “universal service” an explicit objective of the Communications Act, in order to establish the goal that advanced services be available to rural and urban lower income users, to users in areas where the costs of service are high, and to social institutions, especially schools and health care facilities. l
76
Charge the FCC and the states with continuing responsibility to review the definition of universal service to meet changing technological, economic, and societal circumstances.
SERIALS REVIEW
42. Clifford Lynch, “Transformation of Scholarly Communication and the Role of the Library in the Age of Networked Information,” Serials Librarian 23, no. 314 (1993): 18.
0
Establish a Federal/State Joint Board to make recommendations concerning FCC and state action on the fundamental elements of universal service. In its deliberations, the Joint Board must gather input from nongovernmental organizations.
0
Oblige those who provide telecommunications services to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service. However, the FCC, in consultation with the states, would be authorized to permit “sliding scale” contributions (e.g., to avoid burdening small providers and new entrants), or “in-kind” contributions in lieu of cash payments (e.g., to reduce the monetary payments owed by providers that offer to connect with schools, hospitals, etc.).
- DONNICECOCHENOURANDTOMMOOTHART-