Key Challenge Groups
Janus Conference Follow-Up.
Below are redrafts of the actions to meet the six challenges discussed at the conference. These redrafts are based upon the plenary discussion on the final morning of the conference, a re-reading of the notes from each of the break-out groups, and some slight but unavoidable interpolation. Actions for Challenge 5, archiving, have been divided into two parts: one for print and one for digital.
We are asking each proponent group to review and discuss the action for its area, revise it so that it is more understandable and practicable, and post its revision to the conference blog by 2 December. Those Chief Collection Development Officer (CCDO) members who could not attend the conference should also be given access to the blog. We are hoping CCDO members will then discuss these actions at their home libraries in December and January, so that next steps can be considered at the CCDO meeting in San Antonio.
Please bear in mind that our purpose should not be to describe what should be done, but rather to agree upon and commit to what we will do together.
1. RECON (full text retrospective conversion). Research libraries will create a working group charged with organizing and implementing a national mass digitization project to convert print holdings in North American research libraries. This group will accomplish the following:
- determine selection model (e.g., American imprints, unique materials, each participant decides for itself)
- assume funding for the project will come primarily from participating institutions (e.g., begin with 1% of the materials budget, and increase within five years to 10% of the materials budget; maintain that level for the duration of the project).
- recommend an administrative and coordination model.
- recommend whether digitization should be done centrally or whether it should be distributed, or both.
- assume print retention decisions will be made locally (see action for Challenge 5A).
- take into account projects already in place nationally and internationally.
2. PROCON (prospective conversion: ensuring future publications are in digital form). Research libraries are committed to moving to an environment in the medium term future (e.g., by the end of the decade), in which most newly published materials are acquired in digital form. Research libraries will work with scholars, publishers, and each other in order to achieve this. As part of this process, research libraries will create more effective local print-on-demand services. Research libraries agree to shift to e-only by 2008 for those publications that are available in both print and electronic form (e.g., journals, reference books, textbooks, government documents). Exceptions to this commitment can be made locally (or, alternatively, a central group could identify journals that need to be retained in paper, as part of a core definition project; see action for Challenge 3).
3. Core Definition. Research libraries will create a working group to develop a process whereby all research libraries would acquire the same core materials in each subject area. The purpose of such core definition would be (a) to assist in cooperative collection development, (b) to leverage buying power with publishers, and (c) to eliminate the creation and adjustment of approval profiles and the monitoring of approval receipts, so that selectors can concentrate their time on the identification and acquisition of advanced and specialized materials. Such core definition should include both monographs and serials. For monographs, this might entail a single North American blanket plan. Use statistics and other data should be applied to the creation of such definitions. Research libraries may and should opt out of participating in those subject areas in which they collect below a core level.
4. Publisher Relations. Research libraries will agree to sign no licenses that include non-disclosure clauses, and to share among themselves the terms of agreements with all publishers. Research libraries will make every effort to ensure that licenses include such options as the right to use publications with course management software, the right to use publications for e-reserve, and the right of scholars to make their publications available in open access repositories. Research libraries will share systematically among themselves and with their user communities information as to which publishers do and do not agree to such options. Research libraries will consult among themselves and will come to collective agreements as to what they consider to be fair price increases for particular publications or publication packages. Research libraries will bring together representatives of the major consortia in North America to develop a plan for a single North American consortium.
5A. Print Archiving. Research libraries will create a working group charged with making recommendations on regional print repositories. This working group will accomplish the following:
- determine the relative cost effectiveness of regional facilities and local offsite storage facilities.
- examine and make recommendations on different protocols and policies for collection (e.g., types of materials, duplication, processing). Determine how different protocols and policies affect services and cost effectiveness.
- examine different geographical distributions and determine how these affect services and cost effectiveness.
- consider other regional repositories currently in place.
- recommend a process for administration and coordination.
- recommend delivery methods.
- assume participation will be voluntary, but consider how to make participation as attractive as possible.
5B. Digital Archiving. Research libraries are committed to having in place (e.g., by 2008) a network of digital repositories that operate according to certified standards. Research libraries will use these repositories to store (formally and informally) published and locally created digital materials—and will contain both bright archives and dark archives (mainly in order to protect material in copyright). Research libraries are further in agreement that, effective 2010, they will purchase no digital materials that are not deposited in such certified repositories. Research libraries are in agreement with, and will work to support, the steps outlined in Don Waters’ “Urgent Action Needed to Preserve Scholarly Electronic Journals.”
6. Alternative Channels of Scholarly Communication. Research libraries will agree upon the basic characteristics and functions of disciplinary repositories, taking into account the thinking already done in this area, and recognizing that different disciplines have very different needs and values. Research libraries will then divide among themselves (based on local subject strengths) responsibilities for developing repositories in each discipline. This will entail working closely with scholars, societies, university presses, foundations, and other key players. The necessary relationships between disciplinary repositories and digital preservation repositories (see action for Challenge 5B) will be defined. Maintaining such repositories may be a responsibility of libraries or of other trusted third parties. Institutional repositories may be used as gateways to disciplinary repositories. Research libraries will further work to ensure that each repository will include a ranking or quality control system, preferably some form of peer review, that will allow users to gauge the relative value or utility of each object (or groups of objects) in the repository.
(10/25/05)