The NDLTD and a History of ETDs
Gail McMillan
Director, Digital Library and Archives,
Virginia Tech
OETDA, March 28, 2008
The NDLTD
 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 (ETDs).
NDLTD 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
The Beginning of the NDLTD
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 software
1997 VT requires ETDs
NDLTD: from National to Networked
Digital Library of Theses and
Dissertations
Hosted or Visited for ETD Support
 Onsite at: Arizona State University, 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,
JISC, 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…
NDLTD Conferences














2009: University of Pittsburgh/West Virginia University
2008, June 4-7: Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland
2008: OETDA, Columbus, Ohio
2007: Uppsala University, Sweden
2006 Oct. 27-28:University of Missouri-St. Louis (US regional conference)
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
NDLTD 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
NDLTD Funding: SURA
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.
NDLTD Funding: SURA
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.
NDLTD Goals (early)
 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
NDLTD 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
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
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
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 Committees
 Conference Planning
 Services and Standards
 Awards (Adobe and NDLTD)
 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
NDTLD Committees 2008










Awards, Chair: John Hagen
Conferences, Chair: Sharon Reeves
Development, Co-chairs: Suzie Allard, John Hagen
Executive, Chair: Edward Fox
Finance, Chair: Austin McLean
Implementation, Chair: John Hagen
Membership, Chair: Eric Van de Velde
Nominating, Chair: Joan Lippincott
Public Relations, Chair: Suzie Allard
Services and Standards, Co-chairs: Thomas B. Hickey, Ana
Pavani
Benefits of NDLTD Membership
 Eligible to be aided by a Mentoring Program
 Discounts on exhibits/displays at the Annual
Conference
 Discounts on conference registration fees
 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)
 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)
 $600-$7,800: Category I (up to 50)
NDLTD’s Key Constituencies
 Faculty--not, but Fox/VT, Moxley/USF,
Pavani/PUC-Rio, etc.
 Students--not, but Allard/UKy, Edminster/USF
 Graduate school administrators--not, but
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
NDLTD and Preservation of ETDs
 Primary concern for early initiatives
 Paper seen as more enduring
 MetaArchive survey 2008
 75% no formal preservation plan
 92% interested in NDLTD preservation strategy
 Workshop at 2008 conference, Aberdeen
 Commercial alternatives: OCLC, ProQuest
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
The NDLTD Bylaws
Nov. ?, 2003 to date
 Charitable, educational purposes: 501(c)(3)
 Do all things necessary or convenient
 No stocks, no dividends, no income
distributed to its direcors or officers
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
The NDTLD Bylaws: Conferences
 Annual
 Provide a forum for members and guests
 Hear papers
 Promote discussions
 Other appropriate activities
 Technical demonstrations
 Exhibits
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: Executive, Finance,
Nominating, Annual Conference, Membership
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 book provided for the purpose 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
Digital Preservation Survey
Does your institution accept ETDs?

20% NO 80% YES
If so, does your institution accept only
electronic versions?

61% NO 39% YES
If so, does your institution also maintain print
copies?

43% NO 57% YES
Digital Preservation Survey
What file formats do you support for ETDs?
Digital Preservation Survey
How do you structure your ETD collection
(i.e., separate collections based on discipline,
year, or other criteria)?
Digital 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.
Digital 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.
Digital 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
8.42% NO
42.11% YES
(47/95 responses)
(8/95 responses)
(40/95 responses)
97.94% of the people who took this survey
(95 / 97) answered this question.
Digital 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.
Digital Preservation Survey
If yes, what level of participation?
45.95% Contributing: have your ETDs preserved by a
distributed network without sharing preservation
responsibilities for other institutions
24.32% Sustaining: preserve your ETDs in the distributed
network, share preservation responsibilities by
running a secure server for the network, and
contribute to the growth and maintenance of this
network both technically and organizationally
29.73% Preservation: both preserve your ETDs in the
distributed network and share preservation
responsibilities by running a secure server for the
network
Digital Preservation Survey
What platform or repository structure are you
using to collect, disseminate, and store
your ETDs?






ETDdb
Eprints
Fedora
Dspace
In-house solution
Other platform or repository
Digital 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
Digital Preservation Survey
How did you learn about this survey?
 CGS: Council of Graduate Schools
 ASERL: Association of Southeastern Research
Libraries
 ARL: Association of Research Libraries
 NDLTD: Networked Digital Library of Theses
and Dissertations
 DLF: Digital Library Federation
 Another source
Digital 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