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