What to Withdraw:
Print Collections Management
in the Wake of Digitization
Roger Schonfeld
April 2010
Our Mission
ITHAKA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
helping the academic community take full advantage
of rapidly advancing information and networking
technologies. We serve scholars, researchers, and
students by providing the content, tools, and services
needed to preserve the scholarly record and to
advance research and teaching in sustainable
ways. We are committed to working in collaboration
with other organizations to maximize benefits to our
stakeholders.
Our Services
•
Ithaka S+R works with initiatives and organizations to develop sustainable
business models and conducts research and analysis on the impact of
digital media on the academic community as a whole.
•
JSTOR helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build
upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive of over 1,000
academic journals and other content. JSTOR uses information technology
and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
•
Portico preserves scholarly literature published in electronic form—more
than 10,000 e-journals and 28,000 e-books—and ensures that these
materials remains accessible to future scholars, researchers, and
students.
Organizational Commitment to Preservation
•
JSTOR – actively preserving over one thousand academic
journals in both digital and print formats
•
Portico – digital preservation service providing a permanent
archive of electronic journals, books, and other scholarly content
•
Ithaka S+R
– Extensive work focusing on print collections management
during a format transition
– In addition to our work focused on scholarly journals, we have
recently completed a project on government documents
– Emphasis on developing policy framework to help libraries
negotiate a format transition without sacrificing preservation
Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2009:
Journal Current Issues
Support for cancelling print versions grows further
Strong agreement with statement:
“If my library cancelled the current issues of a print version of a journal
but continued to make them available electronically,
that would be fine with me.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2006
2009
With all disciplinary groups favoring the transition
Extent to which respondents agree with the statement:
“If my library cancelled the current issues of a print version of a journal
but continued to make them available electronically,
that would be fine with me.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Not Well
40%
Somewhat
30%
Very Well
20%
10%
0%
Humanities
Social Sciences
Sciences
But winding down print publishing may be more challenging
Strong agreement with statement:
“I am completely comfortable with journals I use regularly ceasing
print versions and publishing in electronic-only form”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Humanities
Social Sciences
Sciences
Journal current issues
•
Broad acceptance, even among most humanities fields, of the
cancellation of print in favor of electronic journal acquisitions
•
Some reservations about ceasing print publication altogether:
– Preservation?
– Reputation?
•
Publishers and libraries alike are eager to identify responsible
strategies to wind down print publishing
Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2009:
Journal Backfiles
Support for discarding print backfiles nearly doubles
Strong agreement with the statement:
“Assuming that electronic collections of journals are proven to work
well and are readily accessible, I would be happy to see hard-copy
collections discarded and replaced entirely by electronic collections.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2006
2009
With key disciplinary differences among faculty
Strong agreement with the statement:
“Assuming that electronic collections of journals are proven to work
well and are readily accessible, I would be happy to see hard-copy
collections discarded and replaced entirely by electronic collections.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Humanities
Social Sciences
2003
2006
2009
Sciences
Decreasing need to retain print, local and remote
Strong agreement with the statements:
“Regardless of how reliable and safe electronic collections of journals
are, it will always be crucial for _______ to maintain hard-copy
collections of journals.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
My college or university library
2006
Some college or university library
2009
Support for print collections may continue to erode
Strong agreement with the statement:
“Regardless of how reliable and safe electronic collections of journals
are, it will always be crucial for _______ to maintain hard-copy
collections of journals.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2006
My college or university library
2009
2012
Some college or university library
2015
The overall context
•
Faculty are becoming increasingly prepared for and indeed
“happy” about the format transition for academic journal backfiles
•
As print collections are digitized, many libraries face growing
pressure to reduce the size of their corresponding print collections
– and opportunities to redirect resources to new priorities
•
But it may be important to keep at least some print copies on
behalf of the library community, even if not locally
•
Efficient choices that will ensure essential preservation and be
sustainable well into the future are needed, both at individual
libraries and across the library community
What to Withdraw:
The Dilemma of
Print Preservation
Balancing preservation and efficiency
•
Our fundamental question: If libraries will need to withdraw
significant amounts of print, how can they prioritize “What to
Withdraw” to reduce risk to the system?
•
Can a print repository strategy bring more efficiency to the
system without sacrificing preservation interests?
•
Where are there risks? And can we reduce them?
The approach
1. Identify community preservation needs, ie, How many copies
need to be retained at minimum across the library community?
2. Disclose community preservation activities, ie, How many copies
are being securely retained across the library community?
3. Analyze what can be withdrawn without preservation risk, ie,
“Can my library confidently withdraw our copy?”
4. For other materials, determine how many more copies need to
be preserved in order to provide libraries with that confidence.
NOTE: We are not advising any individual library that it should,
or should not, retain or withdraw, any of its holdings
What to Withdraw Framework
What to Withdraw:
Print Collections Management in the Wake of Digitization
(September 2009)
http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/what-to-withdraw
What to Withdraw Framework: Overview
•
Define rationales for print preservation in the presence of
digitized surrogate
•
Based on these rationales, categorize journals according to their
relative preservation needs
•
Use an operations research methodology to determine the levels
of print preservation required for each category
What to Withdraw: Rationales for Print Preservation
Rationales that are relevant for the whole community
• Fix scanning errors
• Inadequate scanning standards & practices
• Inadequate digital preservation
• Unreliable access
• Scholarly needs
• Campus politics
Additional rationales that apply at the local level
What to Withdraw: Examples of Categories
Ideal Scenario
Inadequate Digital
Preservation
Image Intensive
Inadequate
Digitization
High digitization
quality standards?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Active errorcorrection?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reliable digital
preservation?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Image intensive?
No
No
Yes
No
Reliable terms?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
100 years; and may
not be a candidate
for withdrawal at
research libraries
Minimum time
horizon for retention
of some copies
system-wide
20 years; and a
candidate for local
withdrawal
n/a
What to Withdraw: Model
•
•
Ithaka S+R commissioned Candace Yano, operations researcher
at UC Berkeley, to develop a model for how many copies are
needed to meet these preservation goals
Assumption that dark archives have an annual “loss rate” of 0.1%
What to Withdraw: Model
•
•
Ithaka S+R commissioned Candace Yano, operations researcher
at UC Berkeley, to develop a model for how many copies are
needed to meet these preservation goals
Assumption that dark archives have an annual “loss rate” of 0.1%
Scenario
Time Horizon
Probability of
Success
Number of
“Perfect,”
Uncirculating
Copies
Required
Ideal Scenario
20
>99%
2
What to Withdraw:
Decision-Support Tool –
Proof of Concept
Regular webinars being held to present the framework and tool and answer questions.
Check here for upcoming sessions:
http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/what-to-withdraw/print-collections-decision-support-tool
What to Withdraw: First step
•
JSTOR-digitized titles offer an easy opportunity to apply this
model in the short term:
– Widely agreed to be of high quality and reliability
– Two page-validated dim to dark archives (at Harvard and UC)
– Widely held at libraries
– Easy access to relevant data
– Approximately 9,000 linear feet of holdings
•
We have developed a tool to provide libraries with information
about preservation status of JSTOR-digitized titles by identifying
titles which:
– Have relatively few images
– Are relatively completely held in both Harvard and UC
archives
“Actionable” Titles Count
Titles Listing
How This Tool Should Be Used (And How It Should Not)
•
A library can use this tool to identify a set of titles that are,
according to criteria it sets itself, well-preserved elsewhere.
•
Copies of these titles held locally are therefore not needed for
community preservation objectives, although there may be other
reasons for retaining them.
•
The title list is not a picklist for a withdrawal project; any library
may appropriately choose to locally maintain any or all of the
items this tool identified because of other needs or priorities.
•
This list provides one source of information to guide a decisionmaking process; it cannot substitute for that process.
What to Withdraw:
Next Steps
and
Broader Considerations
Current status
•
The What to Withdraw framework was released in the fall
•
ASERL publicly endorsed it in December
•
The decision-support tool was released in mid January
•
Ithaka S+R staff have conducted presentations and webinars on
the framework and tool with more on the way
•
Numerous libraries have downloaded the decision-support tool
and are beginning to make use of it in their decision-making
•
CRL is launching a major national program on print archives,
led by Lizanne Payne
Holdings disclosure, collections analysis, and decision support
•
Many libraries and library groups have expressed an interest in
expanding the tool to incorporate many more journal titles
– Consortia have expressed an interest in planning more
systematically for shared collections, guaranteed access, and
associated retention / withdrawal decisions.
– Print repositories have expressed an interest in determining
which materials need to be accessioned and which may be
adequately preserved elsewhere already.
– And individual libraries want to be able to make retain /
withdraw decisions based on an awareness of materials’
preservation status.
•
This means not only more data in the existing tool, but
building a more fully-featured tool that speaks to a
broader set of individual library and collaborative needs
Partnership of CRL and Ithaka S+R?
•
A potential CRL-Ithaka S+R partnership is being defined, within
the context of our organizations’ broader print collection
management / preservation projects and initiatives.
•
The purpose of this collaboration would be to develop decision
support tools to support print archiving.
•
One key rationale for this partnership is to ensure that the tools
developed are of the community, for the community, to ensure
that whatever we develop has a truly system-wide effect
A potential CRL-Ithaka S+R collaboration
Procedures and systems to
•identify and disclose archived holdings,
•analyze collections,
•facilitate collection management decisions, and
•support access/delivery
CRL:
1. Model service
agreements
2. A business
model and costsharing principles
to facilitate
network-level
cooperation
Ithaka S+R:
1. Intellectual
framework
2. Advisory and
implementation
support
services to
libraries
Some next steps
•
Refine the What to Withdraw framework to:
– support volume validation, so more print repositories can participate
– incorporate more quality paradigms beyond the “ideal scenario”
•
Incorporate more data into the tool:
– holdings and condition data from additional print repositories
– digitization and digital preservation information of many more titles
•
Redesign the tool to:
– support consortial and print repository management needs
– interact more readily with local systems
•
Offer advisory and implementation support services to
libraries, consortia, and repositories
Benefits and considerations
•
Coverage expanded to the 8,000-10,000 already-digitized titles,
or more than10 linear miles of shelving, including many STEM
journals
•
Libraries achieve significant space-saving opportunities
•
Preservation of these materials would be assured
•
Print repositories could be develop with greater efficiency and
effectiveness – rather than today’s “lumpiness”
•
Build on existing models driven by local / regional
incentives and relationships
Discussion
•
Does further work on the intellectual framework and associated
holdings/decision-support tools have value to you? If so what are
your immediate and long-term priorities?
– Digitized materials or all journal backfiles?
– Journals alone or monographs as well?
•
Does a CRL – Ithaka S+R collaboration add value beyond efforts
we might each pursue independently?
•
How if at all would you see ASERL and its members
participating in such a national effort?
•
Does your institution need additional information, analysis, or
support to make this national initiative more relevant or actionable?
– Locally customized cost savings analyses?
– Outside help to develop a long-term library collections
management strategy?
What to Withdraw:
Print Collections Management
in the Wake of Digitization
Roger Schonfeld
rcs@ithaka.org