The NDLTD and a History of ETDs
Gail McMillan
Director, Digital Library and Archives
Virginia Tech
OETDA, March 28, 2008
The NDLTD
http://www.ndltd.org/
Since its inception in 1996, the Networked
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
has worked to improve graduate education,
increase the availability of student research,
empower students and universities, advance
digital library technology, and lower the
costs of submitting and handling electronic
theses and dissertations.
Early VT ETD Goals
 Graduate students
 Learn about e-publishing and digital libraries, applying
that knowledge as they engage in their research and build
and submit their ETDs
 Education improves through more effective sharing
 Universities
 Learn about digital libraries, as they collect, catalog,
archive, and make ETDs accessible
 Learn how to unlock the potential of their intellectual
property/products
 Technology and knowledge sharing speed up as
graduate research results become more readily
available
In the beginning…
1987 openly discussed ETDs at UMI meeting
1991 VT ETD initiative
1995 VT Graduate School invites Library to participate
1996 Library brings the players together, creates web
site, drafts workflow scripts
1997 VT requires ETDs: CGS&P’s DRSCAP
1998 NDLTD: from National to Networked Digital
Library of Theses and Dissertations
VT ETD Funding
 Grants
 SURA: 1994: $30,000; 1996: $91,117
 FIPSE, 9/96-8/99: $208,040
 Contributions
 Adobe: donation of software to the first 20 universities
engaged in pilot testing.
 Support
 CNI
 VTLS
 Conference fees support conferences
VT ETD: SURA Funding
1993 SURA and SOLINET support Monticello
Electronic Library Project. Fox, and Eustis and
McMillan attend Atlanta meeting separately.
1994 SURA funds VT workshop to develop plans for
ETDs. Attendees select PDF and SGML for
representation and archiving.
1996 SURA funds VT implementation, research,
development, and dissemination of ETD
experience, or develop and disseminate a
standard method for making graduate students'
final work available online.
VT ETD: SURA Funding
Grant calls for Fox, Eaton, McMillan to



Develop a system "that people can use"
Implement library and user friendly search and
delivery technology, plus programmatic
archiving
Document and distribute training materials for
this approach for other universities in the
Southeast.
VT ETD Funding: FIPSE
Although there are approximately 400,000
master's or doctoral degrees awarded nationally
each year, many students are poorly prepared
for a career in which electronic publishing and
access to networked information systems will
be commonplace. Fox 9/96
Hosted or Visited for ETD Support
 Onsite at: Arizona State University, Georgia Southern,
Brigham Young, Case Western Reserve, College of
William and Mary, Cornell, Georgia, Michigan Tech,
Pennsylvania State, Worchester Polytechnic, University of
Florida, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt, ACRL, ALA,
CNI, CAUSE, OCLC, RBMS, SAA...
 Hosted: Clemson, Mississippi State, Naval Post Graduate
School, Rhodes University (South Africa), SUNY Buffalo,
University of New Brunswick, Virginia Commonwealth,
Virginia Military Institute, Wake Forest…
From National to Networked DLTD
Mission: Improve Graduate Education
 Produce ETDs, use digital libraries, understand
issues in publishing
 Increase availability of student research
 Lower the cost of processing TDs
 Empower students to convey a richer message
 Empower universities to unlock information
resources
 Advance digital library technology
NDLTD Membership: 1997-2003
 To join send letter of interest from the institution
expressing interest in ETDS and NDLTD
 No obligations
 Non-voting
 122 US/international universities
 16 US/international institutions
 3 consortia
NDLTD’s Key Constituencies
 Faculty-Fox/VT, Moxley/USF, Pavani/PUC-Rio,
etc.
 Students--Allard/UKy, Edminster/USF
 Graduate school administrators--Eaton/VT,
Clark/OH
 Organizations
 International: OAS, UNESCO, World Bank, national
libraries
 US: CNI, ARL; not CGS
 Librarians: grow information resources, services
 Companies--Adobe, OCLC, UMI/ProQuest
NDTLD Governance: 1997-2003
 Informal, voluntary, advisory
 Director: Ed Fox, VT professor of computer science
 Steering Committee
 ~30 members, met twice a year






International organizations
National libraries
Publishers
Technology companies
Consortia
Higher education institutions
 Working groups: ETD MS, Strategic Planning
NDLTD Program Priorities
 Standards and metadata
 Promotion, education, outreach
 Annual conferences
 Institutional representatives new to ETD initiative
 Institutional representatives experienced with ETDs
 Sponsors
 Awards: innovation and leadership
 Incorporation and non-profit status
 Develop measures of success
 Membership
 Open access to ETDs
NDLTD: 501(c)(3)
 In order to better serve its membership, in
May 2003 the NDTLD was duly formed as
a nonstock corporation for worldwide
charitable and educational purposes within
the meaning of US the Internal Revenue
Code. NDLTD is now headed by a Board of
Directors, working with members on
various committees to further the aims of
the organization.
NDLTD Bylaws: Board of Directors
 3-35 persons with demonstrated interest in,
concern for, ability to decide and address issues
 Any national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
religious affiliation, race, creed, color, profession
 3 year terms; 1/3 elected each year
 Meet at annual meetings, at least
 Quorum is a majority
 Chair committees
NDLTD Bylaws: Officers
 Executive Director
 Operations manager
 See that policies, orders, resolutions carried out
 Ex officio member of all committees
 Secretary
 Attend all meetings of BoD
 Prepare and maintain custody of minutes
 Keep a true and complete record of the proceedings of all meetings
 Treasurer
 Keep correct and complete records of the financial condition;
furnish at BoD meetings
 Legal custodian of all monies, notes, securities, valuables
 Immediately deposit all funds in some reliable bank/depository
 Such other officers, agents as necessary
NDLTD Board of Directors 2008
Tony Cargnelutti
Ana Pavani
Hussein Suleman
José Luis Borbinha
Peter Schirmbacher
Shalini R. Urs
Christine Jewell
Eva Müller
Samson Soong
Sharon Reeves
Susan Copeland
Xiaolin Zhang
Austin McLean
Ellen Wagner
Vinod Chachra
Edward A. Fox
Joseph Moxley
Jude Edminster
Suzie Allard
William A. T. Clark
Eric F. Van de Velde
Gail McMillan
John H. Hagen
Denise A. D. Bedford
Joan K. Lippincott
Julia C. Blixrud
Thomas B. Hickey
NDLTD Committees
 Conference Planning
 Services and Standards
 Awards (Adobe and NDLTD), 2004 to date
 Innovative ETD
 Innovating Learning through ETDs
 Leadership






Development (w/international subcommittees)
Implementation
Public Relations
Governance: Executive, Finance, Nominating, Membership
ETD Guide: U of So. Florida, UNESCO
Union Catalog of ETDS: VTLS, OCLC
The NDLTD Bylaws: Members
 Categories




Universities
Consortia
Supporting organizations
Individuals
 No voting rights
 Primary interest of the Board
 Expected to be actively involved in the
conferences and committee activities
Benefits of NDLTD Membership
 Eligible to be aided by a Mentoring Program
 Discounts on conference registration fees
 Discounts on exhibits/displays at the Annual
Conference
 Support for harvesting into the Union Catalog
 Eligibility for NDLTD awards
 May serve on Committees and Board of Directors
 Access to member address (when shared)
 NEW: Preservation Network
 Join ETD-L: Send mail to listserv@listserv.vt.edu.
NDLTD Membership Fee Structure
http://www.ndltd.org/join.en.html
 $25: Individuals
 $100-$300: Single degree-granting or
supporting institution
 Consortium or Multicampus University
System:
 $200-$2,600: Category II-III (up to 50
members)
 $600-$7,800: Category I (up to 50 members)
The NDTLD Bylaws: Conferences
 Annual
 Provide a forum for members and guests
 Hear papers
 Promote discussions
 Other appropriate activities
 Technical demonstrations
 Exhibits
NDLTD Conferences












2009: University of Pittsburgh/West Virginia University
2008: Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland
2007: Uppsala University, Sweden
2006: Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
2005: University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
2004: University of Kentucky, Lexington
2003: Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany
2002: Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
2001: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
2000: University of South Florida, St. Petersburg
1999: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
1998: MECCA - ITEC Conference, Tennessee
Availability of VT ETDs
7000
6000
5000
WORLDWIDE
VT-ONLY
MIXED
NONE
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Increasing Availability of VT ETDs
WORLDWIDE
VT-ONLY
MIXED
NONE
1999
886
585
36
374
1881
47%
31%
2%
20%
2000
1277
592
61
444
2374
54%
25%
3%
19%
2003
2693
1157
119
646
4615
58%
25%
3%
14%
2004
3488
1304
137
614
5543
63%
24%
2%
11%
2005
4383
1443
146
429
6401
68%
23%
2%
7%
2006
5868
1707
149
358
8082
73%
21%
2%
4%
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 While preparing your ETD, where did you
find answers to your questions?
 60% VT ETD web site
 18% Friends
 12% My committee
 Was this web site useful?
 4% No
 32% Somewhat
 59% Useful - very useful
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 Compared to what you expected, how
difficult was it to create a PDF file?
 14 % More difficult
 57% Less difficult
 30% neutral
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 Where were you when you submitted?
 35 % Off campus residence
 25 % Campus office
 13 % Off campus workplace
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 Compared to what you expected, how
difficult was it to submit your ETD?
 15 % more difficult
 64 % less difficult
 22 % neutral
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 Within the next 1-2 years, what do you
intend to publish from your ETD?






51% article
18% conference proceedings
4% book
3% chapter
4% nothing
17% don’t know
VT ETD Author Survey 2007/08
 If you restricted access to your VT ETD, on what
did you base this decision?






46% Advice of faculty
25% Personal choice
20% Other
4% Advice of others
3% Patent pending
3% Advice of publisher
VT ETD User Survey 2007/08
 If you are with a university, does it accept ETDs?
 80% Yes
 10% No
 10% not from a university
 If your university does not accept ETDs, do you
think it should?
 58% Yes
 28% No opinion
 14% No
VT ETD User Survey 2007/08
 Have you submitted an ETD?
 69% No
 31% Yes
 What is your reason for using this digital library?




85% Research
7% Personal interest
5% Learn about ETDs
2% Job related
VT ETD User Survey 2007/08
 If you searched for an ETD, how fast was the
response to your search request?
 6% Slow
 84% Fairly fast, fast, very fast
 9% didn’t search
 If you downloaded any ETDs, how easy was it to
find what you were looking for?
 10% Difficult
 90% Fairly easy, easy, very easy
Publishers’ surveys 1999-2002
http://lumiere.lib.vt.edu/surveys/
 According to the editorial policy, [OA/universityonly] constitutes prior publication:
 Open access ETDs
 9% science publishers
 14% social science publishers
 15% humanities publishers
 University-only accessible ETDs
 1% science publishers
 4% social science publishers
 6% humanities publishers
NDLTD and Preservation of ETDs




Primary concern for early initiatives
Paper seen as more enduring
Commercial alternatives: OCLC, ProQuest
MetaArchive survey 2008
 75% no formal preservation plan
 92% interested in NDLTD preservation strategy
 Workshop at 2008 conference, Aberdeen
Digital preservation?
The systematic management of digital works over
an indefinite period of time.
 Unlike traditional preservation, digital works demand
ongoing attention--constant input of effort, time, and
money. Technological and organizational change is the
stumbling block for preserving digital information beyond
a few years.
 Digital preservation is processes and activities that ensure
the continued access to works existing in digital formats.
Backup/IRs vs. Digital Preservation
 Backups are tactical measures--typically stored in a
single location (often nearby or collocated with the servers
backed up) and performed only periodically. Backups
address short-term data loss via minimal investment of
money and staff time resources. Backups are not a
comprehensive solution to the problem of preserving
information over time.
 Digital preservation is strategic--a geographically
dispersed set of secure caches of critical information. A
true digital preservation program requires multiinstitutional collaboration and at least some ongoing
investment to realistically address the issues involved in
preserving information over time.
MetaArchive
A distributed digital preservation
cooperative for digital archives
 Established under the auspices of and with funding from the
National Digital Information and Infrastructure Preservation
Program (NDIIPP) of the Library of Congress
 Sustained by cooperative fee memberships and LC contracts
 Provides training and models for other groups to establish
similar distributed digital preservation networks
 Fosters broader awareness of digital preservation issues
Distributed Digital Preservation Network
Effective preservation succeeds by replicating copies of
content in secure, distributed locations over time.
 Security reduces the likelihood that any single cache will be
compromised.
 Distribution reduces the likelihood that the loss of any single cache
will lead to a loss of the preserved content.
 A single organization is unlikely to have the capability to operate
several geographically dispersed and securely maintained servers
 Inter-institutional agreements will ensure commitment to act in concert
over time.
MetaArchive: Distributed Digital Preservation
Networks Across the World, a Region, a State:
 Programmatically collects content from a host
 Preserves content among partners’ servers
 Low cost to administer and run
 Standard hardware, free software
 Audits content and repairs as needed from host or partners
 Disseminates content to only the appropriate users
 Host library’s clientele see the content from host’s site
 Unless it isn’t available from there
 Provide copies to partners only to audit and repair
 Dark archive only
Key Features of the MetaArchive








Distributed preservation strategy
Flexible organizational model
Formal content selection process
Capability for migrating archives
Dark archiving strategy
Low cost to deployment
Self-sustaining incentives
Simple exchange mechanisms
Successful Disaster Recovery Test
 Focused on: Hardware, Content, Network




Simulated and experienced crashing primary node
Intentionally damaged content (truncate files)
Disabled access to plug-ins
Ran routine tests for “bad disk,” cache manager,
conspectus database, yum repository, kickstart script, xml
configuration file, etc.
 Reconstructed primary node, resurrected network,
reconstructed content
 Documentation
ETD Preservation Survey
 Help gauge the digital library community’s
interest in establishing an ETD-specific
preservation network.
 14 multiple choice and short answer
questions
 95 responses Jan.-Feb. 2008
ETD Preservation Survey
How did you learn about this survey?
17% ARL: Association of Research Libraries
15% ASERL: Association of Southeastern Research
Libraries
16% CGS: Council of Graduate Schools
13% DLF: Digital Library Federation
39% NDLTD: Networked Digital Library of Theses
and Dissertations
ETD Preservation Survey
Does your institution accept ETDs?

20% NO 80% YES
If so, does your institution accept only
electronic versions?

61% NO 39% YES
ETD Preservation Survey
Estimate the number of
ETDs added to your
collection annually.










5-10
20-50
100-199
200-299
300-399
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-900
1,000
6%
15%
28%
8%
13%
7%
4%
6%
6%
7%
Estimate the number of
ETDs in your collection.







>100
100-199
200-499
500-999
1000-1999
2000-4999
10,000-20,180
27%
10%
14%
17%
13%
11%
7%
ETD Preservation Survey
.pdf
.jpg
.wav
Other formats
.gif
.html
.mov
Any format
.avi
.mp3
.tif
.mpg
.doc
.xml
.png
.ppt
.aif
.qt
21%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%


















.aif
2%
.avi
5%
.doc
4%
.gif
6%
.html
5%
.jpg
7%
.mov
5%
.mp3
5%
.mpg
4%
.pdf
21%
.png
3%
.ppt
2%
.qt
2%
.tif
5%
.wav
7%
.xml
4%
Any format 5%
Other formats 7%
ETD Preservation Survey
Does your institution have a formalized
preservation plan for its ETDs?
73.68% NO (70/95 responses)
26.32% YES (25/95 responses)
97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered
this question.
ETD Preservation Survey
Do you have experience with or knowledge of
LOCKSS-based preservation networks?
30.11%
69.89%
NO (28/93 responses)
YES (65/93 responses)
95.88% of the people who took this survey (93/97) answered
this question.
ETD Preservation Survey
Would your institution be interested in participating
in an ETD-specific LOCKSS-based collaborative
distributed digital archive sponsored by the NDLTD?
49.47% MAYBE
42.11% YES
8.42% NO
(47/95 responses)
(40/95 responses)
(8/95 responses)
97.94% of the people who took this survey (95/97) answered
this question.
ETD Preservation Survey
If yes, would there be a preference for
17.95% Dark archiving
41.03% Public archive
41.03% Dim archiving
(14/78 responses)
(32/78 responses)
(32/78 responses)
80.41% of the people who took this survey (78/97) answered
this question.
ETD Preservation Survey

What would be the level of participation for
your institution in participating in the
NDLTD distributed digital preservation
archive?
45.95% Contributing
29.73% Preservation
24.32% Sustaining
ETD Preservation Survey

What platform or repository structure are you using to
collect, disseminate, and store your ETDs?
10% ETDdb
1% Eprints
2% Fedora
19% DSpace
22% In-house solution
46% Other platform or repository (1-3:
CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, DigiTool,
OhioLink, ProQuest, …)
ETD Preservation Survey
What information would your institution need to
participate in an ETD DDPN?









Costs: 38
Staffing: 16
Technical issues: 12
Expectations, responsibilities: 12
Hardware: 9
Long term goals, sustainability: 6
Access: 6
Procedures: 4
Agreement, legal terms: 4
ETD Preservation Survey
Comments/concerns, particularly the
distributed model that the MetaArchive
Cooperative is considering for ETDs






A welcome opportunity: 8
Still not enough: 5
Migration? 3
Confidential ETDs? 2
Not a priority: 2
Using CDs: 2
NDLTD Distributed Preservation
Workshop
June 4, 2008
11th International ETD Conference
Aberdeen, Scotland: Robert Gordon University
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/DDPNWorkshop200806.pdf