PDF - CARL - ABRC

Meeting oof 

the CARL Scholarly S Commmunicationss 

Committee, , Wednesday May 19, 20100 

Present: Lynn Copela and (Chair); PPam 

Bjornsoon; 

Richard DDumont; 

Sylvvie 

Delorme; Margaret GGrove; 

Margaret Haines; Tho omas Hickerson; 

Diane Kooen; 

George Maslany; Carole 

Moore; Marnie Swanson; 

Ernie Inglees 

(ex‐officio); 

Kathleen Shhearer; 

Diegoo 

Argáez (Secrretary) 

Location: Matrix Hotel l, Edmonton, Alberta, 1:300 

pm – 5:00 pm 

1. Welcoome 

and intro oductions (Lyynn, 

5 min) 

AGENDA 

2. Receipt 

of minutes s from previous 

meetings (Lynn, 5 min) 

3. Business 

arising. 

3aa. 

Institutiona al Repositoriees 

Subcommittee 

wwork 

dispositio on update (Toom, 

20 min) 

3bb. 

SCOM Com mmittee activities 

summarry 

(All, 20 minnutes) 

[ie 

business arising 

from the 

November meeting wheere 

it developed a list, and the phone meeting 

where it 

disassembled 

the t IR subcommmittee.] 

3cc. 

Proposal: CARL, C CRKN, aand 

SSH Openn 

Access 

[MMotion 

neede ed] (10 minuttes) 

4. Subcoommittee 

rep ports. 

4aa. 

Data Mana agement Subccommittee 

uppdate 

(MMarnie 

Swans son) (20 minuutes) 

4bb. 

Print Conse ervation Subccommittee 

uppdate 

(MMargaret 

Gro ove) (15 minutes) 

–ARL collections 

repoort 

(SSomething 

in the ARL repoort 

to be exammined 

inn 

the Canadian 

context? QQuestion 

for thhe 

Committeee.) 

5. New bbusiness. 

5aa. 

OA engage ement strateggy 

(Diego, 30 minutes) 

5bb. 

Journals st takeholder meeting 

reportt 

(ssponsored 

by CALJ, Ottawaa, 

March 24, 2010) 

(15 minutes) 

6. Otherr 

business. 

6aa. 

New Chair for SCOM – rrecommendations 

to Boarrd 

(10 minutees) 

6bb. 

Presentatio on: OA research 

project (AAndrew 

Walleer) 

(15 minutees) 

documments 

1,2 

documment 

3 

documments 

4,5,6 

documment 

7 

documments 

8,9 

documments 

10,11,112,13 

documments 

14,15

6c. Launch of PMC Canada and possible synergies with IRs 

7. Reports from the field (if time allows; otherwise left for business meeting) 

7a. Canadiana.org (Lynn) 

7b. Synergies (Tom, Lynn) 

7c. CRKN 

7d. SPARC 

7e. ARL 

8. For information: 

8a. SCC work plan 2010 document 16 

8b. International Open Access Week (Diego) document 17 

8c. University presses study (UBC, Kathleen) document 18

Meeting of the CARL Committee on Scholarly Communication 

Present: Lynn Copeland (Chair); Charles Bérubé; Pam Bjornson; Richard Dumont; Gwendolyn 

Ebbett; Joyce Garnett; Margaret Grove; Margaret Haines; Thomas Hickerson; George Maslany; 

Carole Moore; Marnie Swanson; Kathleen Shearer; Diego Argáez (Secretary) 

Thursday November 12, 2009, 8:30 am – 11:45 am 

Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa 

Room: Boardroom 200 

Regrets: Michael Ridley; Janine Schmidt 

1. Welcome and introductions 

The minutes from the May 26, 2009, meeting were approved. 

2. Business Arising 

2.1 BOAI 

The Chair mentioned that it would be a good idea to re-affirm CARL endorsement for the BOAI. 

Moved, and passed at the committee meeting. [Editorial note: The motion was brought to the Fall 

General Meeting, and passed. 

2.2 PubMed Central Canada update (Pam Bjornson) 

Pam Bjornson reported that there was a soft launch during International Open Access Week (Oct 

19-23) for PubMed Central Canada. PMC Canada has been getting 3000-4000 hits/day. There 

are 1.4 million articles in the database; deposits are done via publisher agreements and author 

submissions. The contents are Indexed and crawled by Google, and OAI functionality for 

metadata harvesting has also been built in. CIHR is doing the press coverage for PMC Canada 

The quality assurance process (including peer-review) for PMC Canada is very strong. The 

National Library of Medicine negotiated deposit agreements/processes with publishers. Many 

Canadian health researchers can’t archive post-prints to PMC because they don’t have NIH 

funding. It will support CIHR and it’s OA policy as well. Dual submission article manuscript 

deposit is possible – PMC Canada, and then to an IR. 

2.3 SCOAP3 

Document 1 

The Committee held extensive discussions two meetings ago on this proposed business model. 

The Board asked CRKN to negotiate. More institutions have signed on in the U.S. in particular. 

SPARC suggests an endorsement in principle for SCOAP3 from CARL would be valuable. It’s 

based from the scholarly community, and it is important for CARL to support the principle involved 

– support for broad public access (free) to research outputs. 

1

Document 1 

The question was asked of what endorsement from CARL mean? In-principle endorsement 

doesn’t bind CARL to anything in particular. [CARL letter had about 8 or 9 caveats – e.g. the 

pricing shouldn’t go up; Canada can pull the plug if CARL deems it an unpalatable product.] 

Endorsement in principle another thing that helps the libraries keep a high profile in Open Access. 

A Motion for CARL support of SCOAP3 was raised. Passed. 

The Canadian contribution would be negotiated through CRKN. The letter from the BOARD did 

not commit individual institutions to anything as far as subscriptions go. The Committee members 

agreed that there needs to be a different kind of response – one of being supportive of an 

academic community’s efforts to achieve OA. Caveats were included in the original letter to 

CRKN; reiterating them in an endorsement in principle would water it down. 

3. Discussion of the new CARL Committee structure, 

Many proposed activities in the revised CARL Strategic Plan fall under the OA theme. The 

Committee considered the following questions: What are the short, and mid-term goals of the 

Committee; can’t do everything. What are the highest priorities to put the Committee’s efforts to? 

The following points were raised: 

Transforming Scholarly communication; OA issues; Influence legislation; advocacy with 

the granting councils; maintain CARL momentum there; Open Access advocacy – e.g. 

there isn’t an equivalent of SPARC in Canada; need to keep up the pressure; need some 

champions; foster Tri-Council mandates; Institutional mandates have to be perceived as 

grass-roots 

Research Data management; Research teams – e.g. embedding the librarians 

Digitization – Canadiana.org; CARL support of; CARL started CIHM, and AlouetteCanada 

Multimedia/Digital Collections ; creating digital media from any media – e.g. old, new 

media, born-digital; not just retrospective, rather any media to build the digital collections 

of the future 

Embedding the library in the research enterprise, and the librarians’ specific roles to 

support researchers 

Preserving print / physical collections; CARL should identify the role in can play in that 

area – a leadership/coordinating role; there’s a lot going on regionally, so there is value in 

bringing some national perspective for this issue 

Less cumbersome orphan works regime for Public Policy Committee rather than SCOM 

Supporting Granting agencies; key drivers of OA-related change; that’s where a lot of 

ground will be won in support of OA; they need to sense that they have support from their 

communities 

Great opportunities to work with the University presses to explore library partnerships 

with, and new business/access models; narrow window of opportunity the libraries must 

quickly act on 

Votes and Institutional mandates; have to be a matter of behaviour among faculty, rather 

than just a matter of principle 

Institutional Repositories 

How many faculties/departments have OA mandates; suggest keeping track of in some 

form; regarding IRs, do we have the capacity to respond to enthusiastic, large-scale 

faculty uptake when that happens? 

The Data Management Sub-Committee will take up the matter of Data mgt, and SCOM will 

continue to rely on them for that 

2

For the matter of print preservation, a sub-committee or working group can be formed to explore 

possibilities for CARL; a certain amount of resources would have to allocated to this; it stands 

apart from some of the other activities identified for SCOM – e.g. it doesn’t have the synergistic 

properties that OA, Data Mgt, IRs, Digitization, etc have. That said, not everything is going to be 

digital, and there are scholars who require materials in their original formats for their research. 

It was suggested that the Committee draw up a matrix or conceptual model organized by 

audiences the various issues address: Gov’t; Granting Councils; Research Community; University 

Presses; Regional Groups; Librarians 

Some of the discussion’s key points: 

OA activities remain a top priority 

Data Mgt 

Digital Collections 

Roles of librarians in the research enterprise; integration of library services in the 

research lifecycle 

Preserving physical collections 

Recommendation from the Committee: Physical preservation should be taken care of by a 

working group, Margaret Grove could Chair, Brent Roe can be on it too. 

Regarding University presses: Ingrid Parent (UBC) is interested in continuing the dialog Peter 

Ward started with the Nov 2008 library / university presses symposium. Another meeting has 

been planned with inclusion of the UBC Provost. There are smaller presses/entities in Canadian 

universities that have similar issues aligned with monographs, and there are links to Synergies. 

CARL should explore the relationship between libraries and the University presses. [The last 

Ithaka report had some interesting ideas: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf ] 

Action item: Research report on what the various university presses are doing, and 

collaborative opportunities. Looking at the Ithaka report, what’s going on in Canada that 

parallels it. Ryam Crow’s SPARC report useful in that regard as well. 

Action item: Proposals for an OA Advocacy Strategy with the Funding Councils and 

Government – e.g. Industry Canada. Go to funding agencies, and Industry Canada, and 

contact politicians. Engaging the Ministries is a way in as well. Support for OA in the 

Natural Sciences lags behind the Health Sciences, but there are advocates in the former 

community. Researchers in the field are making the case for the value of broad 

accessibility for research; a way of improving recognition internationally for Canadian 

research. The other side is the political; if the public paid for it, it should get access to it. 

It’s about publicly funded research dissemination. The taxpayers own this research in a 

fashion. 

Digitization / Canadiana.org 

Document 1 

Action item : Research report: Where is Canada with respects to what was proposed in 

CDIS – What is the state of national digitization activities in Canada? Review the CDIS. 

3

4. IR and Data Management Subcommittee Reports to SCOM. 

IRs 

At the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) founding meeting, CARL was a 

founding member. Kathleen Shearer represented CARL. This is a good place for CARL to have a 

seat at the table. 

The IRs Chair pointed out that the Sub-Committee will work on the following projects: 

The IRs Sub-Committee will continue to develop a Communication Strategy for 

CIHR 

Concerning the Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit (SWORD) 

application, the Sub-Committee will develop it further for Canadian IRs. 

IR Statistics Survey 

User services for aggregated content ; publications from IPY a good test bed 

Participation at the upcoming ETD conference – May 10-11 at Carleton 

University 

Joint work with Data Mgt Sub-Committee 

Data Management 

The Chair of this Sub-Committee reported that 3 of 4 activities have been; the fourth will be 

completed by the end of December. The Data Management Awareness Toolkit; prepared by 

Kathleen has been revised. The French text needs vetting; 50 copies were printed to hand out at 

the November 12 program featuring Richard (Rick) Luce’s keynote address. 

There was a very successful pilot workshop at Carleton; over 40 participants; a working group is 

recommended to develop further and the workshop and replicate it. 

Another brochure will be developed – a condensed version of the Data Management Awareness 

Toolkit as a leave behind item. 

The Data Management Sub-Committee is also Recommending to the Board, setting up a joint 

meeting with CUCCIO. 

MOTION: Create a Data Mgt/IR WG to review current practices for data set ingestion in IRs. 

PASSED. 

5. OA models study 

Document 1 

Currently, there are no well established assessment criteria for supporting OA journals, such as 

those that have been developed in the subscription environment. Is there interest by the 

committee in CARL developing such criteria? SPARC has recently published "Income Models for 

Supporting Open Access", which includes a list of models on the supply side (publishers) and the 

demand side (libraries). This guide may be of interest to committee members and could be used 

4

as the first step in developing a set of assessment criteria for libraries to determine which OA 

journals they will financially support. 

This item was deferred for the time being. 

6. Proposal for discussion - That CARL recommend to CRKN to allocate specific funds to 

support Open Access. 

CRKN plays a role in helping to transform scholarly communication; what else should it do to 

support Open Access? Motion: recommend to Board, that it encourage CRKN to explore 

opportunities to support OA. Motion Passed. 

There has to be a revenue stream to support OA; we have to choose to support certain products 

over others that do provide OA. 

7. Congress 2010 in Montreal 

One of the themes of Congress this year is open access. There are three separate sessions 

planned: (1) a keynote by Robert Darnton, (2) a panel of OA journal business models by CALJ, 

and (3) a panel about the benefits of OA in the developing world. CARL is being asked to sponsor 

the third event. Leslie Chan will moderate the panel and the speakers will be developing world 

researchers who can articulate the potential impact of OA on their work. 

Theme “Connected Understanding” 

Congress and Concordia are looking for sponsorship – they need 9000, and have already 

received 3000 from an anonymous donor. Some in-kind support is needed to organize the panel 

– contacting speakers and organizing their travel and accommodations. This is the biggest 

audience to promote OA to in Canada. Concordia Staff could handle travel arrangements, CARL 

can help identify speakers. 

The Committee recommends that the Board go ahead with sponsoring this. 

8. Discussion of International Open Access Week – e.g. What worked? What didn’t? 

Office to follow up - ask for input by e-mail what worked, what didn’t work as well, etc. 

9. Create Change Canada – Ideas for more Canadian content www.createchangecanada.ca 

Office to follow up. 

10. Reports from the field 

Canadiana.org 

Synergies 

CRKN 

COAR 

ARL 

SPARC 

Document 1 

[Editorial note: Covered at the second general business meeting on Friday.] 

5

Document 1 

11. New Business 

11.1 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

(input needed for archiving and electronic publication) 

Office to follow up; send the email out on CARL-L. 

The meeting adjourned at 11:45. The next meeting will take place at the call of the Chair. 

6

Minutes of the CARL Scholarly Communications Committee held by teleconference, Monday March 15, 

2010, at 1:00 pm Eastern time 

Present: Lynn Copeland (Chair), Pam Bjornson, Richard Dumont, Margaret Haines, Thomas Hickerson, 

Diane Koen, Carole Moore, George Maslany, Marnie Swanson, Brent Roe, Kathleen Shearer, Diego 

Argáez (Secretary) 

Regrets: Sylvie Delorme, Ernie Ingles, John Teskey 

Document 2 

The Chair welcomed the committee members to the meeting, and added two items to the agenda, the 

matter of appointing a new Chair for the Committee and a recommendation she recently made to the board. 

Scholarly Journals Stakeholder Meeting (March 24, Ottawa) 

The Canadian Association of Learned Journals(CALJ) is sponsoring this meeting to which members of the 

research community, libraries and granting agencies have been invited. A draft Synergies report prepared 

by Rowland Lorrimer (SFU) is available. SCOM suggestions for further input are welcome; Lynn will 

distribute the report to the SCC listserv. [Done] 

Recommendation to the Board, possible CARL proposal to CRKN 

The Chair had recently recommended to the Board a possible proposal CARL could make to CRKN, similar 

to SCOAP3, for Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities journals. A committee could be struck to 

undertake and oversee the project. It would be important to establish, early on, that participating libraries 

must not be disadvantaged with journal price increases. The money currently spent on SS and H journals 

that receives public money, would go to financing an aggregate OA business model for those journals. 

The Chair asked whether there is SCC support for such an undertaking. The Committee was of the 

opinion that this is a good proposal. It was noted that both Board and Committee support could help 

give CARL participants at the upcoming Scholarly Journal Stakeholder meeting in Ottawa some additional 

direction in terms of their input. An OA transformation should not translate into an increase in library 

expenditures. With respects to publicly funded research , we need to think holistically about a library and 

granting agency spending; there needs to be a holistic deal – decoupled from CRKN. It was noted that 

many CALJ journals are not so easily transferred to OA - so it could be a question of targeting a particular 

subset of those journals for an OA conversion. 

1

Concerning the stakeholders' common concerns, it was pointed out that the draft agenda reflects some 

very broad concerns. There will be many different points of view at the meeting. CARL should know what it 

is that it sees to its advantage. The question was asked whether one can anticipate publisher push- back. 

That could likely be part of the meeting as there are for profit and cost-recovery players who will be 

attending the Scholarly Journals Stakeholder Meeting. The Association should aim for consistency in 

supporting OA. It was suggested that library and public funding (including granting agencies, and CRKN) be 

devoted to fostering OA - that it help move in that direction as a general principle. 

CARL Open Access Engagement Strategy 

Document 2 

The Committee members agreed that the actions proposed in the draft summary document are good 

ideas. It was mentioned that an OA briefing paper and subsequent documentation mention open digital 

repositories rather than institutional repositories. It should draw attention to PubMed Central Canada, and 

touch upon International initiatives such as COAR. 

The strategy needs to target a handful of communities - policy makers, researchers, libraries, etc. – and that 

should also be reflected in a briefing paper. 

ACTION : the CARL Office will begin work on this, and report back to the Committee at the Spring meeting 

in Edmonton. 

Incorporation of IRs Sub-committee into Scholarly Communications Committee 

It was proposed that the IRs Sub-Committee be rolled into the CARL Scholarly Communications 

Sub-committee. Another suggestion was that the IR and Data Management Sub-committees be combined 

into one sub-committee. Committee members were in agreement that this is beneficial, insofar as the 

sub-committee members can move together in the same direction in developing an e-science agenda. The 

Terms of Reference would have to reflect the new shared goals and structure. 

MOTION: Combine both sub-committees, with new title and mandate. CARRIED 

Work of the IRs / Data Sub-committees – dataset ingestion, and services survey 

With respects to IR's and data, the proposed activities are relevant. For the work in data management there 

is an additional $1000.00 (Workshop in conjunction with DLI training in spring 2010) 

Invitation for CARL to Sponsor two digital preservation pre-conference sessions (CLA) – June 2 

(LAC/CLA in Edmonton), June 8 (ACA in Halifax) 

Ernie Ingles has taken a presidential decision to help out at $2500. This money can be directed to the ACA. 

it's not two sponsorships , rather two workshops put on by LAC. CARL will be specially noted as a sponsor 

of this event. 

2

DART Europe (ETDs partnership between European research libraries and consortia; CARL 

collaboration/synergies with?) 

CARL will keep a watching brief . 

ACTION: The CARL Office will look into this further and report back to the Committee. 

CARL Sponsorship of Congress OA session in May at Concordia 

CARL is contributing $2500 (taken from the '09 budget). Kathleen is the session planner commissioned by 

Concordia. Three sessions are planned: 

Robert Darnton (Harvard’s Library Director) is confirmed to speak. 

A panel about open access at universities: confirmed are Michael Geist, John Willinsky, Gerald Beasley, 

and Heather Joseph. 

A panel about open access and the developing world: so far, the Executive Director of the Libraries at the 

University of South Africa is coming, but others are being sought. Leslie Chan will be the convenor. 

ETDs Conference in May at Carleton 

At least 14 people will participate in an IRs managers’ meeting on March 12; it's not just an ETDs meeting, 

rather discussions will be about open digital repositories. 

COAR & Open Repositories Meeting in Spain 

COAR’s first annual meeting took place on March 2, 2010. Membership up to 36 (from 24)institutions. 

Membership fees were settled. The COAR work plan was discussed, and Kathleen Shearer made 

recommendations on behalf of CARL. A fuller is forthcoming (it will be sent out on the Committee listserv) 

New Chair for the Scholarly Communications Committee 

Names can be sent to current chair, who will follow up with the nominee(s) and make recommendation to 

board. 

The meeting was adjourned at 2pm. 

Document 2 

3

Document 3 

CARL Institutional Repositories Program 

Report to SCOM, May 2010 

1. Future of the IR Subcommittee 

The IR Working Group was formed in 2002 by Jean-Pierre Coté (Université de Montréal). The 

original aim of the Working Group was to assist members in building and populating their 

institutional repositories. In 2002, there were only 3 IRs in Canada, and now in 2010, almost all 

CARL member libraries have an IR. The Working Group has accomplished a lot for CARL and the 

Canadian repository community. It has served as a focal point for monitoring developments with 

repositories, and has increased the visibility of CARL and repositories through advocacy and 

promotion activities. In addition, the IRWG has undertaken the following activities since 2002: 

With SFU, developed and implemented the CARL Harvester 

With Creative Commons, adapted the CC license for Canada 

Initiated the development of the Metadata Profile for Institutional Repositories in order to 

standardize repository metadata 

Developed the “Greater Reach for your Research” brochure (in conjunction with SPARC) 

With CISTI, assessed the SWORD protocol (a protocol that will enable simultaneous deposit 

into IRs and PMC Canada) 

Organized three meetings of repository managers (including one on May 12, 2010) 

Undertook a review of content recruitment strategies for Canadian repositories 

Annually, undertook a survey of institutional repositories in Canada 

Undertook an assessment of usage statistics methods in repositories 

Put on a program about repositories at the CARL AGM with all three funding councils 

participating 

Recommended that CARL join the Confederation of Open Access Repositories 

It is being proposed that the IR Subcommittee be disbanded and the current activities be 

distributed amongst the SCOM and the Data Management Subcommittee. While there is still work 

to be done, particularly in the areas of populating IRs and developing value added services, it is 

felt that this work can be effectively pursued and overseen via these two other venues. The 

motivation for the change is to better integrate the activities related to IRs and ensure that they 

contribute to the larger CARL Scholarly Communications enterprise. 

2. Meeting of IR Managers in May 12, 2010 

CARL organized a meeting of librarians working with IRs in conjunction with the ETD-Open 

Repositories Conference at Carleton University in Ottawa. The theme of the meeting was “Adding 

value to repositories through collaboration”. The first half of the meeting involved a roundtable at 

which each participant had the opportunity to talk about their individual projects and discuss 

challenges with each other. For the second part of the meeting, participants were asked to 

contribute their ideas about possible collaborative services for Canadian repositories that would 

add value to repositories in general. The meeting was attended by over 25 people from across the 

country. A more detailed report of the meeting will be available soon. 

3. Confederation of Open Access Repositories 

On October 21, CARL became a founding member of the Confederation of Open Access 

Repositories (COAR). COAR is an international association of organizations with a common

Document 3 

strategic interest in open access. COAR evolved out of a European project called the Digital 

Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (DRIVER) in consultation with the 

international repository community. 

The COAR General Assembly was held in March 2010 and was attended by Kathleen Shearer on 

behalf of CARL. The membership has increased by 22 organizations since October and now has 

46 members and 3 partners from around the world. Members include individual 

libraries/universities, federations, associations, government funders, and research organizations. 

New members of interest include CERN, the Coalition of Networked Information (CNI) and OCLC- 

and the partners are LIBER, Microsoft and BioMed Central. Membership fees for 2010 will be 

2500 €. 

The AGM agreed on the following objectives for the organization: 

1. Promote the role of OA repositories and raise their profile / Be the strategic partner of regional, 

national and international OA initiatives as a representative/authoritative voice 

2. Collect, assemble and disseminate best practices for the inception, operation and growth of 

OA repositories 

3. Facilitate the discussion on the interoperability among OA repositories and as part of a wider 

e-Infrastructure 

4. Support regional and national repository initiatives / Promote the repository manager 

profession 

5. Promote the concept, design and implementation of an OA information commons (incl. the 

question whether COAR should provide concrete services, such as the (meta-) Data Store) 

Working groups populated by members will undertake the work of COAR based on these 

objectives. 

The Advisory Council will be identified at the next AGM. It was agreed that the council be based 

on regional and stakeholder representation. The Chair proposed that Canada has a 

representative on the Advisory Council. 

A more detailed report of the COAR AGM is attached as an Appendix. 

4. SPARC Digital Repositories Conference 

Kathleen Shearer was invited to be a member of the program committee for the conference. She 

has been working to help develop the program for the Conference, define the scope of the 

session, and identify appropriate speakers. She has been asked to work specifically on the Open 

Data session. The other sessions are Repository-based Publishing Services, Global Repository 

Networks, and Making the Case for Financial Sustainability. The conference will be held on 

November 8 & 9, 2010 in Baltimore, MD.

Document 3 

The Confederation of Open Access Repositories 

Report of the Annual General Meeting. March 2, 2010 

By Kathleen Shearer 

Members 

COAR now has 46 members and 3 partners from around the world. This is an increase of 22 

organizations since the organization was formed in October 2009. Members include individual 

libraries/universities, federations, associations, government funders, and research organizations. 

New members of note are CERN, the Coalition of Networked Information (CNI) and OCLC- and 

new partners include LIBER, Microsoft and BioMed Central. 

A full list of members is included at the end of the report. 

Activities to Date 

The Executive Board and the COAR Office initialized the design of the COAR logo, a flyer, 

and a temporary website. 

The Executive Board and the COAR Office have had multiple communications with 

interested parties, but not an explicit membership campaign yet. COAR was presented to 

various organizations, for example to CLARA, SPARC Europe, LIBER etc. 

Preparation of the General Assembly. 

Kathleen Shearer of CARL prepared a submission to the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP) consultation of open access on behalf of COAR. 

Work Plan 2010-2011 

Several members of COAR, including Kathleen Shearer from CARL, were asked to present ideas 

for one objective in the work plan. After the presentations, it became clear that there was a lot of 

overlap between the various objectives. The objectives were re-worked by a small working group 

and voted in by a majority of members. The final work plan objectives are as follows: 

1. Promote the role of OA repositories and raise their profile / Be the strategic partner of regional, 

national and international OA initiatives as a representative/authoritative voice 

2. Collect, assemble and disseminate best practices for the inception, operation and growth of 

OA repositories 

3. Facilitate the discussion on the interoperability among OA repositories and as part of a wider 

e-Infrastructure 

4. Support regional and national repository initiatives / Promote the repository manager 

profession 

5. Promote the concept, design and implementation of an OA information commons (incl. the 

question whether COAR should provide concrete services, such as the (meta-) Data Store) 

Membership Fees 

The general assembly voted for the following membership fees for 2010: 

Single Full membership: 2500 € 

Basic group membership: 2.500 € plus 500 € for each additional member (group

Document 3 

memberships have one vote, but represent more than one organization) 

Invoices for 2010 for COAR will be sent out within April 2010. For 2011 the General Assembly will 

discuss the membership fees for 2011ff. 

Working Groups 

Working groups (WG) will undertake most of the work of COAR and will be populated by 

members. The working groups will be formed based on the 5 objectives identified in the work 

plan. Groups will be established soon and members were encouraged to volunteer to one or 

more working groups. 

Advisory Council 

It was proposed that the criteria for the setting up the Advisory Council should be based on 

regional and stakeholder representation. It also may include the working group leaders. The 

advisory council will be determined at the next meeting, but the initial proposal by Norbert Lossau 

is as follows: 

Regional representation: JP (Syun Tutiya), CH (Xiaolin Zhang), US (Clifford Lynch), Canada 

(?), Latin-America (Martha Giraldo), Europe (?), More regions? 

Stakeholder representation: funders, libraries/institutions in developing countries, repository 

platform providers, technical/infrastructure/service providers, industry, researchers could be 

represented by subject repositories 

Members:?JISC, ?FECYT, ?FCCN, Rima Kupryte eIFL, DuraSpace/e-prints, SURF, Microsoft 

(Tony Hey) 

Next Meeting 

Six months in advance, the Executive Board will propose a location and date for the next meeting.

List of COAR Members (As of April 8, 2010) 

Document 3 

Members 

Association for Learning Technology (ALT), ALT Repository 

Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) 

National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) 

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) 

Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) 

Cooperación Latino Americana de Redes Avanzadas (CLARA) 

Italian National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Information Science and Technologies 

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CISC) 

Consorcio Madroño 

Denmarks’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) on behalf of the Danish Agency for Libraries and 

Media 

Digital Repository Federation Japan (DRF) 

eIFL.net 

Fundação para a Computação Científica Nacional (FCCN) 

Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) 

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council 

for England (HEFCE) 

Institute of Mathematics an Informatics - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 

Kungliga Biblioteket, Stockholm 

Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague 

Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciencs / Tudományos Akadémia Könyvtára 

Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (MinCyT) 

My Open Archive 

National Institute of Informatics (NII) 

NORA on behalf of the University of Tromsø 

National and University Library of Slovenia (NUK) 

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) 

Red Nacional Académica de Tecnología Avanzada (RENATA) 

Sächsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden 

SPARC Europe 

SURF 

Technische Universiteit Delft 

University of Arizona 

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 

Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin 

University of Bielefeld 

University of Debrecen 

Universiteit Gent 

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 

Universität Konstanz 

Universidade do Minho 

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) 

University of Nottingham 

Universidade dp Porto 

University of Regensburg 

Universidad del Rosario 

University of Stuttgart 

Uniwersytet Warszawski, Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling

(ICM) 

Document 3 

Partners 

Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche (LIBER) 

Microsoft Research 

Open Repository - BioMed Central

Document 4 

CARL, CRKN, and Social Sciences and Humanities Open Access: a proposal 

Lynn Copeland 

April 15, 2010 

CARL was an original signatory of the Budapest Open Access Initiative and continues to support these principles. 

Lacking a SPARC Canada, Canadian library engagement in open access activities is most closely identified with CARL; 

nevertheless, there are libraries in the wider academic community who are also interested in and eager to participate in 

these initiatives, particularly where the institution has an active research agenda. As the primary negotiator of licences for 

commercial research content for research libraries, with representation from the major regional and national groups, 

CRKN should also play a role in moving this agenda forward. Increasingly, individual libraries also host or otherwise 

support research journals. In some cases, organizations such as OCUL play a key coordinating role for their constituents. 

On the content provision side of this equation are a number of directly or potentially involved organizations. SSHRC 

provides funding for SSH journals which meet certain criteria and has provided seed money to encourage journals to 

move to publishing in electronic format and toward open access. The granting agencies provide funding for publishing of 

research results as part of their grants. CALJ is a membership organization of Canadian academic journals, many but not 

all of which are also SSHRC journals (see the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Appendix 1). Synergies has undertaken as 

part of its mandate to develop a business model. As the central organization of scholarly and other SSH associations in 

Canada, CFHSS (‘FedCan’) is potentially a key partner. Individual institutions provide differing levels of support for 

research journals through author fees to open access journals (libraries) and through institutional direct funding to key 

journals either published at the institution or for which faculty play a specific role such as editor in chief, or of direct 

interest to faculty at the university. Individual scholarly associations often publish peer reviewed journals which are 

distributed free or at a discount to members. 

This is a complex series of interlocking relationships and responsibilities. In order to bring together the resources and 

expertise of these diverse groups, it is necessary to develop a simple relationship model which takes into account the 

needs and responsibilities of all players. As a first step for libraries, this proposal focuses on the roles and responsibilities 

which CARL and CRKN might play, building on the role each has played in the broader context. 

CARL has been a leader in initiating and championing initiatives to support scholarly communication and research in 

Canada, beginning with CIHM in the 1970s and including the initial development of CLNSP, now CRKN. It has a long 

history of working partnerships with organizations such as SSHRC, FedCan, SPARC and ARL. Its agenda has long 

included support for open access scholarly publishing in various forms. For the most part, rather than engaging in 

specific projects, it has provided the visionary leadership to move these projects forward through entities such as CRKN 

and Canadiana.org. CARL can play a central role in adopting the principles relating to this initiative and encouraging 

other organizations to move them forward, both from within the organizations per se and as a facilitator of action among 

diverse players. 

CRKN has been a leader in negotiating licences for commercial product, and has supported open access in a limited way. 

For example, the arrangement with Erudit is a relationship with an entity with limited open access mandate. Working 

through the NRT, CRKN has been successful at negotiating advantageous prices for a wide variety of materials, for the 

most part transitioning existing expenditures and CFI funding to expand the range of materials available to about 70 

libraries in Canadian institutions with a research mandate. 

Support for open access does not easily fit into the NRT model. Nor is there enthusiasm among all CRKN members to 

allocate resources from their collection budgets toward this end; the value of open access is not as apparent as the savings

and increased content achieved through NRT negotiations. This suggests that a new subcommittee within CRKN be 

struck to develop models and principles for open access support, within a framework similar to that which CARL 

developed in relationship to the SCOAP3 proposal. As a starting point, the principles might include: 

Support for open access initiatives should be opt in/out beyond the first year 

Individual libraries should spend no more for the specific OA content during the first year than the 

corresponding subscription with a reasonable increase thereafter 

Beyond the first year, cost to individual participating libraries should not increase to cover the non‐participation 

of libraries which opt out 

Document 4 

No library should lose access to its current collection because of any particular initiative. 

As a first step in moving toward these goals, it is proposed that CARL take the lead in bringing this vision to fruition by 

proposing and even sponsoring such a CRKN initiative, bringing other key players to table during the process.

All identifiable Cdn. SSH journals** 

Erudit 90 

Project Muse 20 

SSHRC 161 

CALJ 114 

SSHRC and CALJ 73 

SSHRC and Erudit 40 

CALJ and Erudit 24 

SSHRC and CALJ and Erudit 21 

SSHRC, not in online package, not OA 62 

CALJ, not in online package, not OA 62 

SSHRC and CALJ, not in online package, not OA 33 

Online or package or OA 203 

Still to be converted 298 

Notes: 

Document 5 

* Some may actually be online (eg Archivaria) 

** Includes SSHRC, CALJ, Erudit, EBSCO Cdn jls 

**Some EBSCO Cdn titles are not scholarly peer reviewed journals

Document 6 

Outline – Synergies Business and Sustainability Plan Rowland Lorimer 1 of 11 

Outline – Synergies Business and Sustainability Plan 

Outline – Synergies Business and Sustainability Plan .................................................................................... 1 

Executive Summary: ...................................................................................................................................... 1 

Synergies in a Global Nutshell ....................................................................................................................... 2 

The Changing Nature of Scholarly Communication ...................................................................................... 2 

Synergies Specifics ......................................................................................................................................... 3 

From Services to Catalyst ............................................................................................................................... 4 

Current Realities in Scholarly Communication: An Environmental Scan ...................................................... 5 

Emerging Technological Capacity of the Synergies Project .......................................................................... 6 

Reorganization of Financial Support .............................................................................................................. 6 

Addressing Organizational Challenges in Support of Journal Publishing ...................................................... 7 

SSHRC support .......................................................................................................................................... 7 

University, research institute, and learned society support ........................................................................ 7 

Library participation as users and hosts ..................................................................................................... 7 

Journal participation .................................................................................................................................. 8 

A Committee for the Restructuring of Scholarly Communication in Canada ................................................ 8 

The NSSHRC 3 Mandate ................................................................................................................................. 8 

NSSHRC 3 Membership and Operations ......................................................................................................... 9 

A Proposed Agenda for Negotiations ........................................................................................................... 10 

Executive Summary: 

This document outlines a framework for the creation of an accessible electronic 

repository of Canadian social science and humanities research with specific emphasis on 

the adaptation of scholarly journals to current and future technological changes in journal 

publishing, dissemination, and access. It outlines the nature of the Synergies project and 

the organizational changes needed to take full advantage of the catalytic potential 

inherent in Synergies initiatives. The paper concludes with a proposed for moving 

forward. 

Digital realities provide enormous opportunity for research dissemination; however, 

achieving the full benefits of those realities requires a reorganization of the publishing 

infrastructure inclusive of both production and consumption. By encouraging journals to 

shift to electronic media as a primary means of dissemination, and by extending the roles 

of libraries to include electronic publishing services and universal access, a public system 

can be created that will maximize service to the research community and the general 

public. 

A key component of that research dissemination system is Synergies, a national research 

platform representing a $12 million investment by federal and provincial agencies in 

collaboration with a number of universities. Synergies offers world-recognized journal 

publishing software and a national database of Canadian social science and humanities 

research complete with query tools that have the potential to make Canadian social 

science and humanities research publicly available, worldwide. 

To achieve the goal of worldwide public access to Canadian SSH research requires 

oncerted action by stakeholders and the re-allocation of existing funding. It requires the 

continuation of SSHRC support; a slight enhancement of support provided by universities 

to resident journals; continued support of journal publishing by scholarly societies and 

5/5/10 1 of 11


other owners; participation by libraries as hosts for online journals; a transformation of 

library support from the purchase of subscriptions to direct support; and a conversion of 

the primary published product from print to online media. 

The key challenges are three. The first is to provide a fair and adequate flow of funds to 

journals in a manner that ensures their long-term survival. The second is the 

transformation of support by university libraries from subscriptions to access- and usagebased 

support. The third is to create an appropriate organization of hosting and related 

support services that is cost effective and respects the institutional relationships that 

various universities have with journals. 

Synergies in a Global Nutshell 

Synergies is a dynamic and evolving national digital publishing platform, index, and 

repository of peer-reviewed journal content and other research literature. Once in 

operation, Synergies will quickly emerge as a crucial foundation of both production and 

access to Canadian social science sciences and humanities (SSH) research for the 

foreseeable future. Synergies will also act as a contributing repository of Canadian SSH 

research to the sum of SSH research and knowledge worldwide. Synergies assists 

journals and monograph publishers, universities and conference organizers, 

throughThrough provision of publishing and access platforms that facilitate manuscript 

management, peer review, publishing of research, and nultifaceted access., Synergies will 

assist journal and monograph authors, editors and publishers, universities, conference 

organizers, and the education community as a whole. The $12 million investment of 

public funds in Synergies, shared by the Canada Foundation for Innovation, SSHRC, 

mainly the provinces of BC, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and 22?? 

universities across Canada represents a statement of faith in the value of ready access to 

SSH research by both researchers and the public alike. 

The object of this paper is to outline a sustainable funding model to ensure a permanent 

electronic archive and national research publication platform for Canadian humanities 

and social sciences. It describes the first development phase with its initial operational 

dynamics and lays a framework for joint action to sustainability and, as a result, a second 

development phase. This document recommends movement to Open Access publishing 

to take full advantage of digital realities and what Synergies is creating. However, more 

conservative options are possible that can build on some of the potential of online 

publishing media. 

The Changing Nature of Scholarly Communication 

Historically, the primary role of scholarly communication was to assist in the formation 

of communities of researchers to contribute to a ferment of ideas and a record of research 

upon which subsequent research could build. The body of knowledge created, for the 

greatest part, came to exist in two media forms, the scholarly monograph and the journal 

article. In addition to these forms were student theses and dissertations that were 

considered, in some countries, “unpublished.” 

5/5/10 2 of 11 

Formatted: Pattern: Solid 

(100%) (Yellow), Not Highlight


A defining characteristic of the scholarly and research publishing process is its autonomy 

from academic institutions, an autonomy that complements and enhances academic 

freedom. In the name of academic freedom, considerable effort is expended to achieve 

and administer, for example, blind peer review, to ensure that publication decisions are 

made solely on the merit of the research. Necessary as such autonomy is, it creates extrainstitutional 

dependencies – on the marketplace, on research and other funding agencies, 

and on enlightened access 1 to institutional funds. 

For the most part in the print era, the market model governed access to the research 

record through publication pricing, institutional and individual purchasing, and/or 

membership in a scholarly society. While favouring wealthy countries, institutions, and 

individuals, the ever-increasing over-exploitation of copyright by commercial science, 

technology and medical (STM) journal-publishing firms interfered with effective 

knowledge communication to potential beneficiaries. 

In the print world, such shortcomings required certain practices and provisions workedarounds 

around the shortcomings and inequities of the market model; for instance, the 

record existed in libraries while researchers mailed off prints to other researchers who 

requested them. In a digital world, the shortcomings of the print-based marketplace 

model are more apparent and new. The absence of user-attributable costs beyond firstcopy 

costs transforms subscriptions and other purchasing into a bottleneck rather than,For 

instance, in a digital world, there is no need to separate the creation of the record from 

dissemination. Similarly, the subscription-based model is no longer an imperfect but 

understandable but imperfect means for allocating resources. That same absence makes 

possible the The absence of user-based costs – printing and distributing a user's personal 

copy – transforms subscriptions into an unnecessary bottleneck. The dynamics of digital 

technology bring forward consideration of Open Access, that is to say, dissemination to 

users without user fees, in more dramatic terms, the universal public distribution in 

pursuit of universal dissemination of knowledge and hence the maximization of benefit to 

humanity. 

Synergies will provide major assistance in transforming the possible future of the digital 

world into an operational reality. However, in the final analysis, Synergies can only serve 

as a catalyst. The realization of the goal of both easy and public dissemination of research 

requires action by the research and post-secondary education community as a whole. 

Universities and researchers worldwide and acting in concert must find the means, in 

collaboration with research funders, to support the crucial knowledge dissemination role 

that journals and scholarly monographs, and other forms of non-commercial scholarly 

publications, play. 

Synergies Specifics 

To achieve the benefits made possible by digital information and communication, 

Synergies was designed to provide the following services: 

1 I am using the term enlightened here to mean recognition of the greater good of the general community 

rather than a responsibility for the interests of one’s own institution. 

5/5/10 3 of 11


1. Online, version-controlled, secure, manuscript management software for journals 

encompassing all functions from receipt of manuscript through to online and 

print publication; 

2. Description of Erudit platform needed in words that are within the implicit 

perspective of these points; 

3. Hosting services for journals at a number of institutions across Canada; 

4. A fully indexed national database of Canadian social science and humanities 

research inclusive of journal articles, theses, conference proceedings, and online 

monographs. Include a note here on queries and presentation of results; 

5. An online manuscript management called Online Monograph Press for the 

publication of scholarly monographs; 

6. An online conference management system called Online Conference Systems for 

the conference management including paper submission and publication of 

proceedings; 

7. A LOCKSS-based security system to ensure data integrity and preservation; 

8. Ontario more? 

9. UNB more? 

10. Other services that are relevant selling points and can be understood by scholars 

and journals. 

From Services to Catalyst 

The value of such services, in and of themselves, was recognized by the 22 institutions? 

who that signed on to the original Synergies proposal, by the journal community who 

that also endorsed the proposal, by the Canada Foundation for Innovation through its 

funding, by the provinces and universities that provided more than matching funds to 

CFI’s original investment, to say nothing and of course, the researchers and librarians 

who took the proposal forward. The catalytic potential inherent in Synergies services can 

be fully realized by means of a sustainable business plan focused on shared interests in 

the dissemination of knowledge. Moving from technological innovation to an operating 

system demands an understanding of the process of scholarly publishing, dissemination, 

usage, the roles of key participants, how all of the above will change in the emerging 

technological environment, how best a transition might be brought about, the nature of 

the new infrastructure and how it will be maintained, and the potentialities that are 

inherent in the infrastructure that will lay down trajectories of development. 

Without such an understanding and a public sector plan to support the continued 

development of scholar- and association-controlled journals, commercial for-profit 

journals will increase their market dominance and the circulation of knowledge will be at 

the mercy of their commercial interests. As is so apparent in the US health care system, a 

marketplace model delivers less and costs far more than universal access. 

Overall, the amount of funding required is little more than what is now being expended, 

given that digital dissemination dispenses with printing, shipping, handling, postage, 

subscriptions management and the need for purchasing from secondary aggregators. 

However, such decreased costs must be balanced against new expenditures in journal 

publishing software development and maintenance and IT services and emerging 

5/5/10 4 of 11 

Formatted: Pattern: Solid 

(100%) (Yellow), Not Highlight


opportunities for a richer representation of researcher and hence a transformation in the 

nature of knowledge. It is this last point that is most persuasive in justifying investment in 

the technological modernization of research knowledge publication and dissemination 

that Synergies represents. We will come to know our world through different forms and 

symbols and that world will be different. 

Current Realities in Scholarly Communication: An Environmental Scan 

The creation and communication of the research record, and the resulting formation of 

research communities, has been vested primarily with scholars and their associations and 

facilitated by universities. The following describes those involved and their roles. 

Responsibility for the research record has been taken up at least eight categories of 

participants in a shared fashion. The roles of eight participants are as follows: 

1. Disciplinary associations found, organize, and oversee the operations of journals. 

2. Scholars, acting alone or in groups; 

a. found, organize, and oversee the operations of journals; 

b. volunteer as editors and on editorial boards; 

c. pay membership dues to associations for which members receive a 

subscription to the association journal; 

d. subscribe to journals; 

e. conduct research into and make innovative contributions to the scholarly 

publishing process. 

3. Universities that employ academic editorial scholars contribute by: 

a. allowing for such volunteerism; 

b. providing subsidies in the form of 

i. direct funding, 

ii. course releases, 

iii. space etc, 

iv. office services, and 

v. editorial assistance. 

4. Research institutes, sometimes in conjunction with their universities, also provide 

subsidies in various forms for production. 

5. Research funding agencies provide direct funding to journals and/or indirect 

funding to authors that is passed on to journals. 

6. Libraries act as collection-building agents, provide access, and preserve the 

record and thus act as representatives of users-over-time. 

7. University students contribute 

a. through the purchase of course packs where the route of the funding is 

often through Access Copyright. Relatively rare cases of student 

subscribers also exist; and 

b. by acting as assistant editors and fulfilling other roles in journal 

publishing. 

8. In cooperation with scholars, commercial organizations act as 

a. for-profit publishers of journals; 

b. aggregators who provide online publishing and/or dissemination services 

and return small revenue percentages to journals; and 

5/5/10 5 of 11


c. sales agents to libraries. 

The many participants and the overlap in their roles creates certain elasticities of support 

that, generally speaking, introduces stopgap measures that lead to both continuity and 

succession. Given that the above system contains many ad hoc components, since it 

preserves itself over time, it is desirable that its dynamics be appreciated and, crucial 

dynamics, preserved.replacement possibilities when one source of funding shrinks or 

disappears and thereby contribute both to the stability of journals and their survival. 

Because the above-described system has both longevity and the capacity, in general, to 

support a stable set of scholarly journals that serves research and researchers well, 

preserving an ad hoc elasticity may be important. 

Emerging Technological Capacity of the Synergies Project 

Synergies is on the road to success in demonstrating that: 

1. Journals can be published online and made available worldwide; 

2. Theses, conference proceedings, and monographs can be added to the 

foundational journal collection and made available similarly; 

3. All publications can be indexed and made available to users; 

4. All publications can be aggregated into a single database that can be queried in a 

variety of ways and the results presented in many useful aggregations and 

formats; 

5. All publications can be queried in both English and French; 

6. List further technical achievements that are significant to sell the services 

Reorganization of Financial Support 

In the context of this emerging technological capacity, the challenges in achieving the 

catalytic potential for journal publishing and the research community that are inherent in 

Synergies are in the reorganization of financial support. 

Scholarly publishing could continue in its current form, with SSHRC grants, small 

amounts of university and scholarly association support, and the market (libraries) 

providing the majority of funds in the form of subscriptions to journal publishing. 

However, greater benefit and revenue could come from converting journals not only to 

the online environment where dissemination is facilitated but also to an Open Access 

model for worldwide distribution. Given the enthusiastic endorsement of Open Access by 

libraries, universities, scholars, and funding agencies, it falls to these stakeholders in the 

creation, communication, and preservation of the research record to put resources in place 

to make Open Access and achievable goal. 

At minimum, a reorganization of financial support involves five sets of participants 

contributing in the following ways: 

1. Continued participation by SSHRC to provide support to journals; 

2. Continued participation of universities, research institutes, learned societies, and 

other organizations in support of journal publishing; 

3. Participation by research and post-secondary institutional libraries (or their 

equivalent) 

5/5/10 6 of 11


a. as “consumers,” and hence involving virtually all SSH Canadian postsecondary 

libraries; 

b. as service providers in the provision of hosting and support services; 

4. Participation by a substantial majority of Canadian SSH nonprofit journals as 

“publishers”; 

5. Maintaining a development trajectory for 

a. the continued maintenance and development of OJS; 

b. the continued maintenance and development of the Synergies database, its 

accessibility, and its facilities for presenting data in useful ways; 

c. a work-efficient integration of Erudit with OJS; 

d. the development of an index of equivalent functionality to the Scopus or 

ISI indexes; 

e. international marketing of the content and this public sector solution to 

knowledge production, dissemination, and access. 

There are, of course, ways of flowing needed resources to journals and other publishers 

alternative to what is outlined below. Submission fees or other author fees are possible 

and are being put in place in certain countries, by certain journals, and in certain 

disciplines. Likewise, per-capita and per-institution levies could fund journal publishing. 

However, given the current structure of support in Canada for SSH journals, the proposed 

reorganization that follows appears to make the greatest sense. 

Addressing Organizational Challenges in Support of Journal Publishing 

SSHRC support 

Ongoing involvement of SSHRC is critical in helping to guide the transition of 

Synergies from its development to its operational and second development phase. 

SSHRC involvement will assist Synergies in creating a sustainable infrastructure to 

ensure that researchers and research achieve recognition both in the world research 

community and in the public sphere. Such involvement will provide an understanding 

that will foster continuing long-term support to Canadian SSH journals. 

University, research institute, and learned society support 

The considerable financial resources provided to journals on an ad hoc basis will 

continue to be both necessary and important. Gathering and distributing information on 

the extent of journal support would assist in increasing awareness of its crucial nature to 

the publication of Canadian SSH research. 

Library participation as users and hosts 

With the ease of access and lack of individual user costs brought about by digital 

technologies, libraries will increasingly predominate in representing users in crafting and 

maintaining a production, distribution and consumption structure. By bringing resources 

to the table, libraries will be in a position to play an influential role as representatives of 

users. 

Given the library community’s desire and preference for Open Access, which closes off 

marketplace earnings for journals, and given the existence of SSHRC support for 

5/5/10 7 of 11


Canadian SSH journals, the most appropriate role for Canadian libraries would be to 

negotiate with non-profit Canadian SSH journals (many of which are, or will be, hosted 

by Synergies) for worldwide Open Access on the foundation of replacing all subscription 

and permissions income with direct financial support. 

Journal participation 

Of all participants, journals and monograph publishers are in the most difficult position in 

this technological transition. The costs of operation of journals are considerable, in the 

order of $20,000 to $100,000 plus per annum. Such costs are calculated over and above 

the volunteer time of scholars as editors and peer reviewers. A continuing uninterrupted 

flow of funds is critical to transition. 

Journals face a financial, technological, and hence existential dilemma. Currently they 

earn revenue in the marketplace as a result of hundreds of decisions by library and 

individual subscribers. Replacing the marketplace with a single customer introduces 

vulnerabilities that must be counteracted. While much is made of changing technology in 

journal publishing, and even though the market for print journals is predicted to constrict 

rapidly, as of early 2010, subscriptions-based journals were still earning substantial 

revenue from print subscriptions, probably more than half of all revenue. It would be 

irrational (economist’s definition) for journals to abandon that revenue stream if it is a net 

revenue producer. On the technology side, many journal employees are relatively 

unfamiliar with the dynamics of running an online business and are thus reluctant to take 

on a challenge that is not obviously adequate to survival. These financial and 

technological variables are sufficient in magnitude to sink a journal, hence the existential 

dilemma. 

The many issues that arise, particularly with libraries and journals, are discussed in the 

following section. 

A Committee for the Restructuring of Scholarly Communication in Canada 

The creation of a digital infrastructure for social science and humanities research 

communication, the primary element of which would be Open Access online journal 

publication and accessibility, can indeed succeed. Moreover, its success would serve the 

interests of research communities, journals, research and post-secondary libraries, and, 

most importantly, society in general. 

It is proposed that such an infrastructure can best be created through the founding of the 

National Social Sciences and Humanities Research Communication and Co-ordination 

Committee (NSSHRC 3 ) with an executive secretary and a guiding mandate followed by a 

negotiation process among the primary stakeholders. 

The NSSHRC 3 Mandate 

The proposed mandate of NSSHRC 3 is: 

To identify the most probable sources of an initial annual budget of $6 million and 

the necessary organization of those resources to create a stable but innovative, 

national, non-profit, Open Access, online journal publishing system. It is anticipated 

5/5/10 8 of 11


that the sources of needed funds will, in the main, be reallocations of funds now 

supportive of Canadian SSH journals. The budget would encompass the following 

elements: 

a. Long-term support for the maintenance and development of Canadian 

non-profit online SSH journals beginning at current levels of output and 

responsive to growth in research output; 

b. The maintenance and continued development of OJS to a level that 

maintains its competitiveness with commercial alternatives; 

c. The maintenance and continued development of the Synergies-developed 

Canadian database and index of SSH research content complete with 

secure archives to a level that maintains its competitiveness with 

commercial alternatives; (All regional centres need to bring forward 

system needs that they feel best able to serve. I don’t want to be seen to be 

making the decisions on what is needed or not nor put words in people’s 

mouths. This would cover at least, b, c, and e. ) 

d. A promotion and marketing program to a level that maintains its 

competitiveness with commercial alternatives; 

e. A program of meta-publishing initiatives designed to add value by 

increasing access and use of Canadian SSH research in the scholarly and 

public spheres. 

As a guideline, the following allocations might serve as an initial suggestion for 

consideration. 

SSHRC $2.5 million 

CRKN $2 million 

AUCC members $1 million 

Learned Societies $ 200,000 

Journal print sales $ 300,000 

TOTAL $6 million 

NSSHRC 3 Membership and Operations 

It is proposed that NSSHRC 3 be composed of an executive secretary and 12 

representatives from the following organizations. It is further proposed that these 

representatives assume responsibility for the following roles: 

1. CFHSS and CALJ to represent the interests of journals and researchers. 

Coordinating with each other as well as their members, they would each name 

two representatives to NSSHRC 3 . At least one member of the four would be 

drawn from the membership of the francophone journals group; 

2. CARL to represent the interests of libraries with two members one of whom 

would be a board member of CRKN. (Alternatively, the Exec. Dir. of CRKN 

could be included as a non-voting member.); 

3. A member of the board of AUCC or a designate, whose institution was involved 

in hosting journals in conjunction with Synergies to represent the interests of 

universities; 

4. A member of the executive of CAUT as a representative of the educative 

function of scholars and researchers; 

5/5/10 9 of 11


5. A member of the executive of SSHRC to represent the interests of Canada’s 

research funding agency; 

6. A member of the Steering Committee of Synergies to represent the interests of 

Canada’s emerging online research publishing and database platform; 

7. A person qualified to represent OJS as Canada’s leading open source journal 

publishing software; 

8. A person qualified to represent Erudit and university-based, non-library hosting 

services. 

A Proposed Agenda for Negotiations 

It is proposed that CFHSS and CALJ jointly convene meetings of NSSHRC 3 until and 

executive secretary is in place and that negotiations be undertaken to develop an 

agreement among stakeholders. 

It is proposed that the following items be introduced for discussion: 

1. Continued financial support by SSHRC for eligible journals with reasonable 

expansion to take into account expansion of research output. Recognition by all 

parties of the role SSHRC has played in supporting journals and maximizing 

affordable access would be appropriate. 

2. Continued financial and other support of SSHRC-eligible journals by AUCC 

members with modest increases over current support for journal management and 

editing within their institutions. 

3. Continued financial and other support of SSHRC-eligible journals by CARL 

members and by libraries of other post-secondary educational institutions, ideally 

by means of a worldwide licence for access to all Canadian SSH journals, and 

including modest increases over current subscription support to account for 

increased access to content within their libraries and the sponsorship of 

worldwide open access. Such support should be at a level to provide funds to 

cover publishing costs beyond those covered by AUCC members and SSHRC. 

4. Continued financial support by SSHRC, CARL, and AUCC to fund the 

maintenance and continued development of the following to preserve their 

competitiveness with commercial alternatives; 

a. OJS; 

b. The Synergies-developed Canadian database and index of SSH research 

content inclusive of a secure archives; 

c. Is there a need to add other crucial technical elements here? 

d. A promotion and marketing program; 

e. Meta-publishing services built on the Synergies backbone including OJS 

and Erudit. 

5. Continued moral support by SSHRC, CARL, AUCC, CALJ, CAUT, and CFHSS 

of Synergies in ensuing applications to CFI or other appropriate funders for which 

Synergies might qualify. 

6. The provision of hosting services as part of the Synergies network free of charge 

to all non-profit Open Access Canadian SSH journals that qualify for SSHRC 

funding. 

5/5/10 10 of 11


7. The extension of the opportunity to all Canadian universities to provide hosting 

services as part of the Synergies network free of charge to all non-profit Open 

Access Canadian SSH journals that qualify for SSHRC funding. Circulation of 

interoperability protocols and standards along with estimates of cost 

responsibilities would facilitate such an extension. 

8. Continued access to OJS software at no cost for non-profit, Canadian SSH 

journals accompanied by assurance of continued development to maintain 

competitiveness with commercial alternatives. 

9. Journal access to information, training, and conversion services for the set-up and 

use of OJS and, where needed, to a low-cost program for back issues digitization. 

10. Legal registration of PKP, within which OJS exists, as a non-profit entity with a 

board of directors drawn from funders and users and specifically, in part, from the 

Canadian SSH-research, journal and library communities and from the Synergies 

Steering Committee. 

11. Legal registration of Erudit as a non-profit entity with a board of directors drawn 

from funders and users and specifically, in part, from the Canadian SSH-research, 

journal and library communities and from the Synergies Steering Committee. 

12. Legal registration of Synergies as a non-profit entity with a board of directors 

drawn from funders and users and specifically, in part, from the Canadian SSHresearch, 

journal and library communities and from OJS and Erudit. 

13. The creation of a tiered structure by CALJ and CFHSS through which journals 

could be offered to Canadian institutions in return for financial support. 

14. Continuing effort by journals to 

a. Take advantage of automated system to increase production and 

dissemination efficiencies; 

b. Position themselves to ease out of regular print runs as markets constrict 

while retaining print-on-demand options; 

c. Provide authors with effective indexing, linking, statistics, and other 

measures aimed at assisting in both increasing author's readership and 

their reputations (re tenure and promotion); and 

d. Provide partners with access to the financial and publishing data needed to 

determine a fair allocation of resources. 

15. Methods and means to increase the awareness of Canadian SSH scholars and 

researchers and the general public of the benefits on online and Open Access 

journal publishing as outlined in this document. 

16. Methods and means to make known Canada’s leadership role in taking full 

advantage of the digital age to build a knowledge-based society under a slogan 

such as “Research: Canada’s Gift to the World.” 

17. Methods and means to monitor and evaluate on a continuous basis the 

contribution and viability of this initiative as a means of enhancing the quality and 

impact of Canadian research and scholarship. 

5/5/10 11 of 11

Document 7 

CARL Data Management Subcommittee 

Report to SCOM, May 2010 

1. Develop a brochure about the importance of data management. This brochure 

is aimed at administrator, researcher, and government policy makers and will be a 

"punchy" and easy to read handout for those who are trying to raise awareness of 

the issue of data management on campus (or in government agencies). It is based 

on the Data Management Awareness Toolkit. The first draft is complete and the 

Subcommittee has provided feedback to improve it. 

2. Further develop and sponsor/produce the Workshop on Data Management 

for Librarians. Staff at Carleton University Library have developed curriculum for an 

introductory workshop on data management for librarians. The first workshop took 

place on November 10, 2009. Feedback from this workshop was then used to 

improve the curriculum for further workshop(s). A second workshop was held in April 

2010 in conjunction with a Data Liberation Initiative Training Session. 

3. Current practices for collecting data sets in IRs 

Data are both the products of research and the starting point for new research. As 

the volume of research data increases exponentially, there is a need to preserve this 

data so that it can be used to the maximum extent possible. Many research libraries 

have built institutional repositories in order to manage the research output of their 

community and are interested in collecting datasets. However, there are additional 

challenges to collecting and managing data- including the complexity of metadata, 

large size of datasets, etc. This project will review existing practices for collecting 

data sets within IRs internationally, assess the feasibility and costs associated, and 

develop a set of recommendations for libraries who are interested in this practice. 

The project is currently being discussed and scoped out by the DM Subcommittee. 

4. User services for aggregated content of IRs 

The content contained in the digital repositories could be the starting point for a 

number of value-added services that enable the use and re-use of materials in many 

contexts. The premise of this project is to develop a vision of more sophisticated 

services that will attract users, and also improve deposit rates. The vision may 

include the existence of repositories as a critical part of the nation's e-infrastructure, 

as is occurring in Europe. In addition, these services could include the development 

of “special collections” based on the aggregated content of distributed repositories 

(text, data, etc.). These special collections may be based on document type, subject 

matter or other characteristics. Presumably, these types of services are not likely to 

be developed without external funding in place. The vision document created in this 

project could act as the basis for a proposal for these types of services. This project 

was transferred from the IR Subcommittee. The DM Committee will be asked to 

contribute their ideas towards the development of this vision, which can then be 

enlarged and enhanced in the coming months.

Special Collections in ARL Libraries 

A Discussion Report from the 

ARL Working Group on Special Collections 

March 2009 

Document 8 

Association of Research Libraries


A Discussion Report from the ARL Working Group on Special Collections 

March 2009 

Published by the 

Association of Research Libraries 

Washington, DC 20036 

www.arl.org 

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a 

copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 

Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Contents 


March 2009 

Preface ...................................................................................................................................... 5 

Introduction: The Time Is Now .................................................................................................. 9 

I. Collecting Carefully, with Regard to Costs, and Ethical and Legal Concerns ..........................11 

Restrictions on Access ................................................................................................................................ 12 

Transparent Provenance ............................................................................................................................. 13 

Sound Records Management Practices ...................................................................................................... 13 

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 15 

II. Ensuring Discovery and Access .............................................................................................17 

Addressing the Problem of Backlogs and “Hidden Collections” ................................................................. 17 

Focus on Access in Setting Descriptive Standards ......................................................................................18 

User Contributions ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Cross-Collection Searching ..............................................................20 

Exhibitions .................................................................................................................................................20 

Digitization ................................................................................................................................................21 

Large-Scale Digitization .............................................................................................................................21 

Creating Metadata .....................................................................................................................................22 

Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................23 

III. The Challenge of Born-Digital Collections ...........................................................................25 

Models of How to Handle Digital Materials in Special Collections .............................................................26 

Descriptive Practices and the Provision of Continuing Access ....................................................................27 

Recommendations (with some talking points on digitization privacy/institutional liability concerns) .........28 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 31 

Appendices ..............................................................................................................................33 

www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf Page 3


March 2009 

Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................33 

I. Collecting Carefully, with Regard to Costs, and Ethical and Legal Concerns ...........................................33 

II. Ensuring Discovery and Access ...............................................................................................................33 

III. The Challenge of Born-Digital Collections .............................................................................................34 

Working Group Charge ..............................................................................................................................36 

Glossary .....................................................................................................................................................38 

Page 4 www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf

Preface 


March 2009 

The ARL Working Group on Special Collections was charged by the Research, Teaching, and Learning Steering Committee 

in 2007 with advising it “on special collections issues on an ongoing basis. In this context, ‘special collections’ is 

construed broadly to include distinctive material in all media and attendant library services.” 1 The Working Group has 

two interrelated priorities: 

1. Identify opportunities and recommend actions for ARL and other organizations that will encourage concerted 

action and coordinated planning for collecting and exposing 19th- and 20th-century materials in all formats (rare 

books, archives and manuscripts, audio and video, etc). 

2. Identify criteria and strategies for collecting digital and other new media material that currently lack a recognized 

and responsible structure for stewardship. 

In this report the Working Group identifies key issues in the management and exposure of special collections material 

in the 21st century. Though the initial focus was on 19th- and 20th-century materials, most of what is said below applies 

with equal force to collecting and caring for materials from previous centuries as well as materials that bring us into the 

present and oblige us to look forward into the future. 

Working Group members include directors of research libraries, heads of special collections departments, and other 

professional leaders with particular concern for traditional and digital special collections. Visitors and observers have 

included Donald Waters of the Mellon Foundation and Charles Henry of the Council on Library and Information Resources 

(to consider proposals for the CLIR/Mellon Hidden Collections grant program), and ARL Research Library Leadership 

Program Fellows drawn from the special collections community. 

The Working Group met in person four times in 2007–2008 and conducted extensive e-mail correspondence based 

on drafts of this report. The chair of the Working Group presented some preliminary findings and recommendations 

to the annual conference of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL in Los Angeles in June 2008, and 

subsequently circulated a draft of the report to representatives of both RBMS and the Society of American Archivists. The 

report presented here reflects extensive comments received from those bodies. 

The term “special collections” has been used in North American libraries in many different ways. One of the more 

restricted uses designates special collections as rare books, generally dating from the dawn of European printing to some 

point in the 19th century, with the addition of rare editions and special printings of a later date, often known as the 

1 The charge of the Working Group is appended. The charge is also available at http://www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/spcollwg/ #special. For 

additional background information and a definition of special collections, see ARL’s Special Collections: Statement of Principles (2003), 

“Research Libraries and the Commitment to Special Collections” at http://www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/speccollprinciples.shtml. 



March 2009 

“book arts”. More often the term is used to include manuscripts, archival collections of mixed format including prints, 

drawings and photographs, and graphic materials such as maps, theatrical publications, pamphlets, advertizing and 

posters, and sometimes newspapers, which were not published in book form. “Special collections” also can be extended 

to include distinct collections of material relating to a particular subject or part of the world or sometimes reflecting the 

output of a particular publisher; and in this definition the materials often will be in non European languages. By the end 

of the 20th century, the collections of most libraries of any size had proliferated into numerous additional formats: film 

and video, audio tapes, microfilm, and other formats for written communication. A new information revolution also 

had established born-digital materials as an essential part of the holdings of research libraries, though they entered the 

consciousness of library administrators and their budget calculations first as scientific journals and databases, not a form 

of communication generally designated as special collections. 

“Special collections” is used in this report ecumenically. Our thinking has embraced libraries’ stewardship of any kind 

of vehicle for information and communication that lacks readily available and standardized classification schemes, and 

any that is vulnerable to destruction or disappearance without special treatment. Thus we have included evanescent web 

sites as part of our deliberations, as well as fragile printed ephemera and rare books, and all the other formats mentioned 

above. We also have taken into account the increasing convergence between special collections in libraries and those 

held in museums and archives, paying particular attention to material that is not yet housed in any such institution but 

which needs to be collected, preserved and described in the interests of research in the future. 

This document is intended primarily for the directors of ARL member libraries and the administrators within their 

organizations. Many statements included here will be seen by professional archivists, curators, and special collections 

librarians as assertions of existing best practice. Special collections departments are often very small and sometimes 

isolated, and they compete for attention and resources within their own institutions and the broader research 

environment. One aim of this report, therefore, is to draw the attention of the research library community as a whole to 

the exceptional opportunities that special collections present to the users of our libraries and to the challenges now faced 

by special collections departments. We wish to underscore the need for research library leadership to support actions 

that will increase the visibility and use of special collections and support both existing and developing best practice in the 

stewardship of special collections. While this report focuses on special collections in North American research libraries, 

we believe it has potential application more broadly. We hope it may form a useful part of the discussion among many 

professionals who are charged with the perplexing challenges of handling rare, unique or unusual material that is or 

ought to be available permanently for use by the widest possible audiences. 

An additional purpose of this report is to set out and to invite reflection on the extraordinary challenges that face 

the collectors and stewards of special collections in libraries and archives in the 21st century. We hope to provide a 

framework within which some important discussions of policy may take place. We also hope that this report will support 

an enhanced and extended understanding within research communities more generally of the unique and irreplaceable 

contribution that special collections make to scholarship and learning, and to the general public good. The research 

library community has an opportunity to grasp the challenges and help shape a glorious future for the extraordinary 

resources found in special collections in North America. 

— Alice Prochaska, Chair, ARL Working Group on Special Collections 


ARL Working Group on Special Collections Members 

Alice Prochaska, Chair (Yale) 2007–2009 

Larry Alford (Temple) 2008–2010 

Susan Brynteson (Delaware) 2008–2010 

Mark Dimunation (Library of Congress) 2007–2011 

Jackie Dooley (California, Irvine/RLG Programs/OCLC) 2007–2009 

Nancy Eaton (Pennsylvania State) 2007–2010 

Joan Giesecke (Nebraska) 2007–2009 

Nancy Gwinn (Smithsonian) 2008–2010 

Anne Kenney (Cornell) 2008–2010 

Clifford Lynch (Coalition for Networked Information) Liaison 

James Michalko (RLG Programs/OCLC) Liaison 

Victoria Montavon (Cincinnati) 2007–2008 

Susan Nutter (North Carolina State) 2007–2011 

Sarah Pritchard (Northwestern) 2009–2011 

Bernard Reilly (Center for Research Libraries) 2007–2011 

Mike Ridley (University of Guelph) 2009–2011 

Gary Strong (California, Los Angeles) 2007 

Rich Szary (North Carolina at Chapel Hill) 2007–2011 

Ian Wilson/Ingrid Parent (Library and Archives Canada) 2007–2009 

Corresponding Members: 

Graham Jefcoate (Nijmegen, Netherlands) 

Richard Ovenden (Oxford, Bodleian Library) 

Alice Schreyer (Chicago) 

Staff Liaisons: 

Jaia Barrett (ARL) 

Julia Blixrud (ARL) 

Lisa Carter (ARL Visiting Program Officer/North Carolina State) 

Michael Rush (ARL Visiting Program Officer/Yale) 

Crit Stuart (ARL) 


March 2009 


Introduction: The Time Is Now 


March 2009 

Special collections in ARL libraries encompass the full gamut of research topics and formats. They have the potential to 

serve every discipline in the academic curriculum, and they can be useful to all possible clients and users of the research 

library: from the general public to special interest and amenity groups, to students at all levels and research scholars both 

within and beyond institutions of higher education. In an environment where mass digitization of books and periodicals 

for Web access is accelerating, and electronic journals and aggregated databases are part of the shared landscape of 

scholarly communication, it is their accumulated special collections that increasingly define the uniqueness and character 

of individual research libraries. The time is now to meet the challenges and responsibilities that these materials present. 

If they encapsulate the essence of a research library, it is vital that special collections be afforded sufficient resources for 

their good management. 

This report identifies key aspects of the management of special collections material in the 21st century. 

Contemporary research libraries face limited resources, existing backlogs of under-described material, complicated legal 

issues, and a swiftly evolving technological landscape. All this challenges their ability to collect, preserve, and provide 

access to rare and historical resources in a way that offers the appropriate service to library customers. And yet there are 

abundant opportunities to expose truly unique research materials, as never before. 

There are professional and management choices to be made in the way research libraries allocate resources to these 

rare materials. There are also questions of ethics: issues relating to the proper stewardship of materials that reflect human 

activity in the past and the selection of materials relating to the present, and a wide range of important issues connected 

to the obligation to make material accessible to our publics. 

The continuing proliferation of public audiences for special collections is one significant aspect of the challenge we 

address here. Local and family historians, specialist interest groups, businesses of every kind, both for profit and not 

for profit, from the small and local to the multinational, and the many forms of electronic interactions, from blogs to 

email lists to social networking sites to interactive presentation tools: all these are features of a dynamically changing 

landscape, and they all generate an appetite for access to special collections. It is essential to involve the primary groups 

and associations that cater for these publics, including corporations, associations, and politicians and government at 

every level. Libraries and archives need to communicate to these communities the challenges of providing access to 

special collections. 

Our charge directed us to look at the issues surrounding materials from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as 

well as digital and other new media. Most of what we say below applies with special force to collecting and caring for 

materials from those recent centuries as well as contemporary times, and we find it both unhelpful, and impossible in 

practice, to ignore the clamors of modern materials, which oblige us to consider the challenges of the present and future. 



March 2009 

I. Collecting Carefully, with Regard to Costs, and 

Ethical and Legal Concerns 

There are important considerations that should be taken into account in the process of deciding to accept stewardship 

of special collections materials. Libraries often document the full costs of acquiring a book; in many cases the ancillary 

costs equal or exceed the purchase price. Processing and preservation costs routinely are taken into consideration in 

determining whether to purchase or accept gifts of books. The calculation of total acquisition costs for special collections, 

however, is rarely as easy to determine. 2 The community of research libraries as a whole will also benefit from the 

establishment of shared databases describing their respective collecting strengths, and based on this, identifying gaps in 

provision. This information can help individual organizations to avoid costs that might turn out to duplicate the efforts of 

others. 

Collections with substantial digital components add complexities, since both the near-term processing costs and, 

particularly, longer-term preservation costs for these kinds of materials are not well understood. Often these materials 

may be offered as gifts and require little or no near-term purchase outlay, but will clearly require significant long-term 

investment to maintain. In the digital world, it is all too easy to acquire materials that a library cannot afford to keep in 

perpetuity. 

In addition to financial considerations, there are ethical concerns in accepting special collections without considering 

the total costs of maintaining and providing access to them. First among these is institutional credibility. Institutions risk 

embarrassment or even legal liability when they accept collections whose high total costs result in delays in meeting 

donor requirements or expectations. This can lead to even higher costs to the institution in terms of legal fees, public 

relations work, or accelerated processing expenses. 

Next, collections care presents a whole range of issues. If the costs of managing a collection are excessive, the 

collection itself can be endangered or lost through inadequate preservation or security. The longer a collection languishes 

in processing, the more expensive it can become to retrieve the information needed to provide good intellectual control 

or undertake necessary migration or reformatting. Indeed, for digital content it may prove impossible to access and use 

the files because of technological obsolescence. Uncared-for collections occupy space, whether physical or electronic, 

that can affect an institution’s ability to accept other, more appropriate materials. 

There is also some argument that the capability to generate high quality digital surrogates of materials at reasonable 

cost is redefining expectations of care for the original. Increased user demands mean that preservation now equates 

to access as it never did before. Until a collection is digitized, and those digital surrogates are widely distributed, the 

organization that holds it may become vulnerable to the charge that it has not done all it can, or perhaps even all it 

2 See, for example, Kevin M. Guthrie, The New York Historical Society: Lessons from One Nonprofit’s Long Struggle for Survival San 

Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1996, for an excellent case study of how unbridled collecting led to serious financial and managerial problems. 



March 2009 

should, to ensure the survival and exposure of the materials. This too is a question of setting priorities in the allocation 

of resources. Adequate resources will never be available to preserve all special collections either physically or digitally. 

Decisions about priorities therefore will always be difficult. For example, while there is a strong historic professional 

body of opinion that only physical preservation (much of it by creating microforms) can be trusted to endure, digital 

technologies now clearly offer new alternatives. 3 

As special collections holdings become more visible through online finding aids and digital surrogates (which may 

then be indexed by services such as Google), institutions also have to consider in some cases the potential costs of 

defending against litigation that seeks to suppress access to the materials or causes them to be destroyed or taken 

from the archive or library. Once archival materials are indexed in public search tools such as Google, experience has 

shown that they attract a steady stream of threats, takedown demands, copyright challenges, and other potential 

litigation. While anecdotally widely reported, the extent of this is not well documented or measured, and it is a particular 

problem for newer organizations operating digital archives that do not have the depth of financial and legal resources 

characteristic of a major research library. 4 

An additional recent development of great concern in this area is the attempt to apply national laws across national 

boundaries in order to suppress information and communication; see here the recent developments in so-called “Libel 

Tourism.” The issues here go beyond the narrowly legal and reach also to continually evolving matters of public opinion 

(consider the treatment of materials created by or documenting indigenous peoples in various nations) and even shifting 

understandings of privacy and anonymity. 

Restrictions on Access 

Potential use is a vital consideration when the decision is made to acquire a collection. The goal of acquisition should 

be access. The Society of American Archivists’ Code of Ethics asserts that, “archivists recognize their responsibility to 

promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives.” 5 In an era when convenient access can 

trump quality of content as far as the user is concerned, delaying access to collections—particularly digital collections— 

can have a deleterious effect on an institution’s ability to manage that material over time. As part of their commitment to 

developing a culture of stewardship and respect for cultural records in our society, one task for archivists, curators, and 

librarians is to educate donors to the dangers and consequences of lengthy restrictions on access to materials. They have 

to develop means for expediting access that balance donors’ rights, privacy concerns, and scholarly use. 

At a minimum, the acquiring organization should require a timetable for access—including the possibility of 

staged access to portions of the collection—and the removal of restrictions as part of its negotiations with donors. 

The conditions of acceptance and use of a collection need to be clearly understood by both parties and shared with the 

research community. This is an area where professional organizations could help by providing accessible guidelines for 

use in negotiations with donors. 

3 See, for example, the ARL statement “Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Method” at http://www.arl.org/preserv/ 

digitization/index.shtml. 

4 Some useful resources in this area are the EFF Chilling Effects site at http://www.chillingeffects.org/ and the report of the 2002 Berkeley 

workshop on “Maintaining Integrity in and Access to Public Digital Archives”. 

5 SAA: Council Handbook (App. K-A Code of Ethics with Commentary), http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp. 



March 2009 

A corollary set of concerns is the high cost of processing and making materials accessible, which can delay access for 

years, decades, or longer. An institution does disservice to both donors and researchers by denying access to materials 

over an extended timeframe because of processing delays. 6 

In the digital realm, access and preservation are closely intertwined; those items that are maintained in their original 

digital state at the point of acquisition, but with long time restrictions, may not be accessible when those restrictions are 

lifted. Additionally, resources may be shifted to those materials that can be made accessible. It is necessary, therefore, to 

ensure that restricted digital materials receive early and regular attention to their preservation and migration. 

Transparent Provenance 

It is important also to ensure that users of any collection, now and in the future, can understand its provenance. 

Teachers at all levels of education need to help their students understand how to assess the utility and trustworthiness 

of the evidence they are using. Scholars and other researchers must have access to this information if they are to use 

the materials as credible and authentic resources. The special collections repository has an obligation to describe any 

questions that may remain about the origin of a collection, and alert the user to restrictions, gaps, and uncertainties. 

A further dimension of this question arises in the case of materials whose ownership may be contested, now or in the 

future. Nations and distinct cultural and ethnic communities increasingly lay claim to archives held in North America and 

other parts of the world, which they assert to be their property. 7 Individuals increasingly lay claim to intellectual property 

in the content of archives, 8 especially when they are made public in digital form. Without well documented information 

about the provenance and surrounding circumstances of a collection, archivists and librarians and their institutions are 

vulnerable 9 not only to legitimate claims but to others that may be opportunistic and ill founded. 

Sound Records Management Practices 

Records managers and special collections librarians should work together to support historical research, by setting 

aside important and unique records that may serve as primary sources for future research, by identifying records in 

danger of deterioration, and implementing appropriate preservation methods. Records management is the systematic 

and administrative control of records throughout their life cycle to ensure efficiency and economy in their creation, 

use, handling, control, maintenance, and disposition. 10 Although some special collections units may be tasked with 

6 Repositories that do permit access to unprocessed collections, however, need to make clear the implications of doing so, such as the 

likelihood that the order of items within a collection may change and that references to page or folio numbers are provisional. 

7 There is a growing literature on the vexed questions surrounding cultural restitution or repatriation. For some examples dealing specifically 

with manuscript and archival collections, see the proceedings of an IFLA pre-conference on “Responsible Stewardship Towards Cultural 

Heritage Materials” in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005, and Alice Prochaska, “Special Collections in an International Perspective” in Barbara M. 

Jones (ed.) Special Collections in the Twenty-First Century, vol. 52 no. 1 of Library Trends (University of Illinois Graduate School of Library 

and Information Science), 2003. Further discussion of these cultural stewardship issues can be accessed through Alice Prochaska’s Web site: 

http://www.library.yale.edu/about/librarian. 

8 See, for example, Ralph Blumenthal, “A Trove of Golden Broadway Images, Stuck in a Tangled History,” The New York Times, September 

12, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/nyregion/13photog.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin. 

9 For example, see “On Deposit: A Handshake and a Lawsuit” by Ronald L. Becker (American Archivist, Spring 1993). Becker discusses the 

impact the lack of a clear gift agreement to the outcome of Rutgers vs. Partisan Review. 

10 A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology, Richard Pearce-Moses http://archivists.org/glossary/term_details. 

asp?DefinitionKey=200. 



March 2009 

institutional records management, records management is in fact a separate function from stewardship of special 

collections. While the two fields are related, records management is its own field with its own specialist knowledge 

and resource requirements. Records management is focused primarily on facilitating current use of records, protecting 

the institution, reducing operating costs, and supporting better management and decision making. Special collections 

libraries may wish to preserve records for some of the same reasons, but they focus primarily on future use of records in 

order to serve as research centers and as the guardians of institutional memory. 

Special collections departments should coordinate with records managers to ensure that new types of collections 

of interest to researchers are managed and preserved over the long term. This is particularly important for the products 

of creative activities which are often overlooked as records management normally concerns itself more with records of 

routine business processes. To benefit both the organization and researchers, both current and future users, records must 

be continuously managed so that they are available and useful through their entire lifecycle. As a result of this shared 

interest in protecting records, special collections professionals should advocate for and support the work of records 

management programs. 

In addition to supporting records managers, stewards of special collections can also learn from them. Much can be 

gathered from the records management profession about early intervention with records creators in order to facilitate 

collecting, describing, and preserving new types of special collections, particularly those born-digital. Traditionally, 

relationships between special collections repositories and creators have not been well established until the end of the 

careers, or lives, of the creators. While this approach has been successful for traditional paper records and will likely 

continue to exist, it is not adequate for born-digital collections, which require more immediate and ongoing attention. 

Records managers have direct relationships with records creators during, and even before, the creation of records. In 

the same way, special collections departments could develop continuing relationships with the record-creators and 

provide advice over a number of years in order to ensure that born-digital collections are properly created, managed, and 

preserved, so that they can be transferred in good condition at a future date. 11 

This new kind of relationship between special collections repositories and creators will also help with description. 

Born-digital collections are by their nature not physical, but logically constructed and often virtual entities. They cannot be 

easily understood like paper collections, where much of the content, context, and structure are embedded in the physical 

form. 12 Special collections professionals must describe these collections in new and more robust ways in order to make 

digital collections useable over time. It would be beneficial to build on the work in this area that has been accomplished 

by electronic records management professionals. They have made great strides in identifying the descriptive elements 

necessary for digital collections. Most importantly, they agree that such description cannot be postponed, but must be 

undertaken from the moment of creation and be augmented throughout the life cycle of the digital collections. Electronic 

records management professionals also understand the power of leveraging the knowledge and expertise of creators in 

creating description, because there is no group better positioned to provide such information. 13 

11 For examples of guidance given by special collections departments to creators of digital collections, see the Beinecke Rare Book and 

Manuscript Library’s Authors’ Guidelines for Digital Preservation http://www.library.yale.edu/~nkuhl/AuthorsGuidelines.pdf and the 

documents created by the Paradigm Project http://www.paradigm.ac.uk/workbook/appendices/guidelines.html. 

12 Philip C. Bantin, Understanding Data and Information Systems for Recordkeeping, New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2008, 14–15. 

13 Special thanks to Kevin Glick, Electronic Records Archivist at Yale, for providing insight for this section. 


Recommendations: 


March 2009 

1. Donors and senior administrators need to be informed about the value and the costs of managing collections. 

Repositories need carefully to assess their own capabilities prior to accepting collections. Tools should be developed 

to assist in this process of assessment. 

2. The professionals and administrators who are charged with care of special collections must themselves take carefully 

into account the costs of preservation, processing and providing access, including digital access, when they accept or 

purchase a collection. 

3. The heads of archives and libraries, as well as their special collections staff, must educate donors to the 

consequences of lengthy restrictions on access, and should strive to balance considerations of individual privacy with 

those of scholarly access and the long-term interests of collections and their users. 

4. Rigorous, full, and accurate documentation of the source of any acquisition is essential. 

5. Archivists, curators, and librarians must support the work of records management staff and adopt early intervention 

practices in order to facilitate collecting, describing, and preserving new types of special collections, particularly those 

born-digital. 


II. Ensuring Discovery and Access 


March 2009 

While the appetite for using special collections seems to be growing exponentially, the hoard of unused evidence that is 

still locked up in our undescribed, “hidden collections” is incalculable. 14 Special collections too often remain hidden from 

view because their parent library lacks the resources to provide basic levels of descriptive metadata. While in some cases, 

special collections have moved to the head of the priority list, or close to it, this is true partly because other institutional 

imperatives (backlogs, retrospective conversion, holding data maintenance, etc.) are now seen as less urgent. 

It is also true that the digital environment makes it possible both to disclose and to make usable materials in 

challenging formats or uncataloged quantities. As publishers, libraries, museums, and archives reveal a portion of their 

treasures with online images, the public appetite for these materials, both online and in the original, “grows by that it 

feeds on.” 15 ARL directors need to address the resource problems that have held research libraries back from providing 

adequate descriptions of so much of the great national and international wealth of special collections. 

Addressing the Problem of Backlogs and “Hidden Collections” 

Many of the underlying considerations for setting processing priorities apply equally both to the overall choices 

that research libraries have to make and the internal criteria for making choices in special collections departments: 

preservation needs, likely scholarly value, links to complementary collections, potential rewards in support for institutional 

programs, and more. 

There are also external considerations to apply in setting processing priorities for special collections, including: 

• Support for the growth of evidence-based learning and teaching from collections 16 

• Tie-in with curriculum needs on campus and nationally 

• The potential of some particular collections to capture attention and thus to raise public awareness of the 

library’s special collections 

• Opportunities to attract private donations 

14 See “Hidden Collections, Scholarly Barriers: Creating Access to Unprocessed Special Collections Materials in North America’s Research 

Libraries” http://www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/hidden/index.shtml. 

15 It is a common experience, for instance, that the demand to see the original materials increases when a digital surrogate is made available. 

16 Some examples of faculty and student engagement with special collections materials are detailed in the ARL Virtual & Instructional 

Initiatives Survey http://www.arl.org/rtl/roles/vrii/ in the report on the Special Collections Subtopic http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ 

vriispecialcollections.pdf. 



March 2009 

• Grant-giving opportunities funded by international and national or federal organizations 17 

• Potential for links with other programs, whether in other universities or further afield18 • Links to local communities and outreach programs, e.g., to a local/state historical society or the local chamber of 

commerce 

• Potential for cost recovery from the commercial sector19 Focus on Access in Setting Descriptive Standards 

“If it’s not [described] online, it doesn’t exist.” This saying, commonly applied by consumers in the 21st century to any 

form of information, applies with even more force to special collections. As managers of special collections repositories 

address the difficult task of setting priorities, they need to bear in mind the maxim that some access is better than none 

and the lack of any online description virtually amounts to no access. They should save perfection in descriptive practices 

for the most significant material or for that which cannot be described usefully at all without explicit detail. There is no 

excuse for books not to be described online. Inexpensive processes relying on vendors for sketchy or imperfect metadata 

is preferable to the alternative of not exposing the collection to use at all. Imperfect guides should be converted to digital 

with the least revision possible, focusing on data structure rather than upgrading the descriptive content as a first priority. 

The influential work of Greene and Meissner is extremely helpful here as a guide to making choices. 20 

There is a body of good practice and recommendations coming out of the work of professional organizations through 

committees such as the Bibliographic Standards Committee in ACRL/RBMS, the SAA Standards Committee, the Canadian 

Committee on Cataloguing (CCC), the Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD), and other organizations. 

Descriptive standards such as Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) emphasize flexibility and are designed 

to function independent of transmission format (e.g. MARC catalog records or EAD finding aids). 21 The development 

17 For the new CLIR program, Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives: Building a New Research Environment, funded by the 

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, see http://www.clir.org/hiddencollections/index.html. The Arcadia Fund’s Endangered Archives program made 

recent additional grants including one for $500,000 to UCLA Library. See http://www.Arcadiafund.org.uk. These are but two of the significant 

funding agencies with new programs to support archives and special collections. In recent years numerous ARL member libraries have received 

grants from federal funding agencies such as NEH, IMLS, NHPRC, NSF, and the TICFIAA (title VI) program, to cite just some examples. 

18 For example: 1) Harvard and Yale are both dealing with pamphlets, and both have projects on the First World War. 2) Yale is digitizing 

the Yale Daily News. Cornell has already digitized its student paper. Who else is doing the same? How might we combine, in a way that would 

be useful to all our campuses, and maybe provide a starting-point for some journalism courses? 3) CRL is working on the notion of adding a 

program in archiving human rights documentation to its Global Resources Network. How do we leverage this opportunity and combine forces 

with member universities, e.g., Duke, Notre Dame, Columbia, Yale, University of Connecticut, that have kindred collections as well as the soon 

to be opened Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba? 

19 Right now the commercial sector’s interest is focused on genealogical material, such as census data, passenger lists, immigrant records 

and documents. Costs may be covered by the private sector but the library or archives will need to consider the “saleability” of what gets to be 

digitized and its attractiveness to the private sector. 

20 Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” American Archivist 68 

no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2005): 208–63. 

21 See Society of American Archivists, Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Chicago, Society of American Archivists, 2004. 



March 2009 

and use of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) illustrates not only the importance but also the complexity of developing 

software tools and the necessary technical environment and shared practices that enable cost effective implementation. 22 

At the same time as adopting the most cost-effective standards and working to the maximum extent possible within 

the standards framework recommended by the professional associations, repositories need to acknowledge the added 

expense of some special collections description and access compared with other library materials. Unpublished materials 

and ephemera lack standard references such as titles, names of authors, and places of publication. They often require 

in-depth research to establish their date, authorship, provenance, or authenticity; and collections of such material are 

often incomplete, calling for explanation and reference to other sources. Such facts of life should be explained clearly in 

terms of the collections’ unique value to the academy and society, preferably with some well chosen illustrative examples. 

It must also be demonstrated that building and maintaining collaborative environments (linking repositories in the 

same geographic region, for instance) enables efficiencies and economies, and leads to the sharing of information and 

expertise. This fact applies with equal force to both digital and analog collections. 

User Contributions 

The experienced librarian or archivist knows that by presenting a collection to users, it may be possible to learn from the 

users just how much further description of that material might be desirable. Faculty and graduate students quarrying 

neglected collections for new sources may be called into service to describe those collections with a modicum of training 

and professional guidance. For example, with funding from Mellon, the University of Chicago is harnessing the talent 

of faculty and graduate students to assist with uncovering and describing metropolitan collections in African American 

history. 23 

Local history societies can uncover and then describe hidden gold in collections that have never commanded 

attention because they were thought to be unimportant in the broader picture of accepted knowledge. Repositories are 

also experimenting with interactive descriptive tools which invite visitors to their reading rooms or Web sites, or both, to 

contribute additional information. 24 Catalogs of special collections are protean and increasingly open; and that is good for 

access. Or to put it another way, access begets access. 

22 See, for example, The Archivists’ Toolkit http://archiviststoolkit.org/toolkit/oldSite/index.html. The Archivists’ Toolkit is an open 

source archival data management system to provide integrated support for accessioning, description, donor tracking, name and subject 

authority work, and location management for archival materials. Developed by the University of California, San Diego, New York University, 

and the Five Colleges, Inc., the effort to build this application benefited tremendously from the interested guidance of the archival community 

and was made possible with funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. For examples of EAD best practices developed to encourage 

interoperability and common practice, see the RLG standards for EAD http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/ead/bpg.pdf and the 

Northwest Digitial Archives’ NWDA Best Practices for Encoded Archival Description (EAD) http://orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystemaction?file=nwda/tools/nwdabpg%20version%203.4%2020080130.pdf. 

23 See “University of Chicago Explores Library-Faculty Partnerships in Uncovering Hidden Collections” http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/ 

br/br251.shtml. 

24 See, for example, Magia Ghetu Krause and Elizabeth Yakel, “Interaction in Virtual Archives: The Polar Bear Expedition Digital Collections 

Next Generation Finding Aid,” American Archivist 70, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2007). See also: Polar Bear Expedition Digital Collections, http:// 

polarbears.si.umich.edu/. Another example is the Library of Congress’ photostream on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress 

that encourages visitors to add notes and comments to photos from their collections. Additional examples can be found in SPEC Kit 304 Social 

Software in Libraries July 2008. 



March 2009 

Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Cross-Collection Searching 

Changing habits among the users of special collections include the growing tendency to use new digital tools to mine 

data from collections. 25 Interactive opportunities lead communities of scholars and other users to share information and 

opinions about material within the electronic environment. Digitization has presented for some time the opportunity 

to bring together collections that are held in separate repositories, and that capability is now becoming part of the 

background to new collaborative enterprises. 26 There is a great opportunity to “integrate” all collections, archival and 

published, analogue and digital, through metadata and systems. For example, a biography of a military general could 

be supplemented by the letters or diaries of a soldier serving in the same mission. The user would be well served by 

being able to access material across formats and media within the same institution as well as across distance among 

institutions. 

Increasingly, funding bodies encourage collaborations among libraries, archives, and museums. As the recent 

work by RLG Programs on Library, Archive, and Museum Collaboration: Organizational and Service Relationships has 

suggested, 27 there is an opportunity here--we might say an imperative--for archivists, curators, and librarians to take 

the lead to work together to bring disparate parts of a potentially whole collection together. The special collections 

community, which includes the parent libraries and other repositories in which collections are held, has a responsibility 

to advocate for appropriate support at the highest levels of research and development. Where access to collections is 

understood as a dynamic and essential part of the academic environment, scholars will reap long-term benefits. 

Exhibitions 

Exhibitions are an excellent means for promoting public access to collections. To risk stating the obvious, the public 

promotion of collections is an essential professional tool. Here too, the archivist, curator, or librarian may work with 

students or the local community to produce a show, always taking preservation issues into account. Often the 

conservation activity involved in setting up the exhibition can provide an opportunity for publicity and fund-raising in 

its own right. A published descriptive catalog or a virtual version of the exhibition online ideally provides longevity and 

greater access to the exhibition. 

The publicity surrounding a special exhibition can promote the whole library or archive, as well as attract potential 

donors and provide a positive view of the organization in the local community. Working with the press and media 

on a regular basis, inviting them in for special previews, providing links between the work in hand and some other 

newsworthy event, making creative use of new software tools to design interactive exhibits Web sites: all this helps 

promote access not just for a one-off exhibition but for the library’s special collections as a whole. 28 We applaud the 

25 For a fuller discussion of data mining (or computing on collections) see page 28 in this report. 

26 See, for example, the Codex Sinaiticus Project Web site http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ about the efforts of the British Library, the 

National Library of Russia, St. Catherines Monastery, and the Leipzig University Library to digitally reunite the dispersed fragments of the oldest 

Bible. 

27 See Diane Zorich, Günter Waibel, and Rickey Erway, Beyond the Silos of the LAMs: Collaboration Among Libraries, Archives, and 

Museums, Report produced by OCLC Programs and Research, 2008. Published online at http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/ 

reports/2008-05.pdf. 

28 Exhibits that highlight scholarly works that result from research on primary documents can increase awareness of the value of special 

collections. Other ways of increasing awareness of special collections include marketing primary materials via thumbnail images used as screen 

savers and login images on computers in learning commons, or posted via the library’s Web page. Some libraries have imagined listing scores 

of collections with tantalizing images under the header “hot topics and primary materials to support papers in History 200, English 400,” etc. 



March 2009 

extension of this practice to the digital world through the provision of online exhibitions that complement the physical 

ones. In all contexts, an online version of the exhibit is strongly recommended as a means of ensuring that a record is 

kept and the institution obtains maximum benefit from all the work involved in creating the exhibit in the first place. 

The skills that are needed to produce an exhibition and, still more, to make sure it gets attention, are not always the 

same skills that special collections librarians possess by training or inclination. Particularly in repositories with only a small 

staff to do all the work of caring for hundreds of special collections (and that means most ARL libraries), it is helpful to 

have a constituency of faculty and students who are ready and able to help. These campus “volunteers,” in turn, benefit 

from the exposure to primary materials. 

Digitization 

Digitization is a tool that special collections professionals have long used to promote access. Standards of practice in 

handling the objects and dealing with metadata are now well developed, and there is a swelling body of professional 

literature. 29 Some questions that should be highlighted here relate again to choices. 

• Is there a choice to be made, for instance, between providing fuller catalog treatment or supplying a preliminary 

record and linking it to scanned examples from the collections? 

• What priority should be given to the development of cross-searching mechanisms, which can expose kindred 

materials in separate collections? 

• And then, when cross-searching can be facilitated, what impact does that have on decisions about which 

collections to digitize? 

• How do we begin to think about families, or archival groups, of collections in a digital environment? 

Such questions have a critical impact on access because our decisions about them influence the way our users 

search, and what they expect to find. The changing nature of our custodial responsibility and the changing habits of 

those who use our collections come sharply into focus in the digital environment. 

Large-Scale Digitization 

In all the activities mentioned above, the electronic environment has transformed the opportunities for access and will 

continue to change the way we all do our work. Digitization is a tool used now in virtually all special collections libraries. 

Most recently, the mass digitization movement, which began with large general collections in some of the largest 

research libraries, has begun to focus on special collections. This turn of events has much to do with the legal morass 

ARL’s handsomely illustrated compilation Celebrating Research is another example of how a project that highlights individual collections can 

also raise the visibility and use of all special collections. The volume and companion Web site have been well received by current and potential 

users of the collections as well as by potential library donors. See http://www.celebratingresearch.org/. 

29 Harvard has provided a concise bibliography of the seminal sources which outline best practice for digitizing projects, http://preserve. 

harvard.edu/bibliographies/digitalplanning.pdf. Some common metadata standards can be found at http://dublincore.org/ (Dublin Core), 

http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/ (Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS)) and http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/ 

(Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)). For additional comment on the promise of digitizing special collections, see Ricky Erway and 

Jennifer Schaffner, “Shifting Gears: Gearing Up to Get Into the Flow.” Report produced by OCLC Programs and Research, 2007, published 

online at http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. 



March 2009 

surrounding digitization of works in copyright and the issues of fair use and open access, as well as mass digitization 

simply extending its reach. Special collections from the 19th century and earlier, or indeed from any period up to the date 

of 1923 when copyright begins to kick in (in the US), have a special attraction because they present fewer problems of 

selection, rights clearance, and so on, than the large general collections that run over long periods. 

As there come to be diminishing returns from digitizing the books that most or many large libraries possess, the 

rare and unique become more attractive, even if more of a challenge to handle. Promoting access to special collections 

through large-scale digitization is a real opportunity for certain sorts of materials in particular: pamphlets, which can be 

handled in a similar way to books and in some cases using the same scanning equipment, even though calling for special 

care; rare books for the same reasons and with the same caveats; manuscripts and other unbound archival materials, 

maps, ephemera and other flat paper collections that lend themselves to treatment page by page. 

The “mass” approach also presents a whole range of special difficulties. Fragile material must be monitored by 

preservation experts, special workflows are needed to handle material that is not necessarily stored in book form on 

shelves, but inside boxes or cabinets. It is critically important to ensure that partners, especially commercial partners, 

understand the complexity of rights in special collections materials, and that repositories assert and protect those 

rights. Nevertheless large-scale digitization is an exciting option that will almost certainly become a fact of life for a 

significant number of special collections librarians and archivists in the near future. It calls for its own set of criteria to set 

intelligent priorities and to define the key issues that must be negotiated with digitizing partners such as: requirements 

for physical handling, expectations for use of the digitized files, standards for the files that ensure integrity and long term 

preservation, and respect for the public domain and copyright. 30 

Creating Metadata 

Having made choices about the priorities for processing collections, what are the technical opportunities for enhancing 

access? Digitization is of course preeminently a means of access to the content of original source materials. But, it is 

worth repeating the fundamental truth that without a means of identifying the material, and navigating its context, 

access to a physical original source or its digitized version will be a hit-and-miss business. It is not best practice to digitize 

material for public access without ensuring that an appropriate level of metadata is also provided. 31 Digitization without 

metadata is an abrogation of stewardship. 

Digitization, which is sometimes easier to finance through donations or special grants than basic description, should 

complement and enhance the catalog record. While it is not a good option to digitize or otherwise publish surrogates 

without generating descriptive metadata at some level, decisions do have to be made about what an appropriate level 

may be for a particular collection. There is a range of nuanced choices. For example, choices can be made between 

cataloging in more detail at the outset or providing a preliminary record. A higher-level, more general description than 

custom might prescribe can be revisited at a future date; and in the meantime, if it opens up a collection that has been 

effectively hidden, that enhances access. Broad collection-level description is worth doing for that reason alone. 

30 See, for example, Rick Johnson, “In Google’s Broad Wake: Taking Responsibility for Shaping the Global Digital Library,” ARL: A Bimonthly 

Report... http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlbr250digprinciples.pdf. 

31 One exception to this rule would be providing scanned images of material precisely so that it can be cataloged by someone working 

remotely. 


Recommendations: 


March 2009 

6. Special collections professionals should take a lead in researching and developing new forms of access, and finding 

opportunities to apply them to special collections. Libraries and other repositories need to make the necessary 

investment in technology to advance the creation of tools, and support their staff in taking this lead. 

7. Adequate online metadata is an essential condition for good quality access to both the original and digitized versions 

of material. Minimal description is far better than none. Basic information about all collections (e.g., the initial record 

of acquisition) should be made available online as quickly as possible. 

8. Special collections description is increasingly open to interaction with the community of users. Archivists and 

librarians should encourage and take advantage of these interactions in order to promote access. Such interactions 

include mounting and using catalogs within social networking environments, and using and developing tools that 

allow researchers to contribute to the documented knowledge about a collection. 

9. Special exhibitions are important tools for promoting access, and should be accompanied by online digital versions, 

to be maintained after the physical exhibit is over. 

10. Large-scale digitization is an important option in the tool kit of special collections departments. Repositories should 

work with large-scale digitization vendors and partners to help negotiate and develop appropriate agreements for 

digitizing special collections. These arrangements should be broadly shared with the community as they occur. 

11. Repositories must also ensure that commercial partners respect and maintain basic rights over digital content. 

12. The Working Group recommends that ARL encourage and contribute to the RBMS development of a set of guidelines 

on issues relating to the mass digitization of special collections similar to the negotiation checklist developed for mass 

digitization of general collections. 



March 2009 

III. The Challenge of Born-Digital Collections 

The remarks in this section make several important assumptions, 32 some of which reflect a reality that as yet only a few, 

very large or very specialized, libraries and archival repositories are experiencing at first hand. Unexamined in this report 

as yet, is the overarching question, what are special collections in the digital environment? The ARL Working Group 

on Special Collections discussed several ways of answering this question. Answers will remain provisional, and often 

reflect local circumstances rather than a single way of looking at the question that can be applied across the board. The 

group generally agreed, first, that electronic commercial publications that mimic the form of their predecessors in the 

analog world generally are not special collections. Examples of these include e-Books and electronic journals and serials. 

Somewhere on the margins of digital special collections would be published aggregations of rare books, depending 

perhaps on the extent to which they already include appropriate metadata and editorial information. 33 

Digital special collections, in the view of the group, do include any materials that, on account of their content, 

uniqueness of format, or context, require non-standard descriptions or call for special treatment. Such special treatment 

would include archival selection and preservation; thus the institutional archives of the library’s or archive’s parent 

body (in the case of ARL members, generally but not always a university) are by definition special collections. Electronic 

records management is a hugely important skill in the management of special collections. Digital special collections also 

include the digitized versions of original material held in physical form by the institution: here, the activity of selecting for 

digitization and creating the appropriate metadata and mechanisms for storage, preservation, and access are among the 

key skills that are needed. Digital special collections also include, without question, numerous types of material that either 

would not be treated as so special in the parallel, analog universe, and not a few new formats. For example, a major 

category of digital special collections, growing rapidly already, is the electronic “papers,” including e-mail, of authors, 

artists, politicians, and others. 34 New types of special collections will only proliferate in the digital environment. Their 

treatment calls for new staff skills and also for careful integration with the more traditional forms of special collections 

32 Two recent reports provide a context for addressing the digital challenges of special collections. For a broad-brush overview of the state 

of digital repository services in research libraries, see “The Research Library’s Role in Digital Repository Services,” a report prepared by an 

ARL Task Force and released in February 2009. It includes a “Horizon Analysis” projecting key shifts in the digital repository landscape in the 

next seven years, identifies key areas for research library engagement, and calls on research libraries to act to ensure an ongoing role in digital 

repository service development. The full text of the report is freely available at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/repository-services-report.pdf. In 

addition, for an assessment of the state of preservation activities in research libraries, including those in relation to digital resources, see the 

forthcoming report by ARL Visiting Program Officer Lars Meyer, Emory University, “Safeguarding Collections at the Dawn of the 21st Century: 

Describing & Measuring Contemporary Preservation Activities in ARL Libraries” to be released in spring 2009 on the ARL Web site. 

33 The Working Group chose not to focus on the ways in which e-research and e-science data might be viewed as an important form of 21st 

century special collection, leaving that to the ARL Working Group on e-Science and others. 

34 For an examination of the issues of personal digital collections, see the ARIADNE/Digital Lives Research Project in the UK http://ariadne. 

ac.uk/issue55/williams-et-al/. 



March 2009 

that they often complement. This section of our report alludes to some ways in which these new types of collections are 

developing now. 

Models of How to Handle Digital Materials in Special Collections 

The growing proportion of born-digital materials in special collections will shift the focus of digital curation from ad hoc, 

focused efforts for the occasional digital accession to established policies, procedures, and workflows that can manage 

these materials routinely. Organizations increasingly are experiencing pressure to muster the financial, administrative, and 

technical resources that such standardized practices require. 

Special collections practices until now have tended to be shaped by an approach that privileges the unique needs of 

each body of materials rather than standardized, production-oriented processes that allow for their expeditious handling. 

Just as the level of customized work on traditional formats is being replaced by “processing light” and similar approaches, 

digital materials require a similar approach that emphasizes expeditious availability along with long-term stewardship. 

The United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is providing helpful guidance for the rest of the 

community in this sphere. 35 There is also much to be learned from litigation support and computer forensics technology. 36 

There is a well-established set of core functional activities for managing and appraising special collections, including 

accessioning, physical management and preservation, description, and access. The OAIS reference model, 37 for example, 

provides a framework that mirrors these traditional functions in a digital environment and institutions with a responsibility 

for special collections need to respond to the need for each of them. To a degree not present in the analog environment, 

participation in the evolution of information recording technologies and collaboration with creators and service providers 

is essential to effective curation of digital materials. 38 Both the inherent stability of many analog media (especially ink 

on paper) and the ability of creators and service providers to manage them with little technical expertise or concern for 

long-term preservation and access are absent for digital materials. Early intervention and deep technical knowledge and 

skills are required in ways that most special collections repositories have not been attuned to or organized for. Even if 

repositories develop new approaches and capabilities in-house, the dynamic nature of digital materials requires effective 

partnerships with others, especially including information technology specialists. Case studies are needed to illustrate 

possible approaches and to help individual repositories avoid the thankless work of reinventing solutions in isolation. 39 

35 See, for example, “Strategy for Digitizing Archival Materials for Public Access, 2007–2016” http://www.archives.gov/digitization/strategy. 

html and “Lifecycle Data Requirement Guide” found at http://www.archives.gov/digitization/guidance.html. 

36 See, for example, “Adapting Existing Technologies for Digitally Archiving Personal Lives” in which Jeremy Leighton John addresses the 

relevancy of existing technologies in computer forensics to the needs of digital curation http://www.bl.uk/ipres2008/presentations_day1/09_ 

John.pdf. Strategies for recovering digital works so that they can be preserved are explored in “Finding and Archiving the Internet Footprint” by 

Simson Garfinkel and David Cox http://www.simson.net/clips/academic/2009.BL.InternetFootprint.pdf. 

37 The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems’ recommendation for the OAIS reference model is available at http://public.ccsds.org/ 

publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf. 

38 Illustrations of effective, early partnerships with creators of digital content include the sustained conversations between expected donors 

of personal papers, such as elected officials or authors, and curators to discuss and influence the scope and organization of the materials to be 

deposited. 

39 The work of the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIPP) promises useful case studies in this area. 

Included in the sixty-seven partners (as of March 2007) are eight consortial partnerships comprising thirty-three institutions that are selecting, 

collecting, and preserving specific types of digital content. For an example of a significant attempt to capture born digital resources, in this case 

the Web, see the Internet Archive http://www.archive.org. 



March 2009 

The need for early intervention, or for widely shared norms for accepting digital content (for instance standard 

file formats, such as the ones from the LAC and PRONOM from the UK 40 ) requires a range of activities that ensure the 

capture and preservation of digital materials much earlier and with much less selectivity than is currently the case for 

analog materials. By working with those individuals who are developing information systems, repositories might influence 

the integration of transparent or intuitive selection and preservation tools to make the capture of materials more reliable 

and effective. Many of these systems, such as courseware applications that contain records of teaching, once preserved 

in paper filing systems and often considered ephemeral, need to facilitate better the permanent retention of products 

that provide evidence of the teaching and learning process. Libraries and archives working with faculty and other users 

have to develop new approaches to selection and preservation as they consider whether to migrate content. Working 

with institutional repository services, special collections professionals find that they are obliged to create mechanisms for 

provisional accessioning of digital materials that will allow their ongoing preservation, before decisions on their long-term 

value can be made. Influencing the development of tools and educating creators in effective methods of managing and 

saving digital materials must serve much the same function as records management – ensuring a stable body of materials 

from which selection can be made. 

Descriptive Practices and the Provision of Continuing Access 

Descriptive practices need to leverage existing directory schemes, much in the same way archivists use the original file 

plans as their basis for arranging records in physical form. Powerful full-text search engines and browsing capabilities 

need to be integrated into access mechanisms in ways that complement or diminish the need for traditional arrangement 

and description. To the extent that metadata is built into digital materials, they may become self-describing and the task 

of the cataloger or processor becomes more one of extracting descriptive metadata rather than creating it from scratch. 

Integrating digital materials that are part of larger collections that include more traditional analog materials as well will 

require descriptive practices that are nimble in providing integrated access to all components. 

Except on the smallest scale, the challenges of digital storage and preservation will be beyond the capacity of almost 

all special collections repositories. The volume of digital materials that will flow into special collections repositories is such 

that it requires collaboration with other repositories and service providers with the capacity and capabilities to house and 

manage them. In the context of such collaborative arrangements, the stewards of special collections must draw attention 

to the particular needs of their collections and their users. Preservation and retrieval capabilities will need to be defined 

and audited routinely in ways that are foreign for most traditional collections. Ongoing content migration, emulation, or 

other strategies to ensure long-term accessibility – along with media migration – need to be in place and monitored. 

Ongoing access to digital materials requires the development, implementation, and maintenance of search engines, 

interfaces, and delivery mechanisms that meet evolving user needs. Experience has shown that most developments in 

these areas come from large-scale commercial, scientific, and production environments other than cultural institutions 

and shape user expectations in ways that repositories are forced to respond to. The skills needed to take advantage of 

these developments are expensive because of competition from these other environments and not readily available to 

libraries and archival repositories. Once again, collaboration and partnerships – including the occasional possibility of 

transferring responsibility to other entities – will be the only way in which special collections departments can fulfill their 

40 See descriptions of the file format at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/government/002/007002-3017-e.html and http://www. 

nationalarchives.gov.uk/pronom/. 



March 2009 

stewardship obligations for digital materials. Archivists, curators, and librarians need to be involved in campus planning 

for local cyber-infrastructure capabilities. 

Two points need to be made here. First, indexing and or responsibility for access may no longer fall so strongly to 

libraries and archives. At some level, new scholarly practices may involve giving copies of sizeable digital corpora to 

interested scholars who will then perform various kinds of computing on them, some of it to get access, some to rank, 

some to summarize or interpret, some to do inference across multiple collections. These new points of access may be 

more specialized, variable, and situational than what the library or archive can be expected to offer. They may also be 

experimental, or requiring of subsequent scholarly interpretation. A second point to be made about access to digital 

materials is that sometimes, the best or only thing that the library or archive can do is to use some clearly insufficient 

technology, and then wait and re-run the technology later when it improves. This may be the case with some image or 

recorded speech collections, where significant effort and money is being expended to advance the state of the art, and 

what can be done in ten years computationally to provide access to the collection is likely to be much better than what 

can be done today. 

A major theme that emerges during digital curation is the need for partnerships and collaborations – those that 

involve transferring responsibility for activities that repositories have managed for traditional analog materials. Defining 

requirements, identifying partners with the capabilities and capacity to meet those requirements, and routine monitoring 

of their performance need to become an integral part of strategies for managing digital materials in special collections. 

An example of these new types of partnerships/collaborations is the outsourcing of indexing of various corpora to Google 

and others. 

Recommendations: (with some talking points on digitization privacy/institutional liability 

concerns) 

13. New definitions need to be created for determining the scope of digital special collections, so that stakeholders 

can understand the nature of special collections professionals’ responsibilities. These include a responsibility for 

harvesting and preserving endangered web sites, wikis and other dynamic information resources. 

14. There is also a pressing need for training programs that will help administrators as well as special collections 

professionals to understand their responsibilities in this environment. Digital awareness is a responsibility that library 

managements need to address most especially in dealing with special collections. 

15. Digitization makes visible materials that may be “public” but not broadly shared, such as legal records, which 

remain “practically obscure” in paper form thus providing some measure of privacy protection. With digitization, 

the access/privacy balance is shifted and can result in unintended consequences that may raise liability concerns for 

the institution. Institutions may end up facing requests to redact or take down content that has been put online. 41 

There is a need for those in charge of special collections to understand and have ready access to a clear institutional 

policy and procedure for responding to such requests, that ensures actions are taken in light of the most current legal 

decision in this field. 

41 Consider, for example, the recent Vanginderen case at Cornell University, where an alumnus sued the university for breach of privacy 

because their digitized version of the student newspaper contained an unfavorable story about him. 



March 2009 

16. The imperative to collaborate becomes far more apparent in the digital environment. Special collections librarians 

and archivists should both welcome and seek out collaborations, with museums and galleries, with scholars creating 

electronic databases, with lawyers, with information technologists, and with the creators and custodians of digital 

repositories (who will not necessarily be the libraries themselves, as the needs for electronic preservation diversify 

and grow). 

17. There is an ongoing need for case studies that can illustrate possible approaches to early intervention with digital 

records creators, institutional collaborations, and partnerships with information technology specialists. 


Conclusion 


March 2009 

The leaders of research libraries have an opportunity to shape the future direction of special collections as a key element 

of our libraries. The recommendations included in this report call for the research library community not only to support 

and endorse the extraordinary work of our special collections professionals, but also to provide, with their help, tools, 

guides, and partnerships that will point to future directions. 

19th- and 20th-century materials present special challenges because they cover all formats and engage us with the 

issues of copyright and intellectual property, privacy, and restrictions on access, as well as the technological challenges 

and opportunities arising from digital technology. But the issues we have identified here relate in different ways to all 

special collections, whatever their format and from whatever period they may derive. The important message that we 

wish to deliver is that special collections, taken together, define the distinctive features of the modern research library. 

We hope that the leadership of research libraries will take this opportunity and seize this moment, to support and 

advocate for actions that reposition special collections to maximize their use for scholarship and teaching. 

We hope to see these actions undertaken within the closest possible collaboration with the leading professional 

bodies (e.g., RBMS and SAA) that handle special collections in our libraries. We also hope to promote closer collaboration 

within the parent organizations of ARL member libraries (mostly universities), encouraging efforts that draw together 

collaborations on campus and between campuses and other bodies. ARL has an opportunity for critically important 

influence. 

With ARL endorsement of this direction, the Working Group proposes to develop the following set of 

recommendations into an action agenda for itself or other groups within ARL and to undertake efforts to engage other 

segments of the library and higher education communities in advancing the agenda. 


Appendices 

Recommendations 

I. Collecting Carefully, with Regard to Costs, and Ethical and Legal Concerns 


March 2009 

1. Donors and senior administrators need to be informed about the value and the costs of managing collections. 

Repositories need carefully to assess their own capabilities prior to accepting collections. Tools should be 

developed to assist in this process of assessment. 

2. The professionals and administrators who are charged with care of special collections must themselves take 

carefully into account the costs of preservation, processing and providing access, including digital access, when 

they accept or purchase a collection. 

3. The heads of archives and libraries, as well as their special collections staff, must educate donors to the 

consequences of lengthy restrictions on access, and should strive to balance considerations of individual privacy 

with those of scholarly access and the long-term interests of collections and their users. 

4. Rigorous, full, and accurate documentation of the source of any acquisition is essential. 

5. Archivists, curators, and librarians must support the work of records management staff and adopt early 

intervention practices in order to facilitate collecting, describing, and preserving new types of special collections, 

particularly those born-digital 

II. Ensuring Discovery and Access 

6. Special collections professionals should take a lead in researching and developing new forms of access, and 

finding opportunities to apply them to special collections. Libraries and other repositories need to make the 

necessary investment in technology to advance the creation of tools, and support their staff in taking this lead. 

7. Adequate online metadata is an essential condition for good quality access to both the original and digitized 

versions of material. Minimal description is far better than none. Basic information about all collections (e.g., the 

initial record of acquisition) should be made available online as quickly as possible. 



March 2009 

8. Special collections description is increasingly open to interaction with the community of users. Archivists 

and librarians should encourage and take advantage of these interactions in order to promote access. Such 

interactions include mounting and using catalogs within social networking environments, and using and 

developing tools that allow researchers to contribute to the documented knowledge about a collection. 

9. Special exhibitions are important tools for promoting access, and should be accompanied by online digital 

versions, to be maintained after the physical exhibit is over. 

10. Large-scale digitization is an important option in the tool kit of special collections departments. Repositories 

should work with large-scale digitization vendors and partners to help negotiate and develop appropriate 

agreements for digitizing special collections. These arrangements should be broadly shared with the community 

as they occur. 

11. Repositories must also ensure that commercial partners respect and maintain basic rights over digital content. 

12. The Working Group recommends that ARL encourage and contribute to the RBMS development of a set of 

guidelines on issues relating to the mass digitization of special collections similar to the negotiation checklist 

developed for mass digitization of general collections. 

III. The Challenge of Born-Digital Collections 

13. New definitions need to be created for determining the scope of digital special collections, so that stakeholders 

can understand the nature of special collections professionals’ responsibilities. These include a responsibility for 

harvesting and preserving endangered web sites, wikis and other dynamic information resources. 

14. There is also a pressing need for training programs that will help administrators as well as special collections 

professionals to understand their responsibilities in this environment. Digital awareness is a responsibility that 

library managements need to address most especially in dealing with special collections. 

15. Digitization makes visible materials that may be “public” but not broadly shared, such as legal records, which 

remain “practically obscure” in paper form thus providing some measure of privacy protection. With digitization, 

the access/privacy balance is shifted and can result in unintended consequences that may raise liability concerns 

for the institution. Institutions may end up facing requests to redact or take down content that has been put 

online. There is a need for those in charge of special collections to understand and have ready access to a clear 

institutional policy and procedure for responding to such requests, which ensures actions are taken in light of the 

most current legal decision in this field. 

16. The imperative to collaborate becomes far more apparent in the digital environment. Special collections 

librarians and archivists should both welcome and seek out collaborations, with museums and galleries, with 

scholars creating electronic databases, with lawyers, with information technologists, and with the creators and 



March 2009 

custodians of digital repositories (who will not necessarily be the libraries themselves, as the needs for electronic 

preservation diversify and grow). 

17. There is an ongoing need for case studies that can illustrate possible approaches to early intervention with digital 

records creators, institutional collaborations, and partnerships with information technology specialists. 



March 2009 

Working Group Charge 

February 23, 2007 

ARL WORKING GROUP ON SPECIAL COLLECTIONS 

Special Collections in the Context of New and Expanding Library Roles 

An objective within the scope of ARL’s Research, Teaching, and Learning Steering Committee is 

“Building and supporting collaborative integration and enduring access to comprehensive research collections 

and resources in all formats that advance research, teaching, and learning.” 

It is within this broad context that the steering committee set for itself a strategic priority of addressing 

the changing nature of collections, collection management, and collection use. Potentially, this might embrace 

many areas of inquiry for ARL but, in the view of the steering committee, none so pressing as addressing 

issues associated with the collection, surfacing, and leveraging of special collections. 

Therefore, the Research, Teaching, and Learning Steering Committee is establishing a Working 

Group on Special Collections. 

Charge to the Working Group 

The Working Group on Special Collections is charged with advising the Research, Teaching, and 

Learning Steering Committee on special collections issues on an ongoing basis. In this context, “special 

collections” is construed broadly to include distinctive material in all media and attendant library services. 

Priority Issues 

The two issues that the Steering Committee identifies as first priorities for the attention of the 

Working Group are 

1. Identify opportunities and recommend actions for ARL and other organizations that will encourage 

concerted action and coordinated planning for collecting and exposing 19th- and 20th-century materials in all formats (rare books, archives and manuscripts, audio, and video, etc). 

2. Identify criteria and strategies for collecting digital and other new media material that currently 

lack a recognized and responsible structure for stewardship. 

These two issues are closely linked. An enormous amount of valuable material in all formats remains 

uncollected and risks being permanently lost. Coordinated strategies for identifying, collecting, preserving, 

and exposing these materials are greatly needed. 

International efforts are underway – and more are needed – to support the digitization of 19 th- and 

20 th -century newspapers and books. Even before such digitization is possible, strong efforts must be made to 


identify and acquire culturally significant materials from these periods. 


March 2009 

While individual libraries should ultimately take action to acquire and expose such materials, ARL 

can provide leadership for encouraging collective activities. These would include but not be limited to, 

collection analysis, identification of gaps, coordination, and use of a “preliminary record” for identifying 

and making accessible otherwise hidden collections. 

General Issues 

In addition to the priority issues listed above, the Working Group may also wish to advise the Steering 

Committee about the following: 

• ways to illustrate examples of how special collections contribute to innovative research, teaching, 

and learning. 

• contributing to the work underway within ARL to develop qualitative and quantitative measures for 

the evaluation of special collections. These might include a target for surfacing hidden collections 

and mechanisms for tracking progress. 

• contributing to and/or validating the work being done by the ACRL/RBMS Core Competencies 

Task Force to define the skills needed for work in special collections. 

From time to time, the RTL Steering Committee may ask the Working Group to provide advice on other 

issues. For example, the Working Group may be asked to address preservation strategies for special 

collections in both physical and electronic spheres following Steering Committee discussion of a report from 

the ARL Task Force on the Future of Preservation in ARL Libraries. 

Timeframe, Reports & Assessment 

The Working Group is expected to be ongoing. However, the RTL Steering Committee asks the 

Working Group to report on their progress semi-annually. 

No later than October 2008, the RTL Steering Committee will review the charge to the Working 

Group, assess accomplishments, and consider if this is the most effective way to ensure that the special 

collections agenda remains strategic to the directions ARL has set. 

Proposed by Research, Teaching, and Learning Steering Committee, October 18, 2006 

Endorsed by Executive Committee November 21, 2006 

Revised February 23, 2007 in consultation with Chairs and ARL Executive Committee 



March 2009 

Glossary 

ACRL Association of College and Research Libraries 

ARL Association of Research Libraries 

CCAD Canadian Committee on Archival Description 

CCC Canadian Cataloging Committee 

CLIR Council on Library and Information Resources 

CNI Coalition for Networked Information 

DACS Describing Archives: A Content Standard 

EAD Encoded Archival Description 

NARA National Archives and Records Administration 

NWDA Northwest Digital Archive 

OCLC Online Computer Library Center 

RBMS Rare Books and Manuscripts Section 

SAA Society of American Archivists 


Collaborative Print Repositories: A Case 

Study of Library Directors' Views 

by Cathy Maskell, Jennifer Soutter and Kristina Oldenburg 

Available online 2 April 2010 

Surveys library directors in the Ontario 

Council of University Libraries consortium 

regarding weeding, last copy print 

archiving, and the role of the consortium. 

Responses reveal divergent opinions but an 

answer lies in partnerships. Cost remains an 

over-riding factor and the uncertainty of 

future budgets make commitment to 

long-term planning difficult. 

Cathy Maskell, Associate University Librarian, 

Leddy Library, University of Windsor 

; 

Jennifer Soutter, Digital Resources Librarian, 

Leddy Library, University of Windsor 

; 

Kristina Oldenburg, works as a 

reference librarian in Vancouver, BC 

. 

Document 9 

242 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 36, Number 3, pages 242–249 

INTRODUCTION 

The academic library is a different place, both physically and virtually, 

than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. Students and faculty demand access 

to digital collections at any time and from any place. Bricks-and-mortar 

libraries increasingly house technology labs, multimedia rooms, group 

study rooms, and cafés. Often, the library is one of the main computing 

centers on campus, facing ever-increasing calls for adequate electrical 

and network connections, more computer workstations, and a wide 

range of printing and scanning services. 1 Developing these user spaces 

usually means re-purposing existing physical facilities by shrinking 

collection footprints, since there is rarely money for new buildings. 

Thus many academic libraries are undertaking large-scale evaluations 

of their print collections to decrease the footprint of stacks and liberate 

space to expand technology and service areas. With the increasing 

duplication of print content in digital resources, the focus of this 

evaluation is often on journal collections. 

As the size and use of digital collections increases, the use of print 

resources decreases, particularly print journals. With pressures on 

space intensifying, these journal collections are being earmarked as 

candidates for storage, either within the institution or in some form of 

collaborative facility with other libraries. This leaves librarians 

grappling with what storage option best fits their needs and 

capabilities. Cooperative efforts to maintain at least one print copy 

of what is available digitally present an attractive option. 2 This 

collaboration usually involves libraries working together to house 

print serial volumes duplicated in digital, providing a backup in case 

access to the electronic version is lost, as well as archiving a print copy 

in case it is needed for future research. 

As academic libraries recognize the need to evaluate print 

collections and even weed those collections to liberate space, they 

also have a number of concerns about the effects of such initiatives on 

research, learning, and teaching support for their academic communities. 

Issues include the reliability of digital content, how well the 

digital replicates the print, and the possible long-term value the print 

artifact may have for research and scholarship. 

This article presents the results of a survey of library directors 

regarding their respective institutions' need for wide scale evaluation 

of print collections. It examines their need to weed or relocate 

items, their views on last copy print archiving, and their opinions 

on their consortium's role in any cooperative or shared last-print 

copy initiative. 3 The institutions are members of the Ontario Council 

of University Libraries (OCUL). Ontario university libraries face 

issues, noted in the literature review below, that confront academic 

libraries in locations around the world. The article begins with an 

overview of current issues relating to collaborative storage facilities 

for print collections. The literature review examines issues, 

practices, and context presented in scholarly articles, as well as in

policy documents available on the open web. Following the 

overview, data gathered from OCUL directors is presented. The 

directors' discussions reveal the increasing urgency for more storage 

space, and an interesting diversity of opinion about what print 

content should be stored and how. 

EXISTING LITERATURE 

Terminology 

There are a variety of terms used to discuss facilities that house 

low-use materials. These include repository, depository, archives, and 

storage. For print materials, Payne stresses the ownership of materials 

deposited as the difference between a depository and a repository. 4 In a 

depository, libraries retain ownership of submitted materials, and in a 

repository, libraries transfer ownership of submitted materials to the 

facility. For digital resources the terms digital archive, digital repository, 

trusted digital repository and institutional repository have all been used 

to discuss long-term archiving of digital resources. 5 For the purposes 

of this paper the term print storage facility is used when discussing 

facilities or initiatives for print materials, as the issue of ownership is 

not the central focus of this study. The term digital repository is used 

when discussing storage initiatives for digital resources. 

Collaborative Print Storage 

Collaborative print storage efforts have many champions, whether 

for a distributed model at a regional, consortial, or national level, or 

sharing a common facility for which all members share costs for 

construction and operations. Schottlaender describes a vision that 

includes a distributed collection model, with print storage responsibilities 

spread amongst local collections, regional repositories, and 

archival repositories. 6 Even with the lower costs of electronic journals, 

there is ongoing demand for some access to print, therefore “it is most 

cost-effective if a group of libraries can share the cost of one print 

subscription housed in off-site storage.” 7 While Agee and Naper 

describe global resource sharing as “a distant goal,” 8 the dean of the 

Drexel Libraries states that it is viable. Indeed, he expresses a 

willingness to discard low-use material, trusting that someone, 

somewhere, is retaining copies. He states that: 

archival storage in most subject areas is not part of the mission of the Drexel 

Library. On a national, even international, basis archiving of old, little-used 

materials would be much more cost-effective if done centrally or in a few places 

for redundancy. This is true of both electronic and print formats. We are willing 

to make the leap of faith necessary in believing that this will happen, and are 

ready to pay the cost of access to the archived materials when they are needed. 9 

Whatever the organizational structure or strategy, the overarching 

theme of much of the literature on print collections storage is one of 

libraries working together to ensure ongoing access to the intellectual 

content of material. Academic libraries are collaborating to store or 

preserve last-copy print and low-use collections that take up valuable 

floor space. 

“Whatever the organizational structure or 

strategy, the overarching theme of much of the 

literature on print collections storage is one of 

libraries working together to ensure ongoing 

access to the intellectual content of material.” 

Existing Collaborations 

Many libraries are already working together to establish storage 

facilities for such materials, and this is apparent in the library 

literature. O'Connor, Wells, and Collier surveyed the research on 

cooperative or shared storage, examining initiatives in the United 

Kingdom, Australia, Finland, France, the United States, and Canada. 10 

O'Connor and Jilovsky updated the international survey in 2009. They 

stress repurposing within library buildings, noting that the primary 

impetus for reviews of print collection footprints “has not been the 

advent of the digital book replacement but new directions for library 

physical space.” 11 In her study of library storage facilities in North 

America, Lizanne Payne identifies the key trends: a. shared print 

journal archive agreements for consortia or library systems; b. the 

development of last copy preservation agreements; c. the development 

of virtual storage wherein members may rely on items already 

stored by other members; d. mass digitization initiatives; and e. the 

implementation of local scanning and print-on-demand technology. 12 

Su provides some examples and opinions of these trends in his 

2006 report for the Canadian Association of Research Libraries' (CARL) 

Committee on Scholarly Communication. 13 This includes the recommendation 

that last print copy and low-use copy storage solutions 

should be regional responsibilities. He also describes print storage 

facility initiatives at eight individual institutions and four regional or 

provincial groups. 14 The Book and Record Depository (BARD), located 

in Alberta, is one of these provincial groups. There are two member 

universities; one owns the space and charges rental fees to the other. 

The goal is to store one “definitive copy of a particular holding,” with 

ownership transferred to BARD upon deposit. 15 The Annex, in the 

province of Ontario, is an example of regional storage collaboration. 

The TriUniversity Group (TUG) of Libraries – the University of Guelph, 

the University of Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier University – share 

storage but retain ownership of their materials. This facility had been 

filling faster than anticipated, so the members developed agreements 

and procedures for weeding paper copies of journals for which there 

were stable electronic versions. 16 

As in so many other libraries, space was the concern driving the 

print storage initiatives described in the CARL report. Institutions 

wanted to maximize existing facilities to accommodate changing 

demands, as well as the growth of their in-house collections. A 

consortium in Atlantic Canada, for example, was prompted by the 

recognition that “new methods of information delivery, access and 

management require new library spaces: or reallocation and redesign 

of existing spaces to accommodate new needs.” 17 Su also notes the 

need for further collaboration among libraries to develop more 

comprehensive storage initiatives and manage those initiatives on a 

long-term basis. 

Policy Development for Collaboration 

Libraries that are contributing to collaborative storage facilities 

often follow jointly-developed policies. 18 These govern such things as 

the ownership of stored materials, selection processes for adding 

materials to the facility, duplication policies, and services provided. 19 

Effective collaborations share a number of traits. Knoche 20 and 

Shelton 21 both interviewed librarians to identify key characteristics 

of successful joint projects. Shelton described a number of features 

that were integral to achieving shared collection development goals. 

Good communication, objectives, and technology – combined with 

flexibility – were all essential for the organizations to achieve their 

common objectives. Knoche found many of the same attributes and 

also noted the importance of trust, committed leadership, and a 

positive climate. Proximity is another important factor. 22 

Institutions that had worked together before, had senior administrators 

committed to the project from the outset, and had clear-yetflexible 

goals were likely to succeed. Good technological support, 

infrastructure, and expertise are also evident in successful facilities. 

Successful collaborations allowed time for member institutions to 

consult and deliberate before the project got started. An equal 

commitment from all institutions was important, along with a 

May 2010 243

willingness to consider the goals of the groups, rather than just the 

individual institutions. 23 Seaman describes this attitude in his case 

study of the Preservation and Access Service Center for Colorado 

Academic Libraries (PASCAL) collaborative storage facility. He notes 

that, “each library brought unique collections and user demands to the 

partnership, but it also was recognized that such a collaborative 

facility could contribute to a shared storage solution and could offer 

unique services for the benefit of a much larger community.” 24 

Preventing duplication can prove complicated, as PASCAL contributors 

learned. “Subtle” differences between practices, such as one 

institution cataloguing by unique title and another by series, can make 

avoiding duplication difficult. 25 

Shelton also identified potential barriers to the success of 

collaborative storage facilities. 26 These included resistance by participating 

libraries or uneven participation by member libraries, 

difficulties agreeing on governance and priorities, and uneven funding 

sources. However, advisory committees can help win librarians' 

support for a project. It is also important to make sure that the 

academic communities do not lose access to the materials they need 

for research and teaching. 

Affects on Research and Use 

There is general agreement that most scholarly research would not 

be disrupted by the removal of older print journal volumes; patrons 

do not usually need access to the print version of a serial when it is 

available electronically. Tyler and Zillig reported that older print 

journals rarely circulated, leading them to conclude that volumes 

“simultaneously available electronically…could profitably be moved 

to storage without causing patrons any great distress.” 27 Kaplan, 

Steinberg and Doucette reported similar findings after examining use 

patterns, citations, and interlibrary loan statistics of older print 

journals. 28 Newby's survey of mathematicians revealed “a majority” of 

respondents preferred access to the electronic version, when both 

formats of the same resources were available. 29 McCarthy likewise 

described “an evolving absence of need” for print journals, and noted 

“little or no reaction” when access was further limited for serials in 

remote storage. 30 Like their patrons, many librarians are seeing less 

and less value in holding on to print versions of electronic journals. 31 

There are still library users and librarians, however, who have 

concerns about the relative value and reliability of digital resources. 

Some scholars continue to assert that libraries should maintain access 

to print copies, due to the specific nature of their research, or because 

of their individual reading styles. McKinzie, citing Guthrie, states 

“most faculty agree that… ‘it will always be crucial for libraries to 

maintain hard-copy archives’” 32 As one of Newby's surveyed 

mathematics scholars wrote, “…sometimes it is fun to sit in the 

library reading old journals.” 33 Other users found the print versions 

easier to skim through. Carignan spoke with faculty members who 

argued that they could not conduct their research using electronic 

copies. 34 Their reasons included being able to scan tables of contents 

faster or needing to examine paper and ink quality to obtain more 

evidence about printing dates and motives. For some faculty, it seems 

the print journal as an artifact still has relevance. 

“Some scholars continue to assert that libraries 

should maintain access to print copies, due to 

the specific nature of their research, or because 

of their individual reading styles.” 

McDonald also adds that libraries have an archival responsibility. 35 

Research institutions need to keep copies of resource materials in 

their original format in order to best serve current and future scholars. 

244 The Journal of Academic Librarianship 

Nichols and Smith, 36 Schottlaender et al., 37 Henebry, Safley, and 

George, 38 Crawford, 39 and Weston and Acton 40 all provide compelling 

arguments for retention of materials in original paper format, 

including incomplete content, the accuracy of content, and the 

divergence of content in dual-publishing models. They also raise 

concerns about the loss of advertising, book reviews, and color in 

electronic versions. 

There are also lingering worries about image-reproduction 

technologies for electronic formats, despite recent improvements in 

this area. Electronic journal backfiles may have inferior-image quality, 

rendering them less useful for researchers in certain fields. 41 Even 

amongst scholars with an expressed preference for electronic 

journals, Newby found complaints about the quality of figures. 42 

Bracke and Martin's research had similar findings. 43 Comparing print 

journals to electronic by looking at text and images, they uncovered 

“the reality that the electronic backfiles were not always adequate 

substitutes for print copies.” 44 Despite their findings, a “significant 

amount of print content was ultimately withdrawn.” 45 It must be 

noted that some publishers, such as Elsevier, are starting to address 

these concerns. A project is underway to improve the quality of 

images and missing pages and issues, and they report, for example, 

that missing issues are now down to .1%. 46 

Notwithstanding these concerns, surveys by JSTOR 47 and HeinOnline 

48 show that some libraries are discarding material. The JSTOR 

survey collected data from 207 institutions. Results revealed that 97 

institutions had discarded some of their titles, while another 47 

institutions had plans to do so in the future. HeinOnline's 2006 survey 

showed that of 74 respondents, 17 (23%) were discarding print 

volumes duplicated in HeinOnline, and 9 of 66 respondents (14%) had 

plans to discard print volumes. Interestingly, the number of 

respondents discarding volumes did not rise substantially over the 3 

years, with 23% discarding in 2006, 18% discarding in 2005, and 23% 

discarding in 2004. 

Digital Resource Repositories — 

A Contributing Factor 

Adding yet another dimension to the issue of print collection 

storage is the argument that rather than focusing efforts on long-term 

print collection storage, academic libraries should instead be 

concentrating on establishing and maintaining repositories of digital 

collections. It is unclear how many library-based efforts to establish 

digital repositories are underway. According to a 2008 survey of 

library directors in the United States, even though digital preservation 

was considered important, 66% of respondents were “not yet 

participating in an e-journal archiving initiative.” 49 The survey also 

showed that the directors were unsure just how urgent e-journal 

preservation was and that they were uncertain how to proceed with 

digital preservation. 50 

“Adding yet another dimension to the issue of 

print collection storage is the argument that 

rather than focusing efforts on long-term print 

collection storage, academic libraries should 

instead be concentrating on establishing and 

maintaining repositories of digital collections” 

Differing views between libraries and publishers on the meaning 

of ownership and the meaning of perpetual access create significant 

difficulties for libraries trying to establish their own digital archives. 51 

Libraries are often required to go through a complex process of 

establishing legal ownership of the digital content they wish to

archive to ensure perpetual access. As well, creating and maintaining a 

digital archive entails ongoing commitments to migrating digital 

content through any changes in technology to sustain full access. 

Publisher-based collections are the most common digital archives 

model; libraries subscribe to digitized backfiles and the publisher 

undertakes responsibility for maintaining the content of, and access 

to, those backfiles. McKinzie notes, however, that reliance on vendor 

archiving is dubious as it is dependent on the solubility of a 

company. 52 The last decade has seen the merging of major publishers 

for economic reasons. Sadie Honey comments more specifically on the 

lack of financial motivation for publishers, as “expenditure[s] made by 

a publisher must be covered by the expected profits. If print content is 

no longer of commercial use to the owner of that content, then there is 

a loss of motivation on the part of the owner to maintain that 

content… Given the added expense of upgrading content to new 

formats as technology advances, they cannot be relied upon to 

maintain the collection of their back issues electronically either.” 53 

The legal and market pressures publishers face also contribute to 

the unpredictability of publisher-based digital archives. Publishers 

may pull content from archives for financial or legal reasons. 54 There 

are cases in which journals have been withdrawn from existing 

electronic packages, or else have come very close to being withdrawn. 

For example, in 2007 the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science (AAAS) announced plans to stop providing the journal 

Science to JSTOR. Instead, the nonprofit publisher would do its own 

digitizing, and sell subscriptions to the electronic content itself. AAAS 

chief executive Alan I. Leshner commented that “it makes more sense 

to control our own archive than to fundamentally give it away for 

free.” 55 Although AAAS later buckled to pressure from library 

consortia and stayed with JSTOR, this case remains an example of 

publishers wanting to regain control of back issues and, as a result, 

causing uncertainty for libraries on what e-content they own, as well 

as the stability of that content. 56 

The uncertainties and complexities of establishing and maintaining 

digital repositories further complicate the question of whether 

and how to develop and maintain a last-copy/low-use storage facility 

for print collections. Academic libraries may recognize the value in 

working together to establish a collaborative last-copy/low-use print 

repository solution but the myriad of issues involved make it difficult 

to know how and where to begin. 

ACONSORTIAL CASE STUDY: THE ONTARIO COUNCIL 

OF UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 

The Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) is a consortium of 

20 university libraries in the vast province of Ontario, Canada. The 

member libraries cooperate to enhance information services through 

collective purchasing (mainly of digital content), a shared infrastructure 

for digital access and services, document delivery, and many 

other similar activities. The sizes of the member institutions range 

from roughly 2000 full-time equivalent (fte) registered students up to 

66,000, delivering various combinations of undergraduate, professional, 

and graduate programs. Currently, there are five print storage 

facilities in operation, servicing seven OCUL institutions. The 

University of Toronto, the University of Western Ontario, the 

University of Ottawa, and Carleton University each have their own 

facilities. As noted earlier, Guelph, Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier share 

storage as members of the Tri-University Group. 

Scholars Portal is an infrastructure developed by OCUL to manage 

and deliver digital resources and services to member institutions' 

380,000 students and researchers. 57 Scholars Portal is housed at the 

University of Toronto, where several staff members monitor its 

growing array of content and services. One key element of Scholars 

Portal is the loading of many full-text journals and books – as well as 

indexes and abstracts – on local servers. Member institutions access 

this locally-loaded content via servers at the University of Toronto 

rather than through individual publishers' sites. A key current 

initiative for OCUL is to bring Scholars Portal into conformance with 

emerging standards for trusted digital repositories so that it can meet 

the OCLC standard of providing “reliable, long-term access to 

managed digital resources to its designated community, now and in 

the future.” 58 

OCUL library directors questioned the value of maintaining 

collections of print holdings duplicated by digital content. This was 

prompted by the increasing popularity of digital forms of scholarly 

communication, pressure to re-tool buildings and facilities to 

accommodate user needs, and Scholars Portal's offering reliable 

long-term storage and access for consortium digital resources. 

Surveying Members 

In 2008 OCUL undertook a survey of its members to determine 

what the members were doing, if anything, with respect to reevaluating 

their print collection footprints, the reasons for the reevaluation, 

their views on the need for a consortial print collection 

storage solution and what form that solution might take. The review 

took the form of in-depth interviews with the directors of each 

institution. 59 The questions asked of each director were: 

1. Do you see the need for an archive of published research materials 

(print and/or electronic) in Canada? 

2. Do you see the need for an Ontario archive? 

3. Is it a priority that Scholars Portal be developed to the standard of 

a recognized trusted digital repository? 

4. Do you need to retain a last print copy of all e-journals in Scholars 

Portal? 

5. What are your priorities with respect to print repository 

development? 

“In 2008 OCUL [Ontario Council of University 

Libraries] undertook a survey of its members to 

determine what the members were doing, if 

anything, with respect to re-evaluating their 

print collection footprints, the reasons for the 

re-evaluation, their views on the need for a 

consortial print collection storage solution and 

what form that solution might take.” 

The interview discussions were free-flowing, directed along the 

general lines of the five questions but open to pursuit of tangents and 

other questions that came up during the interview. Some interviews 

took place with the director alone; other interviews were with a 

group of individuals (the director and others invited by the director). 

There were 20 interviews, one at each OCUL institution. The 

interviews were recorded and loosely transcribed to discern patterns, 

common opinions, and areas of contention. To aid in data analysis 

each institution was assigned to a size category based on fte for the 

institution. The categories were: VL, “very large” (n=4, N30,000 fte); 

L, “large” (n=6, 20,000–30,000 fte); M, “medium” (n=3, 10,000– 

20,000 fte); and S, “small” (n=7, b10,000 fte). 

RESULTS 

The interviews revealed a wide range of opinions with six main 

themes emerging: 1. the nature of library as a place is changing; 2. 

May 2010 245

OCUL digital collection development must be considered when 

developing any print storage initiative; 3. costs are a key factor; 4. 

the level of print storage facility (i.e., international, national, OCUL 

level), if any, must be determined; 5. service and content issues are a 

concern; and, 6. if there is an OCUL print storage initiative, preference 

for a central or distributed model must be determined. 

Library as a Place 

The urgent need to relocate physical collections or at least the 

ability to plan for longer term collection relocation was an 

overarching theme across all of the interviews. Seven institutions 

(2VL, 1L, 1M, 3S) were in desperate need for space, four institutions 

(1L, 1M, 2S) were tight for space estimating a need in the next 2–3 

years, three (1VL, 1L, 1M) believed their space needs were met for the 

next 5 years, and six (1VL, 3L, 2S) either did not predict any space 

issues for at least 7–10 years or felt they did not have any foreseeable 

space needs. One institution desperate for space already had access to 

a storage facility. Overall 11 of 20 OCUL institutions (55%) were either 

desperate or tight for space. Whether pressed for space or not, though, 

all of the directors acknowledged the changing nature of the library as 

a place and that planning for new or re-visioned facilities was a central 

theme for their libraries and their role as director. 

The Importance of Digital Collections 

Another common theme was that any planning for print 

repositories had to be done as a complement to OCUL's growing 

repertoire of digital resources supported and maintained on Scholars 

Portal. Tens of thousands of e-journal titles are locally-loaded on, and 

available through, Scholars Portal. The shift to digital monographs is 

also picking up steam with e-book package deals and monograph 

digitization projects becoming more commonplace. OCUL has 

invested millions of dollars developing the Scholars Portal infrastructure. 

Across all 20 interviews, it was clear that any OCUL print 

repository strategy would be directly informed by ongoing development 

of Scholars Portal specifically, and more generally, by the broad 

shift to digital scholarly communication and scholarly publishing. 

Success in making Scholars Portal a trusted digital repository would 

have significant impact on what type of print repository, if any, is 

necessary. All 20 directors indicated that it was important that 

Scholars Portal be recognized as a trusted digital repository (TDR). 

Eight further qualified that positive response with questions or 

concerns about what it will cost to make Scholars Portal a TDR, what it 

means to become a TDR, and what the process is for becoming a TDR. 

There was also concern over whether making Scholars Portal a TDR 

would slow the continued development of Scholars Portal content and 

services. 

Costs are a Key Factor 

Across all 20 institutions a common thread that emerged was 

that any OCUL print storage initiative would have to first and 

foremost be sustainable within the member institutions' budgets, 

many of which are already constrained. The costs related to any 

recommendations for print storage have to be defined. The 

availability of any external funding for print storage facility 

development is also an unknown. Building facilities for last-print 

or low-use print material was seen by most directors as a difficult 

sell to external funding agencies. Twelve directors (1VL, 3L, 2M, 6S) 

expressed significant concern about the costs and funding of any 

print storage strategy, with smaller institutions expressing this 

concern more than the large or very large institutions. Many are 

already dealing with significant cost outlays for Scholars Portal and 

expect further costs in developing Scholars Portal as a TDR. This led 

several directors to wonder how they would pay for a print storage 

project. Any plans for an OCUL collaborative print storage initiative 


would have to be set in consideration of current and future costs 

and funding possibilities. Notwithstanding the funding concern, 

however, some of the directors felt it would be feasible to explore 

the cost savings that might be realized with a centrally managed 

facility. Funding proposals could be made in terms of cost savings in 

the space liberated for other uses, in terms of staff and facilities 

savings as the need for ongoing management of in-house stacks is 

reduced, and in terms of staff savings in areas such as interlibrary 

loans as significant amounts of interlibrary loans are directed to one 

central facility. 

“Across all twenty institutions a common 

thread that emerged was that any OCUL print 

storage initiative would have to first and 

foremost be sustainable within the member 

institutions’ budgets, many of which are 

already constrained” 

What Kind of Print Storage Facility is Needed? 

This theme prompted the most discussion and the most diverse 

range of responses from the OCUL directors. As they discussed what 

type of OCUL collaborative print storage initiative, if any, might be 

needed, they considered the storage needs for three main categories: 

A. print serial collections that duplicate serials locally-loaded on 

Scholars Portal; B. print serial collections not locally-loaded on 

Scholars Portal; C. print monographs and government documents 

not necessarily duplicated in digital format. Within those three main 

categories the responses were grouped based on whether the 

respondents felt an international, national, or provincial collaborative 

strategy would be most appropriate. Two institutions (1VL, 1L) 

questioned the need for any type of coordinated print storage 

initiative, so the totals reported below are for 18 institutions. 

Journals Locally-Loaded on Scholars Portal 

Seven directors (1VL, 2L, 2M, 2S) felt that an international 

initiative to store print runs of serials locally-loaded on Scholars 

Portal would be sufficient. They felt that Scholars Portal was a stable 

and trusted source, so the availability of a last print copy of the 

journals on Scholars Portal anywhere in the world would meet any 

need for possible future access to the print format. Five directors (1L, 

1M, 3S), felt that even though Scholars Portal provided reliable access, 

it would be prudent to maintain at least one print run somewhere in 

Canada. That is, a national print storage option would suffice. The 

uncertainty about future access across national borders was often 

cited by those holding this view. Six directors (2VL, 2L, 2S) felt that 

OCUL should maintain a provincial level print storage initiative for 

journals locally-loaded on Scholars Portal. Three of the six indicated 

that ideally a national approach would be the best, but in reality it was 

more feasible to implement and maintain a provincial approach. 

Digital Serials not Locally-Loaded on Scholars Portal 

Six directors (1VL, 2L, 1M, 2S) felt that an international 

collaboration for serials duplicated by digital, but not locally-loaded 

on Scholars Portal, would suffice. They felt that many of these serial 

titles were produced by well-respected commercial publishers or 

vendors with lots of copies around the country or around the globe, 

thus an international repository would meet OCUL's needs. This was 

especially true for collections such as JSTOR, which already has two 

print repositories in the United States. 60 Six directors (1L, 2M, 3S) felt 

that a national strategy would be best and six (2VL, 2L, 2S) felt that a 

provincial strategy was the best route to take. Again, three of the six

directors who preferred a provincial repository indicated that though 

ideally a national approach would be the best, a provincial initiative 

was more realistic. 

Monographs and Documents 

Eleven of 18 directors (1VL, 3L, 3M, 4S) felt that the best goal for 

OCUL with respect to collaborative print storage was one which would 

see storage of unique Ontario collections, including monographs, 

serial collections, and Ontario government documents. The goal 

would be to develop a storage program that contributed to an Ontario 

research collection while at the same time addressing ongoing needs 

to re-allocate space in local facilities. 

Content and Service Issues 

Fourteen directors (3VL, 4 L, 3M, 4S) indicated that the service 

model developed for any collaborative print storage initiative would 

play a key role in the success of that initiative. The majority of 

respondents who raised this issue felt that the development of a “light” 

storage solution would be preferable; items would be available through 

digital delivery to desktop, interlibrary loan of physical items, and onsite 

access. Digital delivery would allow a reasonable turnaround time 

for requested information, as well as provide geographic flexibility for 

any central facility, for any type of distributed solution. 

Fifteen directors (3VL, 5L, 2M, 5S) felt that an analysis of content of 

materials being considered for removal to storage was necessary. 

Specifically, the concern over content was in not knowing how closely 

the digital versions matched or duplicated the print version being 

discarded or sent to storage. Another content verification issue that 

was discussed several times was the need to establish a process to 

determine, with some degree of reliability, the true print and 

electronic holdings of each institution. The answers to these content 

concerns may affect decisions about whether materials should go to 

storage or be discarded. 

A Central or Distributed Model 

Nine directors (2VL, 2L, 1M 4S) felt that a central model would be 

the most appropriate for any type of OCUL collaborative print storage 

initiative. The majority preferred a central facility attached to and 

managed by a specific OCUL institution, with the rest of OCUL 

contributing on some sort of cost-share metric. The central management 

model presumes a single facility to which each OCUL institution 

would send items. The management of such a facility could be 

contracted out to a third party or be attached to one specific OCUL 

institution. Regardless of affiliation, there would be a staff presence to 

deal with additions and deletions of material and requests for access. 

The advantages of the central model include maximizing and focusing 

staff costs to deal with repository management and service, and 

increased probability of long term sustainability. The disadvantages of a 

central model are that it would demand significant and immediate upfront 

costs to build and staff a facility. It would also require extensive 

initial planning to determine the logistics of what materials came into 

the repository and how those materials would be stored and serviced. 

Seven directors (2VL, 2L, 2M, 1S) felt that a distributed model 

would be the most appropriate. It could take advantage of the storage 

facilities already in place at some OCUL institutions and would be 

relatively quick and easy to get something underway to address 

immediate space needs. The distributed model presumes that 

individual OCUL institutions would act as local repositories for the 

rest of the consortium for specific titles. Each participating institution 

would agree to maintain those titles and to meet common service 

parameters. The advantages of a distributed model are relatively low 

start-up costs and the ability to implement the repository relatively 

quickly. The disadvantages include difficulty sustaining activity and 

commitment over time. 

DISCUSSION 

Despite the wide range of opinions, it was possible to glean some 

common points of interest. From those, some first steps for OCUL with 

respect to print collections storage can be developed. Eleven OCUL 

institutions are either in desperate need to liberate space or very tight 

with respect to space. Only one in that group has access to a storage 

facility, so addressing these immediate needs may be an obvious first 

step. Overall, there was considerable interest in some sort of 

collaborative strategy, but that interest generated significant questions 

about structure, costs and sustainability. There was unanimous 

agreement that academic libraries are changing, with demands for 

new user spaces creating significant pressures on physical collections. 

Collaborative action to alleviate that pressure makes sense but there 

was a broad and diverse range of opinion on the need for an OCUL 

print storage solution, the level of collaborative action to pursue and 

for which print collections, and of course the ongoing cost and service 

issues. 

There was a majority opinion that the most appropriate OCUL 

collaborative print storage initiative would not be to preserve last 

print runs of commercial serials, that is, those locally-loaded in 

Scholars Portal and other digital serials such as those in JSTOR. The 

availability of other repositories elsewhere in Canada, North America, 

or internationally would most likely be sufficient to address needs for 

those materials. The need for further information and international 

collaboration so academic libraries around the world know who is 

collecting and storing and preserving what, is needed. 

Establishing Scholars Portal as a trusted digital repository was seen 

as important before determining what OCUL needs to do with respect 

to any print storage program development. Knowing that OCUL owns 

the digital content locally-loaded on Scholars Portal and knowing 

Scholars Portal is a recognized archive with appropriate technology 

migration is crucial. 

There were several questions about whether a print repository 

should more appropriately be done on a national or even international 

level. Some directors expressed their preference for a provincial 

facility. Exploring the opportunities for national collaboration and 

clarifying what is – or is not – happening nationally and in the other 

regional groups is important. In light of what may be developed 

nationally, just over half of the directors indicated that a strategy for 

long-term storage of unique Ontario print resources would be most 

appropriate. 

Content verification and service models were important factors 

with respect to what type of print storage program OCUL might 

develop. The general consensus was that an open service model is 

desirable for whatever repository might be developed with print on 

demand, and digital desktop delivery as the preferred focus for access. 

Work would need to be done to address questions on content. A review 

of research on the match between digital and print, and developing a 

process for a reasonable amount of collection analysis – so OCUL 

knows who owns what – would help to clarify how the consortium 

would determine what print materials would go into storage. 

CONCLUSION 

The survey of the literature and other institutional activities, as well as 

the results of the survey of the OCUL directors, combine to clearly 

illustrate the complex mix of issues related to establishing a consortial 

level solution to the management of print collections. 61 What is clear 

is that many academic libraries across North America have identified 

the need to address how they deal with their print collections in light 

of the increasing focus on digital resources and in light of the 

increasing demands placed on physical library facilities. It appears 

that many libraries recognize the need to reduce print collection 

footprints, especially those print collections which duplicate digital, 

but have many questions and hesitancies about how that reduction 

May 2010 247

might happen. There are still many questions about how the digital 

and the print compare. Is it an exact match? If it is not an exact match, 

how close is close enough? 

“It appears that many libraries recognize the 

need to reduce print collection footprints, 

especially those print collections which 

duplicate digital, but have many questions 

and hesitancies about how that reduction 

might happen.” 

The survey of the directors of Ontario university libraries shows 

diverse opinions on how to approach print collection archiving. The 

value of the print volume as an artifact is a concern. Even if research 

articles are exactly duplicated in digital, how important is other 

content that is in the print volume but not in the digital version? If 

there is one copy of the print journal within easy reach, or within easy 

interlibrary loan range, is that sufficient? Can libraries trust digital 

resources to deliver reliable content to our patrons over the longterm? 

Should we hang on to our print collections that duplicate the 

digital just in case? 

There seems to be consensus that the answer to these difficult 

questions lies in partnerships between institutions. Whether through 

already-existing consortial partnerships or by building new collaborations 

between institutions, libraries working together to manage print 

collections presents a range of options. Yet collaboration itself comes 

with risks. A library must have trustworthy partners to maintain print 

collections to an agreed-upon level. Choices must be made on whether 

to use a distributed or a centralized model. Library administrators 

must also determine how much any collaborative effort will cost, how 

each partner will pay for its share, and whether one collaborative effort 

should duplicate the work being done by another. If there is more than 

one consortium in the United States dedicated to maintaining a 

specific print collection, does Canada need to duplicate that effort? 

The Ontario Council of University Libraries has built an impressive 

infrastructure for its digital resources through Scholars Portal. How 

can OCUL institutions leverage that infrastructure to help them 

evaluate and manage their print collections? As illustrated by the 

responses from the OCUL directors, different libraries have different 

needs. Some are in urgent need to weed print collections and others 

have time to plan for future weeding. A number feel a distributed 

network of print collection management would work well, still others 

advocate for a centralized facility to ensure a last print copy is retained 

in the province. All agree that cost is an over-riding factor and the 

unknowns with respect to future budgets make committing to any 

long-term plan difficult. 

Though this conclusion seems to only pose more questions, and 

admittedly many more could be listed, what is clear is that this issue is 

of immense interest, and immense importance for the academic 

library community. Continuing the conversation is essential as is the 

need to ensure we work together across regions, states, provinces, 

countries, and even internationally to develop strategies. 

NOTES AND REFERENCES 

1. Paul Genoni, Current and Future Print Storage for Australian 

Academic Libraries: Results of a Survey, Library Collections, 

Acquisitions, & Technical Services 32 (2008): 31-41, and, American 

University Library, “The Academic Library in 2010: A Vision, Report of 

a Symposium 2010, March 14-15, 2005”. Online (November, 2009) 

Available: http://www.library.american.edu/Symposium_2010. 

pdf. 


2. Lizanne Payne, Library Storage Facilities and the Future of Print 

Collections in North America. OCLC (2007) Available: www.oclc. 

org/programs/publications/reports/2007-01.pdf (October 1, 

2009). 

3. Cathy Maskell, “Last Copy and Low Use Print Repositories: A Vision 

and First Steps for OCUL” (report submitted to OCUL Directors 

Meeting, September 2008). 

4. Lizanne Payne, Are Duplicate Copies the Double Edged Sword for 

Last Copy Repositories?: Perspective on Consortium Repository. 

(Slide presentation as transcribed by Jean Ann Croft, and Atalanta 

Grant-Suttie, Preservation issues in small to mid-sized libraries 

discussion group in email to PADG mailing list). Online (July 2005) 

Available: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/ 

padg/2005/07/doc00000.doc (April 28, 2009). 

5. RLG and OCLC, Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and 

Responsibilities: An RLG-OCLC Report. RLG & OCLC (2002) 

Available: http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/ 

trustedrep/repositories.pdf (October 1, 2009). 

6. Brian E.C. Schottlaender, “You say you want an evolution…’ The 

Emerging UC Libraries Shared Collection,” Library Collections, 

Acquisitions, & Technical Services 28 (2004): 13–24. 

7. Brian E.C. Schottlaender, Gary S. Lawrence, Cecily Johns, Claire Le 

Donne, and Laura Fosbender, Collection Management Strategies in 

a Digital Environment: A Project of the Collection Management 

Initiative of the University of California Libraries. Online. University 

of California, Office of the President, Office of Systemwide 

Library Planning. (2004) Available: http://www.ucop.edu/cmi/ 

finalreport/cmireportfinal.pdf, viii. (April 28, 2009). 

8. Jim Agee and Sarah Naper, “Off-site storage: An analysis,” 

Collection Building 26 (2007): 20-5, 21. 

9. Carol Hansen Montgomery, “‘Fast Track' Transition to an Electronic 

Journal Collection: A Case Study,” New Library World 101 (2000): 

294-302, 295-296. 

10. Steve O'Connor, Andrew Wells, and Mel Collier, “A Study of 

Collaborative Storage of Library Resources,” Library Hi Tech Journal 

20 (2002): 258–269. 

11. Steve O'Connor and Cathie Jilovsky, “Approaches to the storage of 

low use and last copy research materials,” Library Collections, 

Acquisitions, & Technical Services 32 (2009): 121–126. 

12. Payne, “Library Storage Facilities.” 

13. Geoffrey Su, Print Repository Initiatives at Canadian University 

Libraries: An Overview. Online. CARL ABRC (2006) Available: 

http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/preservation/pdf/print_repos_ 

overview.pdf (April 28, 2009). 

14. The institutions described in the report were the University of 

British Columbia, Carleton University, the University of Manitoba, 

the University of Ottawa, the Quebec universities, the University of 

Saskatchewan, the University of Toronto, and the University of 

Western Ontario. The shared initiatives described in the report 

were the BARD project in Alberta, the Council of Atlantic University 

Libraries (CAUL) Regional Consortium for the Preservation of 

Scholarly Materials, the (OCUL) Collaborative Collection Continuity 

Initiative, and the TriUniversity Group (TUG) Libraries Annex. 

15. Su, “Print repository initiatives,” p. 27. 

16. Tri-University Group of Libraries. Policies - TUG Libraries Last 

Copy. Online. Guelph University Library. (2006) Available: http:// 

www.lib.uoguelph.ca/about/policies/TUG_libraries_last_copy. 

cfm (April 29, 2009). 

17. Su, “Print repository initiatives,” p. 29. 

18. O'Connor, Wells, and Collier, “A Study of Collaborative Storage of 

Library Resources.” 

19. Payne, “Are Duplicate Copies the Double Edged Sword.” 

20. Charlotte Marie Knoche, “Critical Factors for Successful Collaboration 

in Academic Libraries,” PhD diss.,” University of Minnesota, 

1997.

21. Cynthia Shelton, “Best Practices in Cooperative Collection Development: 

A Report Prepared by the Center for Research Libraries 

Working Group on Best Practices in Cooperative Collection 

Development,” Collection Management 28 (2004): 191–222. 

22. Scott Seaman, “Collaborative Collection Management in a High- 

Density Storage Facility,” College & Research Libraries 66 (2005): 

20–27 and Knoche, “Critical Factors.” 

23. Shelton, “Best Practices,” p. 205. 

24. Seaman, “Collaborative collection management,” p. 21. 

25. Ibid., p. 26. 

26. Shelton, “Best Practices,” p. 208. 

27. David C. Tyler, and Bryan L. Pytlig Zillig, “Caveat Relocator: A 

Practical Relocation Proposal to Save Space and Promote Electronic 

Resources.” Technical Services Quarterly 21 (2003): 17-30, 21. 

28. Richard Kaplan, Marilyn Steinberg, and Joanne Doucette, “Retention 

of Retrospective Print Journals in the Digital Age: Trends and 

Analysis,” Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 94 (Oct 

2006): 387–393. 

29. Jill Newby, “An Emerging Picture of Mathematicians’ Use of 

Electronic Resources: The Effect of Withdrawal of Older Print 

Volumes,” Science & Technology Libraries 25 (2005): 65–85. 

30. James P. McCarthy, “The Print Block and the Digital Cylinder,” 

Library Management 26, (2005): 89-96, 92. 

31. Harriet Bell, The Value of Online Journal Backfiles to University 

Libraries. Online. Elsevier ScienceDirect. (2005) Available: http:// 

info.sciencedirect.com/content/backfiles/optimizing_backfiles/ 

(April 28, 2009). 

32. Steve McKinzie, “Op Ed – Troubling Choices: Full-text Access and the 

Old Hard Copy Back Runs,” Against the Grain 17 (2005): 60-1, 61. 

33. Newby, “An Emerging Picture,” p. 75. 

34. Yvonne Carignan, “Who Wants Yesterday's Papers? The Faculty 

Answer,” Collection Management 31 (2006): 75–84. 

35. John McDonald, “‘No One Uses Them So Why Should We Keep 

Them?': Scenarios for Print Issue Retention,” Against the Grain 15 

(2003): 22-4, 24. 

36. Stephen G. Nichols et al., The Evidence in Hand: Report of the Task 

Force on the Artifact in Library Collections, CLIR pub103, 

Washington, DC: CLIR, November 2001. 

37. Schottlaender, “Collection Management Strategies.” 

38. Carolyn Henebry, Ellen Safley, and Sarah E. George, “Before You 

Cancel the Paper, Beware: All Electronic Journals in 2001 are NOT 

Created Equal,” Serials Librarian 42 (2002): 267–273. 

39. Walt Crawford, “Here's the Content - Where's the Context?,” 

American Libraries 31 (Mar 2000): 50–52. 

40. Beth Weston and Deena Acton, “Managing Divergence of Print and 

Electronic Journals,” Serials Librarian 56 (2009): 181–198. 

41. Jacquelyn Marie Erdman, “Image Quality in Electronic Journals: A 

Case Study of Elsevier Geology Titles,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, 

& Technical Services 30 (2006): 169–178. 

42. Newby, “An Emerging Picture,” p. 75. 

43. Marianne Stowell Bracke and Jim Martin, “Developing Criteria for 

the Withdrawal of Print Content Available Online,” Collection 

Building 24 (2005): 61–64. 

44. Ibid., p. 61. 

45. Ibid., p. 63. 

46. ScienceDirect, Backfiles Re-Scanning Project. Online. Elsevier B.V. 

(N.D.) Available: http://info.sciencedirect.com/content/backfiles/ 

optimizing_backfiles/ (April 28, 2009). 

47. JSTOR, JSTOR Bound Volume Survey Results. Online. (2003) 

Available: http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/news/surveys/ 

bvs2003.jsp. 

48. Brian Jablonski. 2006 Bound Volume Survey Results. (email to 

HeinOnline mailing list) Online. (October 10,2006) Available: 

http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/heinonline/2006-October/ 

000244.html (April 28, 2009) Selected or comprehensive discarding 

and whether it includes any sort of agreement with other 

institutions for access to print was not investigated in this survey. 

49. Portico/Ithaka, Digital Preservation of E-journals in 2008: 

Urgent Action Revisited. Results from a Portico/Ithaka Survey 

of U.S. Library Directors. Online. (2008) Available: http:// 

www.portico.org/comment/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ 

porticosurveyondigitalpreservation.pdf (April 29, 2009). 

50. Ibid., p. 5. 

51. Andrew Waller and Gwen Bird, “We own it: Dealing with 

perpetual access in big deals,” Serials Librarian 50 (2006): 

179–196. 

52. McKinzie, “Op ed,” p. 61. 

53. Sadie L. Honey, “Preservation of Electronic Scholarly Publishing: 

An Analysis of Three Approaches,” Portal: Libraries & the Academy 

5 (2005): 59-75, 59. 

54. McKinzie, “Op ed,” p. 61. 

55. Peter Monaghan, “Critics Balk at Withdrawal of Journal from 

Archive,” Chronicle of Higher Education 54. (8) (2007): A1–A12. 

56. Andrew Albanese, “Science Rejoins JSTOR,” Library Journal 133 

(2008): 16. 

57. Scholars Portal (www.scholarsportal.info) consists of roughly 

8,100 full-text journals representing eighteen commercial publishers 

and 130 databases from eight publishers. It hosts a singlesearch 

platform Illumina, an Interlibrary Loans platform RACER, 

and bibliographic management software RefWorks. Scholars Portal 

also uses the open-URL resolver SFX, and is testing an electronic 

resources management tool Verde . Some of the projects currently 

in development include the development of a new interface to 

replace its ejournals server, the development of a local delivery 

platform for electronic books, (in conjunction with ebrary) and a 

web-based data extraction system, the Ontario Data Documentation, 

Extraction Service and Infrastructure project (ODESI). 

58. RLG-OCLC, Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities, 

an RLG-OCLC Report. Online. (May 2002) Available: 

http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/trustedrep/ 

repositories.pdf (April 28, 2009). 

59. OCUL (http://www.ocul.on.ca/) contracted with C. Maskell to do 

this survey. Data was collected in the summer of 2008 and the 

report was submitted to the OCUL Directors at the winter 2008 

directors' meeting. C. Maskell wishes to express her sincere thanks 

to OCUL for the opportunity to do the survey and their support with 

it, as well as their permission to report the results of the survey. 

60. Two JStor repositories are at the University of California (http:// 

www.srlf.ucla.edu/Jstor/Default.aspx) and Harvard University 

(http://hul.harvard.edu/hd/). 

61. After presentation of the report on the survey at the winter 2008 

OCUL directors meeting, the Thunder Bay agreement was crafted 

and passed by the directors. The agreement stipulates two action 

strategies: a. OCUL will implement a distributed model based on 

the coordinated retention and collaborative storage of print 

journals to address immediate short-term space needs. Decisionmaking 

will reside at the local level. It will be incumbent on 

individual libraries who wish to discard print journals to 

determine whether they hold the last OCUL print copy. If so, 

they are obliged to keep the volumes or find another OCUL library 

that will do so; and b. OCUL will explore collaboration 

opportunities with other regional and national organizations to 

determine the status of any print repositories being developed or 

discussed. 

May 2010 249

Document 10 

2010 Open Access Engagement Strategy 

At the November 12, 2009, meeting of the Scholarly Communication Committee during the Fall General 

Meeting in Ottawa, Committee members recommended that the Association engage in an Open Access 

advocacy campaign in 2010. In the CARL Office, a rough schematic of what elements could comprise 

such a campaign has been drawn up. The following is a summary of six facets that the strategy can 

consist of but not necessarily be limited to: 

Timeline: The CARL Office, with input from SCOM, will draft a time line with the key facets of the 

strategy plotted on it; this includes: drafting and finalizing a fulsome brief explaining the rationale, 

methods and benefits (for whom) of OA; preparation of the accompanying media kit (which could 

include such things as an article submitted to University Affairs or CAUT Bulletin, and also include the IR 

advocacy toolkit and the author addendum brochure as well as another pamphlet that could facilitate 

compliance with the CIHR policy such as has been proposed by the IRs Sub‐committee); letters sent to 

target audiences – e.g. MPs, Ministries, University Administrators and Research Offices – to set up 

meetings; promotion of CARL OA initiatives at key events such as Congress, International OA Week, the 

Science Policy Conference, as well as any regional or local events (a presentation template could be 

prepared in the CARL office). 

Involved Committees and Sub‐committees: In addition to the Scholarly Communication Committee, 

work on the strategy will include input from the Public Policy Committee to help frame the message to 

Government, for example, and from the Institutional Repositories Working Group which is planning a 

number of projects and meetings for 2010. 

Briefing paper: The brief should cover the who’s, what’s, why’s and how’s of OA; that is: the rationale 

for OA and who benefits; it should draw attention to IRs in Canada, and initiatives like the OA Authors 

Fund at the University of Calgary, the University of Ottawa OA Program, it should encourage the 

adoption of green OA mandates at Canadian Universities, and also encourage the granting councils to 

harmonize their OA efforts towards making free access to the results of research with public funding a 

requirement. 

Media kit: The media kit should complement the brief that would be included with the letters sent to 

MPs, Ministers, and University Administrators. It can include: an article featured in a publication that is 

widely read by researchers; an advertisement in the same or a similar publication; a poster; a concise 

list of talking points (who, what, where, when, why, how); Greater Reach for Your Research; and Using 

the SPARC Canadian Author Addendum. There would be associated translation, graphic design, and 

printing costs for some of the envisioned new materials. 

Partners / Stakeholders: Aside from the main audiences the campaign will be aimed at – Tri‐council, 

Research Offices, the Government, and Researchers all of whom stand to benefit from improved 

dissemination, visibility and accessibility to Canadian research – the strategy can benefit from 

participation or feedback of other organizations with a stake in open access: libraries and library 

associations/consortia; the Canadian Federation of Students; FedCan; journal publishers and university 

presses (i.e. alternative, sustainable business models); AUCC; CAUT; the Canadian Consortium for

Research; and SPARC. Broader participation/input should also garner wider attention on the OA 

Engagement Strategy. 

Measuring success of the OA Engagement Strategy: The success of the CARL 2010 Open Access 

Engagement Strategy might be measured by: an article and ad appearing in a widely read publication for 

researchers such as University Affairs or CAUT Bulletin (perhaps editorial letters in response to said 

article?); the number and variety of meetings that result from the letter writing facet of the strategy; the 

number of events –national, regional, and local – where someone makes an OA themed presentation on 

behalf of CARL; and the degree to which OA programs and mandates are implemented or considered, 

and any further steps granting councils might take towards enforcing policies requiring OA to the 

research they fund. 

2010-01-28 

Document 10

CARL Brief for Open Access Engagement Strategy 

May 2010 

Document 11 

The Rationale for Open Access 

Open Access (OA) is a means of disseminating scholarly and scientific literature over the internet free of 

charge to researchers and to anyone else who might benefit from accessing the results of publicly 

funded research. Research libraries have lent their support to the open access movement as a way of 

extending their mandates to preserve and provide access to the world’s knowledge, but have also seen 

in it a viable solution to the problem of escalating journal subscription prices. From 1989 onwards the 

average scientific journal price had steadily risen by 315 % by 2003. Prices have increased at a slower 

rate in recent years, however, they continue to rise by about 9 % yearly 1 . 

Libraries have been able to defray the costs of providing access to the corpus of scholarly journal 

literature by transitioning more and more to an electronic access and archiving environment by way of 

regional consortial journal content licensing arrangements or by purchasing much of the same electronic 

content for perpetual institutional ownership. However, even the most financially endowed university 

libraries cannot subscribe to all 24, 000 scholarly, scientific, technical, and medical journals that are 

currently published. Faced with this problem, libraries must periodically cancel journal subscriptions in 

order to allocate their limited acquisitions budgets to the journal content faculty and students at their 

host institutions use most heavily. This is something which places students and researchers at a 

disadvantage. Research is increasingly a multi‐disciplinary endeavor and it is not always easy to for 

libraries to determine what content they can dispense with in the collections they manage. This is 

problem for large institutions, but especially for libraries that support medium and smaller‐sized higher 

learning institutions. The current global economic crisis that began in the fall of 2008 has added 

impetus for libraries and Academia to consider bringing OA practices into the way they conduct their 

business – especially in light of budgetary cutbacks or freezes. 

But OA is not only about devising sustainable publishing and access models to research journal 

literature. Researchers and librarians also see it as a means to repair a scholarly publishing system that, 

although it has worked in the world of print‐based dissemination, drastically limits the possibilities 

offered by the emerging networked research environment and the internet. If researchers cannot 

always access parts of the current research literature in their fields they are missing information that is 

potentially vital to their research, and the result is that the progress of scientific discovery is stalled. 

Open Access levels the field for researchers everywhere, in terms of accessibility, giving scientific 

literature the broadest possible dissemination so researchers can find it, interpret it, and build on it to 

help solve problems and challenges society faces. 

Recommendation: 

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) recommends that all stakeholders in Higher 

Education in Canada seriously explore how they can support Open Access by way of new publishing 

initiatives, OA policies and institutional mandates. 

1 Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS) , Why librarians should be concerned with Open Access 

http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=254&Itemid=256 , and Association 

of Research Libraries, Monograph and Serial Expenditures in ARL Libraries, 1986 – 2003 

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/monser04.pdf 

1

This briefing paper describes the basic means of achieving OA, who benefits, highlights some 

international and Canadian OA initiatives, and expands on the recommendation stated above. 

Primary methods of achieving Open Access 

Open Access is not intended to replace journals as they currently exist nor does it aim to do away with 

peer‐review which is vital to scientific communication. OA is rather about arriving at the means to 

ensure publications costs are covered while the results of scholarship are free to access – that is free of 

charge, except for such costs that cannot be separated from accessing the internet 2 . OA does not entail, 

as is sometimes believed, second rate or vanity publishing; it in no way seeks to curtail the necessary 

rigors of peer‐review and the high editing standards expected from scholarly journals. An estimated 

10% of the scholarly and STM journals are open access. PloS Biology, a journal published by the open 

access publisher Public Library of Science, is the highest ranked scholarly journal in its field 3 . 

There are many OA models, but the two chief approaches are open access journals and open digital 

repositories. Another way to provide open access is through a hybrid model. OA journals provide free 

access to scholarly literature by covering the publications costs through a variety of alternatives to the 

predominant subscription model – institutional subsidies/grants/memberships, advertising revenue, 

article fees, combination of free online version with paid print subscriptions, etc. Although some OA 

journal publishers charge authors article processing fees, ranging anywhere from $500 to $3,000, many 

will waive the fee or it can often be covered by a line in research grants. The second main route to Open 

Access is through article manuscript archiving in open digital repositories. This particular strategy 

compliments scholars’ practice of publishing the results of their research in vetted peer‐reviewed 

research journals – it does not replace it. Author archiving or self archiving (as this OA strategy is 

sometimes called) enables researchers to carry on their usual publishing activities, submitting to the 

most suitable journals in their field whether they are open access or subscription based. The majority of 

commercial scholarly journal publishers, moreover, permit authors to place peer‐reviewed article 

manuscripts in institutional repositories 4 . Just a few minutes and keystrokes at the keyboard (at no cost 

to the author) allow researchers to make their work more visible, allowing for other researchers to find 

it and build on it. The accompanying metadata submitted with article manuscripts in open digital 

repositories is compliant with the Open Archives Institute Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI‐PMH) 

which renders such scholarly content easily findable in popular search engines like Google and Goggle 

Scholar as well as numerous automated harvesters of digital repository contents. Some toll access 

journals have begun experimenting with a hybrid access model (sometimes referred to as author open 

choice) whereby authors pay a fee for the publisher to make an article free to access, and the 

subscription fee is adjusted according to general author take up of this service 5 . Across Canada, higher 

education institutions have been implementing OA programs that include support for open access 

journals and open digital repositories, and a few are experimenting with ways to improve access to 

2 Budapest Open Access Initiative http://www.soros.org/openaccess/index.shtml 

3 The impact factor of PLoS Biology for 2008, as calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), was 12.6. 

Putting this in context, it is the highest‐ranked journal in the ISI category 'Biology'. ISI Journal Citation Reports 

http://admin‐apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=HOME 

4 SHERPA/RoMEO, Publisher copyright policies & self archiving http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php 

5 SHERPA/RoMEO, Publisher with paid options for open access http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PaidOA.html 

2

scholarship through hybrid scholarly publishing models. 

The Value Proposition of OA to the HE and Scientific Community 

Successful implementation of OA policies, programs and publishing models will require close 

collaboration between researchers, university research offices, libraries, research funders, and 

publishers, in order to “align the intellectual and economic models for scholarly publishing with the 

needs of contemporary scholarship and the benefits, including low marginal costs of distribution, of 

network technology. 6 ” These are highly desirable outcomes, however, the key goal of Open Access is to 

advance science by removing barriers scientists face in accessing other scientists’ work. Not only does 

OA help advance science, but it brings the potential to accelerate the speed at which it moves. In 

physics, where open access has been commonplace for over a decade, the OA digital repository arXiv, 

hosted at Cornell University, provides free access to copies of almost every article published in most 

fields of physics (e.g. high‐energy, condensed matter, astrophysics, etc.), deposited by authors for 

anyone to use. A study from Southampton University (U.K.) has measured the time between article 

deposits into arXiv and when citations to these begin to appear. The research has shown the interval to 

be shrinking as the online repository has come into near‐universal use among physicists taking 

advantage of the immediate access to their colleagues’ research results. This system shortens the 

research cycle, accelerating progress and increasing efficiency in the area of physics 7 . 

Open access is good for education and good for research; by broadening the dissemination of the results 

of scientific inquiry and discourse, it supports the core mission of the higher education enterprise – its 

ongoing commitment to the advancement of knowledge. The present system of scholarly 

communication does not always serve the best interests of higher learning institutions or of the general 

public that should enjoy the benefit of accessing the results of the research activities it funds. Greater 

adoption of open access publishing models, activities, policies and mandates will challenge all parties 

with a stake in the dissemination of scholarship to find creative solutions to continue supporting 

scientific communication, but they need not compromise a successful balance of interests 8 . The research 

community, as a whole, and publishers alike benefit from open access. 

Researchers 

‐ Potential for greater exposure for their work 

‐ Greater access facilitates discovery and use of research beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries 

leading to interdisciplinary scholarly convergences that yield more discoveries and innovations 

‐ Opens the door to future collaborations at various levels (local, regional, national and international) 

‐ Greater control over intellectual property, by negotiating balanced copyright agreements with 

prospective publishers 

‐ Greater flexibility over how they use the products of their own research 

6 An Open Letter to the Higher Education Community, April 23, 2010 

http://www.provost.harvard.edu/reports/FRPAA_Open_Letter.pdf 

7 Alma Swan, Open Access and the Progress of Science, American Scientist, Volume 95, May‐June 2007 

http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/2007327142636_307.pdf 

8 Open Letter, op. cit. 

3

‐ In the case of open digital repositories, a useful tool to track their own research record, a useful cv 

building tool (e.g. simple creation of lists of publications, presentations given, data sets and learning 

objects created) 

Universities 

Particularly with open digital repositories: 

‐ Showcases the institution’s creative/intellectual output to the world, increasing the visibility of its 

research programme 

‐ Higher visibility of the universities research output offers great potential to draw several 

constituencies’ attention : prospective staff, prospective collaborators from other institutions, 

prospective students, and other possible stakeholders in the public and private sector 

‐ Provides a workspace and collaborative tools for large scale research projects and works in progress 

‐ Presents an institutional commitment for long‐term curation and preservation of the University’s 

digital intellectual outputs 

‐ Greatly facilitates multi/cross‐disciplinary approaches to research that, in turn, lead to more 

innovations and discoveries thus increasing the institution’s research output 

‐ Provides a useful tool in measuring research and teaching activities at the institution 

Students 

‐ Coursework and thesis research greatly facilitated by improved access to research literature 

‐ No need to worry about being on campus network or not since all that is needed is an internet 

connection 

‐ Access to peer‐reviewed article manuscripts or open access monograph chapters a viable alternative to 

course packs / or could help drive down the costs through inclusion of materials that do not require 

payment of royalty fees 

‐ Time saved by not having to wait for inter‐library loan for research material 

Publishers 

‐ Learned societies’ and commercial publisher’s role in reviewing, editing and distributing research is not 

diminished by transitioning to open access models and practices 

‐ As researchers share the results of their work more widely more research and scholarship is created; 

publishing professionals are still needed to manage the selection and vetting of high quality research 

‐ Brief embargoes of six months to a year, allow for the maintenance of healthy publishing programs 9 

‐ Since the National Institutes of Health public access mandate came into effect in 2008, many 

publishers work with the NIH in depositing final, published versions of articles because of (1) a 

preference that readers use the published versions, (2)this provides authors a competitive advantage 

9 Data show that libraries will not cancel subscriptions to journals with short embargo periods. Some of reasons for 

this are: researchers and students require access to the scholarly literature as soon as possible, so an embargo of 

any length constitutes too long a delay, and journals also contain valuable information and articles beyond publicly 

funded research. Comments of Association of Research Libraries Concerning “Public Access Policies for Science and 

Technology Funding Agencies across the Federal Government,” Submitted to the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, January 15, 2010 

4

and a vital service, and (3) publishers’ final versions also offer the possibility of driving users to their 

websites for additional or similar material 10 

‐ Greater readership from broader access and visibility 

Libraries 

‐ Presents opportunities for the library to partner with researchers, research offices, research presses, 

enabling librarians to position themselves as key stakeholders in the research lifecycle 

‐ Extends the mission of the library to support timely, enduring, and cost‐effective access to 

scholarly/scientific information 

‐ Extends / Affirms the library’s role as key steward of the scholarly / scientific record 

‐ Gives the library flexibility in striking a balance between licensing and buying certain content, on the 

one hand, and participating in the creation and preservation of other content on the other, particularly 

the intellectual, research and creative output of students and researchers at its home institution 

Research funders / Policy makers 

‐ A greater return on the research they invest in, allowing it to have the greatest possible impact that 

accrues from other researchers’ ability to find and build on it 

‐ A means of tracking the research they fund 

‐ Through use of tools that can search both the full text and the references contained in research 

articles, and which can index those citations, it is possible to calculate the impact of individual pieces of 

research; such tools can help track the evolution of ideas, facilitate analysis of research trends, help 

predict which research areas are waxing and waning, and enable more informed planning decisions in 

the interest of scientific progress 11 

The general public 

‐ Access to the research resources they have paid for and which may be important in their daily lives and 

educational interests 

‐ Access to a fuller array of information resources enables the public to make contributions in all arenas 

‐ Opens the door to contributions to science from citizen scientists as well as private sector and public 

sector researchers working outside of academia 

‐ Access to information that provides a better understanding of current societal challenges: e.g. climate 

change, alternative energy sources, the current global economic downturn, etc. 

‐ Access to scientific or technical information vital to small business startups 

‐ Discoveries and applications resulting by building on or repurposing prior research 

While there are numerous benefits to distinct groups, all having an interest in research, support for 

open access policies and mechanisms constitute a critical national investment, economically and 

socially. Recent research carried out by John Houghton and colleagues at the University of Victoria in 

Melbourne suggests that enhanced access to the results of publicly funded research will likely result in a 

10 ibid 

11 Swan, op. cit. 

5

greater return on investment in research and development, something that benefits any economy 12 . The 

cost of providing free open access to taxpayer funded research is a mere fraction of the money invested 

in science. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends several million dollars a 

year ingesting roughly 80,000 articles into PubMed Central which, via the National Library of Medicine, 

provides free access to biomedical literature. That is a small amount compared to the $30 billion dollars 

the NIH spent on research in 2009, and to the great value presented by having it publicly available to be 

used and re‐purposed. The PMC database is one of a suite of public resources that more than 2 million 

users access daily. It is by building on prior studies that many greatly beneficial discoveries have been 

made. The discovery of the structure of DNA, the development of penicillin, and the development of 

radiation therapy to treat cancer patients all originated from researchers’ ability to interpret and build 

upon the work of other researchers 13 . 

Scientific research is meant to benefit society through the creation of new knowledge. Universities, 

governments, industry and others invest enormously in research to meet current societal challenges and 

problems. Putting that research to its best possible use is contingent upon disseminating it as far and 

wide as possible and in a cost‐effective manner, something which is aptly put in a declaration in support 

of open access issued by Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, the 

Coalition for Networked Information, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant 

Colleges. Their vision statement for the university’s role in research dissemination reads thus: 

The creation of new knowledge lies at the heart of the research university and results from 

tremendous investments of resources by universities, federal and state governments, industry, 

foundations, and others. The products of that enterprise are created to benefit society. In the 

process, those products also advance further research and scholarship, along with the teaching 

and service missions of the university. Reflecting its investments, the academy has a 

responsibility to ensure the broadest possible access to the fruits of its work both in the short 

and long term by publics both local and global. 

Faculty research and scholarship represent invaluable intellectual capital, but the value of that 

capital lies in its effective dissemination to present and future audiences. Dissemination 

strategies that restrict access are fundamentally at odds with the dissemination imperative 

inherent in the university mission 14 . 

Growing support for open access worldwide 

At the grassroots levels academic librarians discuss scholarly communication issues with students and 

faculty to raise awareness of the shortcomings of the current dissemination system and of the 

12 Houghton, J., and P. Sheehan. 2006. The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. CSES Working 

Paper number 23, University of Victoria, Melbourne, as cited by Swan in Open Access and the Progress of Science 

13 ARL comments to OSTP, January 15, 2010 

14 Association of American Universities, Association of Research Libraries, The Coalition for Networked 

Information, and the Association of Public and Land‐grant Universities, The University’s Role in the Dissemination 

of Research and Scholarship – A Call to Action, February 2009 http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/disseminating‐research‐ 

feb09.pdf 

6

importance of experimenting with models that will allow greater, more cost‐effective access to scientific 

and scholarly information. Groups such as the Association of American Universities, the Association of 

Research Libraries, the Coalition for Networked Information, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic 

Resources Coalition (SPARC), among others advocate for public access to federally‐funded research to 

bring national attention to the matter of a sustainable scientific information environment that is 

accessible to every citizen. 

Recognizing the worldwide momentum favoring the development of efficient and sustainable 

information systems that maximize the impact of public investment in scientific research , the [U.S.] 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a call in December 2009 for input regarding 

“Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies across the Federal Government” 

which garnered a tremendous amount of responses from organizations and individuals which the OSTP 

will analyze to craft policy recommendations 15 . On the heels of the OSTP’s request for feedback on 

public access policies, Rep. Mike Doyle (D‐PA) and a bi‐partisan host of co‐sponsors introduced the 

Federal Research Public Access Act of 2010 (FRPAA) in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 15, 

2010. The proposed bill would build on the success of the first U.S. mandate for public access to the 

published results of publicly funded research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and require 

federal agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to ensure the public 

benefits from online access to research article manuscripts stemming from funded research no later 

than six months after publication in a peer‐reviewed journal. The bill is seen by many to recognize the 

need and opportunity to use digital technology to increase the pace of innovation. 16 

Another arena where great strides in favour of open access are being made is in open digital 

repositories. There are over 1700 open digital repositories that collect and preserve the research 

outputs of universities and research centres worldwide 17 . Research funders, universities and other 

institutions have thus far adopted over 200 hundred open access mandates. In the United States, faculty 

at Harvard University, MIT, the University of Kansas, and Duke University have adopted institutional 

mandates requiring researchers to deposit copies of article manuscripts, accepted for publication in 

peer‐reviewed journals, in the open digital repositories of their institutions. 18 

The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) established in October 2009, and of which CARL 

is a founding member, embodies significant support for open access internationally. With members 

from over 25 countries around the world, COAR seeks to establish a “global network of open access 

digital repositories to enhance the wide visibility and applicability of research outputs.” Some of its 

activities are to lobby for repositories, their networks, and repository‐based cyberinfrastructure at 

15 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Public Access Policy Update, March 8, 2010 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/public‐access‐policy‐update 

16 

Alliance for Taxpayer Access, Congress takes another stride toward public access to research, April 15, 2010 

http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/news/news_releases/10‐0415.shtml 

17 

Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) http://roar.eprints.org/ 

18 

Registry of Open Access Repository Material Archiving Policies (ROARMAP) 

http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ 

7

national and international levels, to contribute to the development of interoperable standards for 

aggregation of OA repository content, to promote increased uptake of researcher archiving practices 

with as little burden as possible, and to foster wider funder and institutional open access mandates 19 . 

Open access in Canada 

Heather Morrison (Librarian and PhD candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication) 

tracks, on a quarterly basis, the growth of open access mandates and practices in Canada in her blog The 

Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics 20 . Kathleen Shearer (CARL, Research Associate) conducted an 

environmental scan of the Canadian academic publishing landscape in January‐February 2010. The study 

identifies emerging models of peer‐reviewed scholarly publishing in Canada, with a particular focus on 

open access and library‐publisher collaborations. The methodology involved a review of the literature 

and interviews with stakeholders in the Canadian academic publishing community 21 . 

With respects to institutional mandates/policies and open digital repositories, Canadian universities 

have made great progress in recent years; over fifty universities and research institutions have a 

repository, and there are currently 12 mandates in place which are mostly funder and university 

departmental mandates. On April 22, 2010, Concordia University faculty passed a landmark Senate 

Resolution on Open Access that requires all of its faculty and students to make their peer‐reviewed 

research and creative output freely accessible via the internet. Concordia is the first major university in 

Canada where faculty overwhelmingly supports a concerted effort to make the full results of their 

research universally available to the world in the university’s open digital Spectrum Research 

Repository. 22 

Some exemplary open access programmes, developed by libraries in collaboration with faculty and 

university administrations, have already been implemented at the University of Calgary, the University 

of Ottawa, and Simon Fraser University. 

The Center for Scholarly Communication, launched on April 1, 2010, at the University of Calgary, blends 

a full suite of publishing services to support the life cycle of research 23 . The University of Calgary Press 

will play a leading role in the Centre, offering peer‐reviewed Open Access, eBooks and print‐on‐demand 

publishing services. The Open Access Authors’ Fund, the first of its kind in Canada, provides funding for 

authors publishing their research in hybrid or open access journals. Digitization and preservation 

services, as well as copyright consultation services, support new approaches to scholarly 

communication. 

19 

Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) http://coar‐repositories.org/ 

20 

Heather Morrison, Dramatic Growth of Open Access, March 31, 2010, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics 

http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/03/dramatic‐growth‐of‐open‐access‐march‐31.html 

21 

Kathleen Shearer, A Review of Emerging Models in Canadian Academic Publishing, University of British Columbia 

Library https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/24008 

22 

Concordia University Opens its Research Findings to the World, April 22, 2010 

http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pressreleases/archives/2010/04/concordia_university_opens_its.php 

23 

Centre for Scholarly Communication (University of Calgary) 

http://wcmprod2.ucalgary.ca/scholarlycommunication/ 

8

At its January 2010 meeting, the Simon Fraser University Senate Library Committee adopted sweeping 

recommendations to embrace open access publishing. SFU has also created an OA Central Fund to 

encourage SFU authors to publish in OA Journals. The fund will pay the author processing charges for 

SFU authors who lack additional sources to cover these fees. This is part of the SFU Library’s Open 

Access Strategy, which includes: continuing support for the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) and its open 

source software, further development of SFU’s Institutional Repository where authors can share 

research output, including reports and raw data, and making OA journals more accessible. 24 The PKP has 

developed free, open source software ‐ Open Journal Systems and Open Conference Systems ‐ for 

managing, publishing, and indexing of journals and conference proceedings while reducing publishing 

costs. The SFU Library develops the PKP which has gained application internationally with more than 

5000 journals using it worldwide. 

The University of Ottawa’s open access program includes: a commitment to make the University’s 

scholarly publications accessible online at no charge through the University’s repository, uO Research, 

an author fund to help researchers defray some open access publishers’ article processing fees, a fund 

to support the creation of digital educational materials available to everyone online at no charge, 

support for the University of Ottawa Press’s commitment to publishing a collection of open access 

monographs; and a research grant to support further research on the open access movement. The 

University of Ottawa was the first Canadian university to join the Compact for Open‐Access Publishing 

Equity (COPE), adding its name to a list of prestigious institutions including Cornell University, 

Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of 

California at Berkeley. The signatories of this compact have committed to supporting open access 

journals that make articles available at no charge to everyone while providing the same services 

common to all scholarly journals, services such as peer review management, production and 

distribution. 25 

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) have led the way in Canada for open access policies 

at the research funder level with the Policy on Access to Research Outputs which came into effect in 

January 2008. Under the policy grant recipients are required make every effort to ensure that their 

peer‐reviewed research articles are freely available as soon as possible after publication, and no later 

than six months, by publishing in open access journals or depositing final article manuscripts in open 

digital repositories 26 . The driving idea behind the policy is that all Canadians – the general public, 

healthcare practitioners and researchers ‐ should enjoy increasing free access to publicly‐funded 

Canadian health research through the Internet. Timely, unrestricted access to research findings is a 

defining feature of science, and is essential for advancing knowledge and accelerating understanding of 

human health and disease. 

24 Removing barriers: Open Access strategy at the SFU Library, January 2010 

http://blogs.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/scholarlycommunication/2010/01/27/removing_barriers 

25 University of Ottawa among North American Leaders as it launches open access program, December 8, 2009 

http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news‐details_1824.html 

26 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR Policy on Access to Research Outputs 

http://www.cihr‐irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html 

9

Launched on April 28, 2010, PubMed Central Canada, the result of collaboration between CIHR, the 

Canada Institute of Scientific and Technical Information (CISIT) and the [U.S.] National Library of 

Medicine, will help researchers with CIHR funding to comply with the Policy on Access to Research 

Outputs via the PMC manuscript submission system. PMC Canada will provide Canadians a freely 

accessible national digital repository of the latest peer‐reviewed health and life sciences literature at 

their fingertips. It is a vital part of Canada’s research infrastructure giving researchers desktop access to 

a searchable, permanent and freely accessible archive of Canadian health research enabling them to 

translate that knowledge into solutions to important health issues. PMC Canada builds on PubMed 

Central (PMC), the archive developed by the US National Library of Medicine, and joins UK PubMed 

Central (UKPMC) as a member of the larger PMC International network. 27 

Ensuring optimal researcher uptake of the innovative infrastructure and services that are being created 

to broaden the reach of their research will depend, in part, on successful educational/outreach 

initiatives to inform them of their rights as authors and of the options and best practices available to 

them. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has produced a suite of communications 

materials detailing the advantages of open access 28 . The Canadian Association of University Teachers 

(CAUT) issued an important intellectual property advisory in the summer of 2008 to assist academic staff 

in retaining copyright ownership in the articles they publish in journals. Without copyright ownership, 

academic staff risk losing control of their own work and may not be entitled to email it to students and 

colleagues, use it for course reserve purposes, place it in an institutional repository, publish it in an open 

access journal or include it or parts of it in subsequent works. The CAUT IP advisory stresses the point 

that “Journals require only authors’ permission to publish an article, not a wholesale transfer of the full 

copyright interest. To promote scholarly communication, autonomy, integrity and academic freedom, 

and education and research activities more generally, it is important for academic staff to retain 

copyright in their journal articles. 29 ” 

27 

PubMed Central Canada http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/ 

28 

Canadian Association of Research Libraries, Greater Reach for Your Research: Resources for Authors 

http://www.carl‐abrc.ca/projects/author/author‐e.html 

29 

Retaining Copyright in Journal Articles, CAUT Intellectual Property Advisory, July 2008 

http://www.caut.ca/uploads/IP‐Advisory1‐en.pdf 

10

Recommendation: 

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) recommends that all stakeholders in Higher 

Education in Canada seriously explore how they can support Open Access by way of new publishing 

initiatives, OA policies, practices and institutional mandates. 

Work towards advancing open access in Canada could be manifested in but not necessarily be limited 

to: 

‐ Collaboration between university research offices and libraries to educate researchers on copyright 

and author rights 

‐ Consultations between all interested parties on the development of institutional mandates that will 

enable the university community to broadly disseminate the full range of its scholarly and creative 

products in a cost effective manner 

‐ Consultation between granting agencies with a view to harmonizing open access policies that make it 

easy for researchers to render their research freely available on the internet whether that be by 

submitting article manuscripts to an open access publisher, depositing post‐refereed article manuscripts 

in an open digital repository, or using part of their funds towards article processing fees in a hybrid 

journal 

‐ Initiation of a dialogue between various parties on campus – research administrators, researchers, 

librarians, to come to an agreement about the best way to modify current research, rewards and 

recognition mechanisms, and intellectual property policies in a manner that is consistent with the 

broadest possible dissemination of faculty research 

‐ Dialogue between researchers, university administrators, librarians, granting council representatives, 

and publishers to arrive at an agreement over modification of publishing contracts permitting 

immediate or delayed access to peer‐reviewed research as well as placing embargoes (e.g. six months, 

twelve months) all in a manner that does not threaten the viability of journal publishers nor limit access 

to and use of research 

‐ Investing in shared dissemination infrastructure where such opportunities may exist 

‐ Fostering partnerships between university research offices, libraries, and university presses to 

experiment with low cost/broad dissemination models 

‐ Experimenting with open access author funds 

11

Rationale and benefits (for whom) 

Draw attention to IR's in Canada 

Who's, What's, Why's and How's of OA 

Briefing paper 

U Calgary Author fund 

U Ottawa OA program 

Draw attention to other initiatives 

Others? 

Possible translation, graphic design & printing costs 

Article: University Affaris/CAUT Bulletin 

Ad in same 

Concise list of talking points 

Media kit 

CARL OA Engagement Strategy 1 

Poster 

Greater Reach for Your Research toolkit 

Using the SPARC Cdn Auth. Addendum 

Document 12 

Translation, graphic design, & printing costs 

Brief 

Media kit 

Gov't: MPs, Ministries etc. 

Univ Rsearch Offices, VPs Research, etc. 

Letters 

Other Faculty 

Gov't: MPs, Ministries etc. 

Univ Rsearch Offices, VPs Research, etc. 

Meetings 

Other Faculty 

Timeline 

Congress 

Intl. OA week 

Science Policy Conference 

Events 

Presentation template - e.g. ppt slides (translation costs?) 

Others?

Meetings (resulting from letters) 

Madates (funder & institutional) 

Benchmarking success of the OA Engagement Strategy 

CIHR 

Others? 

Granting Councils 

NSERC 

SSHRC 

Universities 

Researchers 

CARL OA Engagement Strategy 2 

Libraries and Library Associations / Consortia 

Partners / Stakeholders 

Canadian Federation of Students 

Journal publishers and University presses 

Scholarly Communication Committee 

Public Policy Committee 

Institutional Repositories Sub-committee 

AUCC 

CARL Committees and Sub-committees 

CAUT 

Document 13 

CCR 

FedCan

Document 14 

PROPOSED MANDATE – STAKEHOLDER MEETING 

March 24, 2010 

The ecology of research communication is a complex system that encompasses: scholarly journals, 

with researchers as “voluntary” authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers; professional publishers 

including editors, proof readers, and layout artists; sponsors and funders inclusive of scholars’ 

groups, disciplinary associations, university presses, ducational/research institutions, and Canada’s 

research funding agencies; and libraries and researchers as consumers and archivists. 

Information and communication technology (ICT) has disrupted print-derived ecology and created 

new opportunities for the reconfiguration of the production of and access to scholarship. A certain 

momentum is building toward Open Access, which, if implemented would deprive existing 

subscription-based journals of the majority of their income. In the name of a good fight to curtail 

excess profit-taking by large, international, commercial journal publishers, insistence on Open Access 

could undermine a tremendously valuable legacy of established and prestigious, efficiently produced 

research publications that are the output of Canada’s research community through scholarly journal 

and monograph publishers. 

The central challenge and the reason for this meeting is the preservation of the value of research as it 

is communicated in the form of peer-reviewed journal and monograph publishing while taking 

maximum advantage of emerging opportunities based largely on ICT. CALJ/ACRS believes that this 

challenge can best be met by bringing together all stakeholders/participants, hence this meeting, with 

a view to each understanding the goals, needs, preferences, and positions of all others. With that 

understanding in place, it is our view that needed resources can be identified and allocated to 

maximize the efficacy of an emerging research communication system that will best serve the 

research community and society.

In attendance: 

SCHOLARLY JOURNALS STAKEHOLDER MEETING 

24 March 2010, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Room 1451 – 350 Albert Street, Ottawa 

Wendy Corcoran (Policy Analyst, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Division, SSHRC); Anne Marie 

Corrigan (VP, Journals, University of Toronto Press); Deb deBruijn (Executive Director, Canadian Research 

Knowledge Network); Michèle Dupuis (Program Officer, Knowledge Mobilization and Program Integration, 

SSHRC); Michael Eberle-Sinatra (President, Synergies Project); Patricia Emery (Program Officer, Research 

and Dissemination Grants Division, SSHRC); Alison Faulknor (Director of Programs, Canadian Federation 

for the Humanities and Social Sciences); Ernie Ingles (President, Canadian Association of Research Libraries); 

Suzanne Kettley (Deputy Director, NRC Research Press); Kathy Killoh (Journals and Digital Coordinator, 

Athabasca University Press); Rowland Lorimer (Director, Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing); 

Cameron Macdonad (Director, NRC Research Press); Craig McNaughton (Director, Knowledge Mobilization 

and Program Integration, SSHRC); Jean-Marc Mangin (Executive Director, Canadian Federation for the 

Humanities and Social Sciences); David Moorman (Senior Programs Planning Officer, Canadian Foundation 

for Innovation); Tanja Niemann (Digital Publishing Coordinator, Érudit); Johanne Provençal (Executive 

Director, Canadian Association of Learned Journals); Brent Roe (Executive Director, Canadian Association of 

Research Libraries); Christian Vandendorpe (VP Research Dissemination, Canadian Federation for the 

Humanities and Social Sciences); Leslie Weir (University Librarian, University of Ottawa); Mary Westell 

(Associate University Librarian, University of Calgary Library). 

The following summary presents the key points raised at the meeting, organized according to the concerns 

raised by the various stakeholder groups in attendance, followed by a list of shared concerns as identified over 

the course of the meeting by the various attendees. 

The following summary of the meeting/discussion is meant to facilitate: 

(1) each stakeholder group in making understood their own concerns to other stakeholder groups; 

(2) each stakeholder group in better understanding the concerns of the other stakeholder groups; 

(3) the stakeholder groups in situating their own concerns within the context of the larger ecology of scholarly 

communication; and 

(4) the stakeholder groups in together identifying shared interests and concerns in order to inform coordinated steps 

forward. 

Opening context 

From recent survey, we know this about journals: 

Document 15 

• 37% of their revenue is from SSHRC 

• 26% of their revenue is from the domestic market 

• 24% of their revenue is from the international market 

• 13% of their revenue is from other sales (many cases, from permissions) 

Sixty-three percent of revenue comes from the market. Progress towards open access requires replacement of 

most, if not all, of those funds. 

Rowland Lorimer and Johanne Provençal, Canadian Association of Learned Journals 

page 1 of 3

Document 15 

Concerns/perspectives from the journal community 

• Continuous pressure and demands on journals: e.g., rising distribution costs, time and costs of running 

two distribution streams in response to market demand, sometimes funding editor course release time. 

• Secondary (online) aggregators diminish journal site usage, distort usage characteristics (EBSCO appears 

as foreign usage), and negatively impact direct subscriptions. 

• Revenue diversification minimizes risk; increased dependence on SSHRC is undesirable. 

• Online journal publishing tools must be competitive and have stable financial support. Journal publishing 

represents a long-term commitment. 

• Ease of entry of new journals may destabilize access to knowledge. 

• Where science journals are international, social science and humanities journals have a more national 

readership, hence their funding should have a more national base. 

• The author fee model is not working well in science outside the health sciences and a few notable 

exceptions. 

• Transition to an OA model is not easy for subscription-based journals. 

Concerns/perspectives from the library community 

• While the library community as a whole supports OA, within the library community, where each library 

makes its own decisions, there is a lack of uniformity of approach. 

• In Canada: “open access if necessary but not necessarily open access” appears to hold sway. 

• OA represents a redistribution of costs rather than, in the case of social sciences and humanities research, 

cost savings for the libraries. 

• The success of OA (with libraries) depends on identifiable benefits to libraries that would minimize free 

ridership, in other words, a financial model that provides a sound business case for library support. 

• The prestige of institutions is based partially upon their ability to provide enhanced access to information. 

Universal access undermines this form of competitive advantage. Implication is that rich institutions will 

seek such value-added services as indexes. 

• There is a need for joint planning between libraries and journals. 

Concerns/perspectives from the funding community 

• SSHRC favours a recursive model of knowledge access and engagement that keeps the public interest in 

mind and can demonstrate social impact. OA leads in the right direction. 

• The goal of CFI is to build the capacity for the best research possible in Canada and the greatest impact 

of research by all researchers in all disciplines in all universities. 

• Research dissemination can be seen as a resource distribution issue. Federal government expenditures 

have expanded dramatically in recent years and now exceed $2.3 billion. An appropriate level of spending 

on research communication and journal support may be perfectly possible. 

• SSHRC policies must be harmonized with Canada’s overall national digital strategy. 

• An overall journal support and research communication strategy was developed in the US at the political 

level, in Congress. 

• In any search for direct support, innovation may be the key. 

Concerns and observations relevant for all stakeholder groups 

(1) There is a shared interest in strong scholarly communication in Canada: 

• It is critical that resources be distributed to scholarly communication in such a way that foreign 

aggregators and commercial publishers do not drain unnecessarily the resources that libraries, 

journals, and universities spend on research and scholarly communication thereby threatening the 

stability of the scholarly communication system in Canada. 

• Journal publishing in Canada is quite a small and fragile activity. It needs to be made more robust. 

Mechanisms to publish in a digital world and to promote Canadian research and scholarly 

communication will build robustness. As well, the means for supporting an ecosystem that reflects 

investment in the transformation of raw results into published research with an emphasis on public 

usage and impact needs focused consideration. 

• “Open access if necessary but not necessarily open access” may weaken Canadian journals in the 


page 2 of 3

context of world trends towards open access. 

Document 15 

(2) There is a shared challenge in trying to determine how best to work with changing dynamics and business models: 

• Journals need operational funding that currently is provided by a combination of: SSHRC grants; 

market support, most of which is institutional subscriptions; and university/scholar support, most of 

which is ad hoc. A business case is needed for the decisions to be undertaken together by the 

stakeholders and both libraries and journals need a sustainable model to be in place. 

• The benefits of open access to Canadian social science and humanities journals begin with increased 

access and extend to increased possible effectiveness if funding is structured to achieve that end. 

Because there is no profit-taking in the system (aside from the foreign aggregator profit-taking, which 

in this sense is external) the situation differs dramatically from international commercial STM journal 

publishing. 

• Earned subscription dollars provide funds for growth and innovation. A parallel mechanism is 

necessary in an open access environment. 

• Ease of entry into the market will lead to the proliferation of new journals. Control mechanisms are 

required to deal with growth without thwarting the evolution of knowledge. 

• Scholarly communication and specifically journal publishing requires investment. Determining the 

best model for attracting that investment is critical. 

Possible ways forward 

(1) Reconfigured resource flows: 

• The market model that was used (with degrees of both success and failure) in an earlier print-based 

model has led to the current ecology of scholarly communication. That model has led to constrained 

access to research investments within the academy and outside the academy. While open access can 

open the gates to knowledge, a continuing investment in knowledge production remains necessary to 

support both content review and preparation and effective online communication. Identifying the 

means to attract that investment with widespread buy-in of stakeholders is a major challenge. 

• Without further consideration and a sound approach to author fees in Canadian SSH research, there 

are concerns related to: lack of control to prevent journal overcharging; the need for researchers to 

maintain the right to select the place the publication in which they wish to submit their work (as part 

of their academic freedom); and authors purchasing accessibility for their own work being open to 

abuse. 

• University budget allocation to support open access journal publishing may have some value as part 

of the equation. 

• With the commercial sector on the constant lookout for monetization, it makes sense for a 

mechanism for licensing use to exist. 

• More direct flows of funds for research communication expenditures within research grants, perhaps 

through prioritizing spending, could assist in addressing the need for investments in journal 

production. 

(2) Coordinated and collective action: 

• A pilot national infrastructure project could be designed to address both journal and library needs. 

Such goals as a stable publishing infrastructure, maximum access for users, capturing revenue from 

third-party monetization, and maximizing public benefit could be at the forefront with considerations 

of the benefits of self-aggregation, marketing, and indexing for Canadian journals. 

• Forward movement suggests the formation of a working group in parallel to or overlapping in 

membership with a proposal for a working group that was advanced at the symposium, “Canadian 

University Publishing in a Digital Age” (UBC, March 22, 2010), where scholarly monograph 

publishing was the focus. Two concerns of that meeting were a fair sharing of investment in the 

resources required for monograph publishing and a more lively reception of monographs by the 

library community. 


page 3 of 3

Project / Activity 

Open Access Engagement 

Strategy 

Sustainable models for 

scholarly publishing 

Joint IR/Data Mgt 

Working Group 

Program for 2010 AGM 

CARL Scholarly Communications Committee 

Work Plan 2010 

Work Plan 

January to December 2010 

Jan – Dec (ongoing) 

Draw up timeline 

Raise awareness of OA 

issues; Influence 

legislation; advocacy 

with the granting 

councils; identify some 

champions; foster Tri- 

Council mandates; 

engage faculty and 

administrators to 

encourage adoption of 

institutional mandates 

Work with the Public 

Policies Committee 

e.g. CARL proposal to CRKN, 

Canadian SSH journals 

Review current practices for 

research data set ingestion into 

institutional repositories 

(May 17 – 20) 

Document 16 

Special collections 

Estimated cost(s) 

1 

Prepare OA briefing 

paper or brochure 

Letters to MPs, 

Ministers, University VPs 

Research, Granting 

Agency reps 

Set up meetings with 

gov’t, campus leaders, 

etc 

Translation fees 

Possible graphic design 

costs 

Possible printing costs 

$2300.00 

(With PPC support 

and/or operational gov’t 

relations funds as 

needed) 

Potential costs 

Draft TOR 

Expressions of interest to join 

WG 

Make contact/send invitations 

Travel and accommodations 

Draw up program / Find 

MC/moderator 

$6000.00 

Obtain files (and presenters’ 

consent) for upload to CARL site 

Arrange for podcast recording of 

program proceedings

2010 Congress in Montreal 

CARL Sponsorship of Digital 

Preservation pre-Conference 

sessions (CLA) 

International Open Access 

Week 2010 

Create Change Canada 

Print Preservation Working 

Group 

2010-04-07 

(May 28 – June 4) 

CARL sponsorship of OA Panel 

(three sessions planned – Robert 

Darnton keynote; OA business 

models panel; panel, OA benefits 

in the developing world) – CARL 

being asked to sponsor the third 

session. 

Gather and Prepare/Re-purpose 

CARL handouts for Congress 

attendees 

June 8, Halifax 

Event put on by the Association 

of Canadian Archivists (ACA) 

CARL-Sponsored webinar 

Collate and share on CARL site, 

responses to questions about 

2009 Intl OA week activities in 

Canada – e.g. what worked and 

lessons learned – to help inform 

planning for Intl OA Week 2010 

activities 

(Ongoing) 

Update with more Canadian 

Content 

Chair identified, Ex. Dir. will be 

on the WG as well 

Print collections preservation 

being actively handled regionally 

(CAUL, CREPUQ Sous-comité 

des bibliothèques, OCUL, 

COPPUL), but CARL 

participation to provide a national 

perspective on print repositories 

Institutional Repository Program 

Help identify speakers for the 

event 

Sponsorship ( monetary and/ or 

in-kind) 

2 

$2500.00 

(Note: from 2009 budget) 

Possible, printing and/or 

photocopying costs 

$2500.00 

Identify speaker, and associated 

costs 

Announcement / Press release, 

translation costs 

Webinar service contract 

Arrange for recording of event 

(probably with webinar service 

provider) 

$2500.00 

Work to be done in house, and in 

consultation with Scholarly 

Communication librarians in 

CARL institutions 

Draft TOR 

Expressions of interest 

Total $ 13,300.00

Work plan and Estimated Costs for 2010 

Activity Work plan 

Meeting of IR Managers in May 

A message was sent out the REPOS list 

to gauge interest by IR managers. I had 

14 positive replies from people indicating 

they would attend such a meeting, and 2 

requests from people who can’t attend 

but would like to dial in remotely. 

Current practices for collecting data 

sets in IRs: 

Many research libraries have built 

institutional repositories in order to 

manage the research output of their 

community and are interested in 

collecting datasets. However, there are 

additional challenges to collecting and 

managing data- including the complexity 

of metadata, large size of datasets, etc. 

This project will review existing practices 

for collection data sets within IRs 

internationally, assess the feasibility and 

costs associated, and develop a set of 

recommendations for libraries that are 

interested in this practice. The proposed 

project would be undertaken in 

conjunction with the Data Management 

Subcommittee. 

COAR Annual Meeting and ongoing 

contribution 

User services for aggregated content 

of IRs 

The aggregate content contained in 

digital repositories could be the starting 

point for a number of value-added 

services that enable the use and re-use 

of materials in many contexts. This 

project will further develop the concept 

using international polar year as an 

example, in order to assess its feasibility 

Develop agenda, in 

conjunction with the 

community 

Travel to Ottawa 

Hold meeting 

Discuss scope with 

Marnie and Tom 

Undertake literature 

search/environmental 

scan 

Write up results 

Consult with IR/Data 

Management 

community for input 

Volunteer for one COAR 

Working Group 

Attend AGM on March 2, 

2010 

Concept development 

Write report 

Estimated costs 

3 

$2,400.00 

$2,700.00 

$6,600.00 

$2,250.00

and determine whether it could be the 

basis of a proposal for external funding. 

SPARC Digital Repositories 

Conference 

Other Activities 

Total 

Participate on program 

development committee 

Attend the conference in 

Baltimore in November 

Update web pages 

(translate) 

Prep and notes for 

subcommittee meetings 

Communication with IR 

community 

CARL Data Management Subcommittee 

Work plan and Estimated Costs for 2010 

Activity Work plan 

Develop a brochure about the 

importance of data management. This 

brochure would be aimed at administrators 

and researchers and be a "punchy" handout 

for those who are trying to raise awareness 

of the issue of data management on 

campus (or in government agencies). It will 

be based on the Data Management 

Awareness Toolkit. 

Further develop and sponsor/produce 

the Workshop on Data Management for 

Librarians. Staff at Carleton University 

Develop first draft 

Send out for 

comments 

Final draft 

Translation 

Graphic design 

Yes- first draft for May 

meeting 

A workshop is already 

being planned for spring 

in conjunction with the 

Estimated costs 

4 

$3,000.00 

$5,000.00 

$21,950.00 

$3,850.00 

$1000.00 

(towards to costs of speakers

Library have developed curriculum for an 

introductory workshop on data management 

for librarians. The first workshop took place 

on November 10, 2009. Feedback from this 

workshop is being used to improve the 

curriculum for other workshop(s) that could 

be organized and sponsored by the Data 

Management Working Group. 

Current practices for collecting data sets 

in IRs. Many research libraries have built 

institutional repositories in order to manage 

the research output of their community and 

are interested in collecting datasets. 

However, there are additional challenges to 

collecting and managing data- including the 

complexity of metadata, large size of 

datasets, etc. This project will review 

existing practices for collection data sets 

within IRs internationally, assess the 

feasibility and costs associated, and 

develop a set of recommendations for 

libraries that are interested in this practice. 

The proposed project would be undertaken 

in conjunction with the Institutional 

Repositories Subcommittee. 

Other 

Total 

DLI session. traveling to the workshop) 

Discuss scope with 

Marnie and Tom 

Undertake literature 

search/environmenta 

l scan 

Write up results 

Consult with IR/Data 

Management 

community for input 

Develop an outline for 

this project for May 

meeting 

Prep and notes for 

subcommittee meetings 

(Kathleen) 

Finish library roles 

document and translate 

5 

$2,700.00 

$3,200.00 

$10,750.00

Total 2010 budget of Scholarly Communications Committee 

Recent charges against the SCOM budget 

6 

SCOM: 13,300.00 

IRs : 21,950.00 

Data Management: 10,750.00 

Total $46,000.00 

Project/Activity IR-related work Data management work Other 

Miscellaneous professional 

fees (KS) 

*Brochures printing 

Federal Express Canada 

Ltd. 

Translation fee 

**Corrections to French 

data toolkit, and 

re-layout (LP) 

Miscellaneous professional 

fees (KS) 

**Meeting re CARL data 

management services and 

CFI 

1,479.19 

2,567.80 

(Greater Reach, 

quantity: 1,500) 

626.53 

(Using the SPARC Cdn 

Auth. Addendum, 

quantity: 1,000) 

89.81 

300.00 

492.00 

23.59 

187.30 

1,099.30 

5.85 

83.24 

Total: $6947.02

*It is expected the costs of printing CARL communications/advocacy materials will be recouped with 

sales. 

**Beyond work plan, will be covered appropriately without prejudice to the 46K in the budget. 

7 

April 8, 2010

December 2009 Questionnaire 

RE: International OA Week 2009 – successes & lessons learned 

At the 2009 Fall General Meeting of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), 

which took place from November 10 to 13, the members of the CARL Scholarly Communications 

Committee agreed that it would be a good idea to share information about the events that various 

library staff across Canada organized to celebrate and promote International Open Access Week 

2009 (October 19 to 23). Short summaries of the events that took place across Canadian 

university campuses, with a little bit of information on what worked well and what could have 

been done differently in hind sight, in no more than five or six sentences would be greatly 

appreciated. Information gathered in response to this request will be collated and made available 

on the CARL Website. 

To kick off Open Access Week, CARL sponsored a webcast and Q&A session with John 

Wilbanks, VP of Science at Creative Commons, on Monday October 19. The live, online Q&A 

session was held from 1:00 to 2:00pm. John Wilbanks answered questions from participants at 21 

Universities across Canada. This was the first time we hosted an online webinar 

of this sort. Overall, it was well attended, and the audience was engaged asking some very 

interesting questions. Prior to, some people enquired if the event was going to be recorded. While 

this was not the case this year, for next year’s International Open Access Week we will see to 

having a podcast made available in order to accommodate those who may not be able to join the 

live event due other commitments or events. 

Bonjour, 

Document 17 

Lors de l’Assemblée générale d'automne du 2009 de l'association des bibliothèques de 

recherche du Canada (ABRC), qui a eu lieu du 10 au 13 novembre, les membres du Comité sur la 

communication savante de l’ABRC ont décidé de partager des informations sur les événements 

que divers personnels des bibliothèques à travers le Canada ont organisés pour célébrer et 

promouvoir la Semaine internationale du libre accès 2009 (le 19 au 23 octobre). Afin de nous 

aider, nous vous demandons de nous envoyer des résumés d’événements qui ont eu lieu sur vos 

campus. Prière d’inclure un peu d'information sur ce qu’a bien réussi et ce qui pourrait avoir été 

fait différemment d’après coup (pas plus de cinq ou six phrases seraient très appréciées). Les 

informations recueillies à cette demande seront assemblées et rendues disponibles sur le site Web 

de l’ABRC. 

Pour lancer la Semaine du libre accès, l’ABRC a commanditée une webdiffusion et une séance 

de Q et R avec John Wilbanks, vice‐président chargé des sciences, Creative Commons, le lundi 

19 octobre 2009. La séance en direct de Q et R en ligne a eu lieu de 13 h à 14 h. John Wilbanks a 

répondu à des questions des participants de 21 universités à travers le Canada. L’évènement a été 

bien assisté et les participants ont été bien engagés en posant des questions intéressantes. Avant la 

session, on nous a demandé si l’évènement serait enregistré. Ça n’a pas été le cas cette année, 

mais pour la prochaine Semaine internationale du libre accès nous avons l’intention de faire un 

podcast qui sera affiché sur notre site Web pour accommoder ceux qui ne pourront pas se joindre 

à nous en raison d’autres engagements ou évènements. 

1

Responses 

Calgary 

Libraries and Cultural Resources at the University of Calgary celebrated Open Access week with displays, 

speakers, and meetings to raise campus awareness. In collaboration with Research Services, the 

Students Union and the Graduate Students Association, LCR presented Jennifer McLennan from SPARC 

and Leslie Chan from Bioline International to open and close the week's festivities. Displays in all the 

campus libraries created focal points for discussion with staff, students, and faculty. A new look was 

introduced for our institutional repository (dspace.ucalgary.ca). It was a great opportunity to highlight 

the performance of our year‐old Open Access Author Fund and encourage other faculties to join LCR in 

mandating deposits of scholarly material in the repository. Publicity included radio interviews with Tom 

Hickerson, articles in the student newspaper, The Gauntlet, and UToday, the online campus newspaper. 

We are already planning for next year! 

Carleton 

Carleton worked collaboratively with University of Ottawa and IDRC (International Development 

Research Centre) to provide a suite of programs for that week. Carleton Library maintained a web 

presence of this collaboration and posted a schedule of events for all three institutions. 

http://www.library.carleton.ca/about/projects/openaccess/oaweek2009.html 

Some of the activities held at Carleton included: 

‐ Plans for Institutional Repository at Carleton Library: Presentation by Pat Moore, Assistant 

University Librarian & Head of Systems 

‐ Open Access Journals‐The Basics (What They Are and How To Find Them): Presentation by Laura 

Newton Miller, Science & Engineering Librarian 

‐ A subject guide was created specifically for finding Open Access journals: 

http://www.library.carleton.ca/subjects/openaccessjournals.html 

What worked well: 

‐ Collaboration with University of Ottawa and IDRC. Helped for promotion of events and for 

sharing information on similar presentations 

‐ Both sessions at Carleton were well attended. 

What to work on in the future: 

More lead time for planning is necessary. Started planning events at the end of summer/beginning of 

autumn, which is one of the busiest times of the year for the universities. It was also difficult to get 

speakers in with later notice. Earlier planning will help to ensure more involvement from other 

departments on campus and will also enable more timely promotional activities. 

2

Concordia 

Librarians staffed welcome desks with OA displays and handouts etc. in both Concordia Libraries (as 

per Fall 2008) – probably not something we will continue – and we also advertised our extensive OA 

web site information using the OA logo etc. on our main page. But our main focus was on the launch of 

Spectrum, Concordia’s institutional repository, for which see attached press release. 

Spectrum: Concordia University Research Repository Launched 

Concordia University Libraries is proud to mark international Open Access Week (October 19 – 23) with 

the launch of Spectrum: Concordia University Research Repository. Spectrum is a new digital resource 

which, in keeping with the university's strategic plan to develop community engagement and social 

responsibility, can make Concordia scholarship freely accessible to everyone via the internet. 

Spectrum currently contains the full text of over 6000 theses and dissertations produced at the 

university from 1967 to 2003. It also offers Concordia faculty and researchers an additional venue for 

sharing their research using a simple process of self‐submission. The name Spectrum reflects the variety 

of original research and creative activity that characterizes the scholarly output of Concordia University. 

The database, in development since 2007, is an initiative of the Concordia University Libraries supported 

by the Office of the Vice‐President, Research & Graduate Studies. 

"I am delighted to see the launch of this significant new resource," said Louise Dandurand, Vice‐ 

President, Research and Graduate Studies. "The creation of a Research Repository speaks to Concordia's 

commitment to increase its contribution to world knowledge and promote public access to the results of 

publicly funded research." 

"Research deposited in Spectrum is highly visible, because the site will be searchable using popular 

search engines such as Google and Google Scholar," added Jocelyn Godolphin, Associate University 

Librarian for Collection Services. "Concordia University now joins some 1200 other repositories round 

the world in providing a university‐wide open access repository which will increase accessibility and 

preserve the scholarship produced by Concordia University researchers." 

Explore Spectrum at: http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/. 

Spectrum workshop: Increase the Visibility of your Research on October 22 in Webster Library and on 

October 26 in Vanier Library will review the submission process and kinds of scholarly publications that 

can be added at this time to Spectrum. For more information, contact: Spectrum@alcor.concordia.ca. 

Ottawa 

The University of Ottawa hosted two engaging presentations on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 as part of 

International Open Access Week. The first talk, “Open Access: How it Can Reform the Science of Health 

Care,” given by Dr. Stephen Choi, Co‐Editor‐in‐Chief of Open Medicine and Associate Program Director, 

Emergency Medicine Residency, brought to light serious issues plaguing traditional publication models 

used for disseminating medical research. The second talk, “Open Access 2.0: Why Canada's University 

Should Become Canada's Open Access University,” given by Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in 

Internet and E‐commerce Law, sought to encourage Canadian universities to adopt official policies that 

would make open access dissemination of research mandatory. Unfortunately, the event was 

3

poorly attended even though great efforts were made to promote it. Also, the presentations were not 

recorded, which is something that would definitely have been useful. 

L’Université d’Ottawa a organisé deux présentations le mardi 20 octobre 2009 dans le cadre de la 

semaine internationale du libre accès. La première, « Open Access: How it Can Reform the Science of 

Health Care », présentée par Dr. Stephen Choi, Co‐rédacteur de Open Medicine et Directeur associé du 

programme de résidence de médecine d’urgence, a mis de l’avant de sérieux problèmes qui affligent les 

modèles de publication traditionnels utilisés pour diffuser la recherche médicale. La deuxième, « Open 

Access 2.0: Why Canada's University Should Become Canada's Open Access University », présentée par 

Michael Geist, Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit d'Internet, a voulu inciter les universités 

canadiennes à adopter des politiques officielles rendant la diffusion de la recherche en libre accès 

obligatoire. Malheureusement, l’assistance était peu nombreuse malgré les efforts significatifs utilisés 

pour promouvoir l’événement. De plus, les présentations n’ont pas été enregistrées ce qui aurait été 

très utile. 

Ottawa, Carleton, IDRC 

Carleton University Library, the University of Ottawa Library, and the International Development 

Research Centre (IDRC) teamed up to provide an exciting and informative week of programming on 

many aspects of Open Access. Practical presentations ‐ how to find open access journals and 

understanding the green and gold paths – were combined with thought‐provoking calls to action from 

speakers such as Prof. Michael Geist, Open Access advocate, and Dr. Stephen Choi, emergency physician 

and editor of the online journal Open Medicine. Next year we plan to podcast the presentations to 

benefit a wider audience. This was the first time our three institutions had partnered together in this 

way and we’ll be building on our collaboration to make next year’s event an even greater success. 

Queen’s 

The Open Access Week @ Queen’s Program was successful in offering a set of interesting and engaging 

presentations, and that the sessions were well received by attendees. The keynote presentation by 

John Willinsky was well attended. While the promotional campaign was comprehensive and thorough 

in its coverage of the Queen’s community, there were a number of factors that may have contributed 

to reduced turnout for some of the sessions including the timing of sessions, the fact that International 

Open Access Week coincided with mid‐term study week for students, and that there are always other 

activities and priorities that compete for the attention of faculty and students. Engaging members of 

the academic community in better understanding Open Access and what is means for them remains a 

significant challenge. Our Planning Group concurred that the 2009 Open Access Week @ Queen’s 

program and its coverage in the Queen’s media was a good step toward increasing awareness of open 

access to scholarship at Queen’s. 

We were fortunate enough to be able to record and post John Willinsky's very inspirational talk. 

UBC 

Last year UBC participated in SPARC’s First International Open Access Awareness Day event on October 

14, 2008. We were able to draw on that experience when SPARC extended the event to a week, this 

year, to give organizations flexibility on timing and planning. At UBC we chose to hold events for three 

afternoons in that week (Tuesday to Thursday). This was based on our understanding that attendance is 

4

generally better Tuesday to Thursday afternoons for UBC events. Late in our planning process we 

learned about the CARL sponsored webcast, Q&A session with John Wilbanks. We added this to our 

schedule. 

Our overall objectives for this year were to increase awareness of open access (OA) and the principle of 

open scholarship and to utilize our event as a forum to engage our community (UBC & non‐UBC) in a 

discussion of OA. To this end, the week’s events were built around three themes: Open Access Around 

the World, Surfacing UBC Scholarship, and Journal Publishing. Our rationale for drawing up these 

themes are as follows: 

1. Lectures constructed around the theme Open Access Around the world was intended to 

emphasize and educate our community on the global nature of open access and its connected 

open movements; 

2. Sessions on the theme of Surfacing UBC Scholarship was intended to showcase local, UBC 

community participation in the open movement and to further advertise cIRcle, the university’s 

Information Repository; 

3. The theme of Journal Publishing was based on a UBC Journal Editor’s Forum, UBC Library hosted 

in October 2008. At the forum, we learned many of the UBC journal editors had questions about 

open access business models. Some were struggling to consider how best to transition their own 

journals to an open access model. They indicated they would appreciate a follow‐up session 

addressing these questions. We felt a follow‐up session that coincided with our Open Access 

Week planning would be ideal. 

A listing of talks per theme can be found on the Open Access Week@ UBC website: 

http://www.library.ubc.ca/schol_comm/oa/start.html 

We also hosted a small exhibit, displaying open access initiatives and our OA events on video monitors 

located in the centre and other libraries and we exhibited two poster displays of our IR and another 

exhibit of open access and costs of journals in high‐traffic areas in our centre. 

Overall the event was felt to be a success as evidenced by the increased attendance per day from the 

previous year’s one day event, 1 particularly faculty attendance, and meeting most of our objectives: 

Each event was full with a total of 121 participants over the course of the week. Of that number 45 

faculty attended, 12 UBC (non‐library) staff members; 7 students; 49 UBC librarians & library staff, and 

10 members of the public. We also met our objective to broaden participation to our library community 

at large. Although public attendance was fairly minimal, it was interesting for us to see who came: one 

was a medical doctor (came for every event), one was a faculty member from a local college (came for 

every event), one was a faculty member from the University of Washington, and one was a recent 

undergraduate of UBC (came for every event). We were also pleased faculty attendance increased 

substantially particularly on the Journal Publishing Day. 

It is also always a measure of success, when an event leads to follow‐up speaking invitations to 

departmental groups. Several weeks after the event, a faculty member who attended our OA week 

events invited us to conduct a workshop on open access, copyright & author rights and cIRcle, UBC’s 

1 Open Access Awareness Day took place on October 14, 2008 from 1‐5 pm: (total of 24 in attendance, 9 faculty, 3 

UBC staff, 12 UBC Library staff). The organizers attributed low attendance to the event falling on the 2008 Federal 

Election Day and the next working day following Thanksgiving. 

5

Information Repository to her departmental faculty and students; another faculty participant invited a 

librarian to his Research Institute to talk to faculty about open access business models for journal 

publication and the future of digital scholarship. 

Lessons Learned: 

Public Attendance: 

The organizers were well aware that we needed to consider other avenues for advertising events to the 

larger public. Due to a last minute decision to extend our event to the public, we were only able to 

advertise minimally. Next year we will need to work with university alumni groups and others to 

advertise our events to the public. 

Appealing to Students: 

Despite massive advertising to UBC student groups and faculties, as with our OA Awareness Day event 

last year, we had difficulties appealing to non‐library school students. Next year we will have to think 

more carefully about partnerships with other student groups on our campus. 

CARL & SPARC Webcasts: 

Although we welcomed and liked the approach for the CARL kick‐off event, notice of the event came too 

late after mass advertising was already sent out. There may have been others on the UBC campus that 

joined in the webcast that were not captured in our statistics. If CARL does a similar event in the future, 

it would be good to have several months notice, if possible, so that we could build an event, such as a 

discussion forum, around the webcast. Our experience with the SPARC webcasts this year and last year, 

is that they are not well attended by non‐library folks. Even participants who attended sessions just 

before the webcast opted to leave once the webcast came on. The ability for institutions to plan and 

build a specific event around the webcast may improve attendance. 

Faculty Attendance: 

Similarly to last year, the faculty who tended to come to the events were those the Library had 

previously built a relationship with (journal editors, individual faculty etc.) Next year, I would suggest we 

co‐host events with other campus stakeholders or partner with faculty on some of the talks as a way of 

improving faculty and student participation in our events. 

Timing of the Event: 

We also learned the timing of the event may have been a factor attendance‐wise. I heard from a 

number of faculty members that they wanted to come to our events but they were either in the midst of 

meeting deadlines for grant funding applications, preparing lectures and so forth. It is a tremendously 

busy time on campus. When asked if there was a preference for time of year, most indicated end of 

November or late March as a better timeframe. Perhaps next year we may consider taking advantage of 

Open Access Week by hosting just a couple of sessions as a way of advertising our main event later in 

the year. The timing would also help our organizers who had to navigate our summer vacation time in 

order to plan events. Furthermore, we found it was difficult to commit keynote speakers from outside of 

our organization to speak at our events. Often they were booked early on at their home institutions or 

other institutions for OA Week events. Hosting the event at another time would be more helpful if we 

wish to book external speakers. 

6

UWO 

Western Libraries at The University of Western Ontario organized a panel discussion and a workshop 

during this year's Open Access Week. The topic of the panel was "What Can Open Access Do for 

Academic Authors and Society?". The panelists were three faculty members at Western (Professor 

Joaquin Madrenas, Professor Mark Perry, and Professor Ajit Pyati) who had been engaged in the open 

access movement in different ways. Professors Madrenas and Pyati discussed how open access was 

beneficial to academic authors and society as a whole. Professor Perry then shared his thoughts about 

author rights and intellectual property law. The workshop, which took place two days after the panel 

discussion, introduced attendees to different routes to ensure open access to their published research. 

The library also set up two information booths to distribute brochures about open access and 

Scholarship@Western (the scholarly communication portal managed by the library). Two follow‐up 

events were organized in Nov. to carry forward the momentum of the Open Access Week. The first was 

a guest lecture by an intellectual property professor at Western, Dr. Samuel Trosow, who addressed 

the need to find the right balance about copyright for teaching, research, and cultural expression. The 

second event was the Sparky Awards @ Western video contest. The library invited Western students to 

create short videos to express their views of the value of information sharing in the digital age. 

It seemed that discussions of examples of how open access has actually been translated into practice 

would be of interest to attendees of these events. 

7

Document 18 

A Review of Emerging Models in Canadian Academic Publishing 

By Kathleen Shearer, Consultant 

March 15, 2010 

The report was commissioned by the University of British Columbia Library 

1

A Review of Emerging Models in Canadian Academic Publishing 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

Case Studies 

I. Open Access Journals 

II. Library Hosting and Publishing Services 

III. Other Journal Hosting and Publishing Services 

IV. University Presses 

V. Digitization and Print on Demand Services 

VI. Open Repositories 

VII. Aggregators and Harvesters 

VIII. New Forms of Digital Scholarship 

References 

I’d like to thank the following people for their contribution to compiling this report: Guylaine 

Beaudrie, Amy Buckland, Laura Carleton, Leslie Chan, Marshall (Peter) Clinton, Anne Marie 

Corrigan, Leonora.Crema, Rea Devakos, Lynn Fisher, Dean Guistini, Wayne Johnson, Sam Kalb, 

Inba Kehoe, Joy Kirchner, Andrea Kosavich, Donna Livingstone. Carole Moore, Louise O’Neill, 

Joanne Newyear Ramirez, Brian Owen, Ingrid Parent, Nick Ruest, Diane Sauve, Kevin 

Stranaugh, Donald Taylor, Leah Vanderjagt, Wade Wyckoff 

2

Introduction 

The changes in scholarly communication have been well documented in numerous reports and 

articles over the last decade. Today most scholarly journals and a growing number of monographs 

are distributed in digital format over the Internet. In the near future, it will be common for 

scholarly publications to be “enhanced with embedded graphics, audio and video materials, all 

linked with datasets and applications needed to manipulate data, etc” 1 . Moreover, user 

expectations in the digital world often involve easy, immediate, and free access to content. In 

addition, the rates of technological change are not expected to wane anytime soon, but rather 

accelerate. 

This report presents the result of an environmental scan of the Canadian academic publishing 

landscape undertaken in January-February 2010 on behalf of the University of British Columbia 

Library. The purpose of the scan was to identify new models of peer-review scholarly publishing 

in Canada, with a particular focus on open access and library-publisher collaborations. The 

methodology involved a review of the literature and interviews with stakeholders in the Canadian 

academic publishing community. 

In Canada, most scholarly publications are still produced by traditional publishers (scholarly 

societies, commercial publishers, and academic presses), and are made available via subscription 

or purchase. Many are in the social sciences and humanities. However, scholarly publishing in 

Canada, as elsewhere, is in a state of flux. Traditional roles are becoming blurred and new models 

are emerging. The review found three important factors that are contributing to the deployment of 

these new models: 

1. New technologies, in particular the Internet and publishing management software, are 

having a huge impact on academic publishing and distribution in Canada. Open Journal 

Systems (OJS) developed by the Public Knowledge Project, for instance, is an open source 

software system for managing journal publishing processes. It is currently being used by 

approximately 5,000 journals around the world. OJS, and other similar platforms, manage 

the journal’s workflow from manuscript submission to publication making it significantly 

easier to publish and also reduce the costs associated with publishing. These new 

technologies are enabling libraries, scholars, and student groups to become more active 

players in scholarly publishing. 

2. Synergies Canada is a collaborative initiative of twenty-one Canadian universities. Led 

by the Université de Montréal (with the Consortium Érudit), the project has four additional 

regional partners: Simon Fraser University, University of New Brunswick, University of 

1 Brown et al. pg. 14 

3

Toronto, and University of Calgary. The purpose of the project is to bring Canadian 

humanities and social sciences journals online. It aims to develop a non-profit national 

infrastructure for Canadian scholarly publishing that will eventually expand beyond social 

sciences and humanities. 170 Canadian journals are currently participating in the project. 

The journals are mostly hosted by a university library, aggregated to the regional node, and 

made available through the national Synergies portal. The Synergies project has been led 

in large part by Érudit, a multi-institutional publishing consortium comprising the 

Université de Montréal, the Université Laval and the Université du Québec à Montréal, 

which has been instrumental in providing online access to Quebec, French-language 

journals. Synergies Canada was funded through a Canada Foundation for Innovation grant, 

provincial partners, and institutional operating funds. 

3. Open access is a growing international movement that calls for the free availability of 

scholarly output over the Internet. Open access (OA) targets the peer-reviewed journal 

literature, for which authors receive no financial compensation, although in some cases OA 

is being adopted for scholarly monographs. Open access can be achieved in two ways: 

through open access publications or open access self-archiving, which involves depositing 

a copy of a subscription-based publication into an open access repository. 

The concept of OA emerged in 2001 out of a meeting organized by the Open Society 

Institute in Budapest. Since then, its popularity has grown steadily. Authors who support 

open access do so because it broadens their readership, and governments support it because 

it makes research knowledge funded by taxpayers available to the public. Forthcoming 

funding agency and university mandates requiring authors to make their publications open 

access will likely further strengthen the prospects for open access. 

Universities are the backdrop for most of the innovative approaches to scholarly publishing being 

adopted in Canada. Open access journals are steadily moving into the mainstream and open 

access monographs are starting to appear. E-books and print on demand services are being 

embraced by both university presses and libraries. A growing number of independent scholars, 

scholar collaboratives, and student groups are publishing their own peer-reviewed materials. And, 

Canadian libraries are becoming more active in publishing and dissemination, through the 

implementation of institutional repositories and journal hosting services. 

A common theme running through many of the initiatives identified for this review is that they 

are the result of collaborations amongst different communities. Working together, libraries, 

publishers, and scholars are better able to find creative solutions to publishing in a rapidly 

evolving environment. In addition, collaborations can help to mitigate the risks inherent in change 

for all participants involved. It is reasonable to assume that strengthening these partnerships and 

4

fostering new ones will assist Canadian organizations in adapting to changes in scholarly 

publishing. 

Universities can play an important role in nurturing these kinds of relationships. Digital 

publishing activities on campus are often uncoordinated, and can sometimes be at odds. By better 

aligning the services of presses, libraries and other digital publishing projects, institutions can 

facilitate a shared vision and benefit from the combined expertise of representatives from various 

sectors. Universities have a lot to gain from becoming more engaged with digital publishing. As 

argued in a 2007 paper published by ITHAKA, “a renewed commitment to publishing in its 

broadest sense can enable universities to more fully realize the potential global impact of their 

academic programs, enhance the reputations of their institutions, maintain a strong voice in 

determining what constitutes important scholarship, and in some cases reduce costs.” 2 This 

review shows that Canadian universities are already deeply involved in a range of publishing 

activities. Universities should consider implementing a university-wide strategy, which would 

ensure that publishing activities are well supported and reflect the broader aims of the institution. 

2 ITHAKA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping the academic community take full advantage of rapidly 

advancing information and networking technologies. See Brown, pg. 3 

5

Case Studies 

The remainder of this report describes specific trends in the scholarly publishing environment and 

presents a number of case studies that highlight these trends. The case studies should not be 

considered as a comprehensive record of initiatives in Canada, but rather an attempt to 

demonstrate the range of activities occurring here. 

I. Open Access Journals 

Open access journals have been moving into the mainstream over the last decade and currently 

represent a significant portion of the world’s academic journals. As of March 2010, the Directory 

of Open Access Journals lists just fewer than 5,000 journals (4755) 3 . This represents 

approximately one-fifth to one-sixth of the estimated total number of journals being published 

currently 4 . In Canada, most of these open access journals are independent scholar-led journals not 

affiliated with large publishing houses. Many OA journals are hosted by libraries and are 

receiving support through the Synergies project. 

Funding is a major challenge for Canadian journal publishers. Most Canadian-based journals are 

run on a shoestring budget, and rely heavily on volunteer contributions, graduate student work, 

and technical and hosting support from academic libraries. Open access journals must find funds 

other than via subscriptions to undertake copy-editing, layout, and XML markup of articles, 

marketing, etc. In addition, they must compete with the sophisticated platforms of the major 

publishers that are quite expensive to maintain. In Canada, as elsewhere, open access journal 

publishers are still looking for the right balance of funding sources in order to reliably cover the 

costs of publishing. 

Current sources of revenue for open access journals include: grants, subsidies, sponsorships, 

institutional and individual memberships, advertisements, donations, and submission/article 

processing fees. Often, journals will derive funding from several of these sources. A recent 

survey of 998 journals using OJS software found that the “strongest source of revenue comes in 

the form of subsidies…from the institution, the state, or a donor, and a number of programs exist 

for the subsidization of scholarly publishing” 5 . The study found that submission or publication 

fees were a source of revenue for only 12 percent and existed principally for biomedical journals. 

Some journals, for instance many journals available through Érudit, provide open access only 

after a period of from 6 months to two-years. This allows them to retain some revenue from 

subscriptions for current issues, while providing free access to their archives. 

3 

From the Directory of Open Access Journals: http://www.doaj.org/ 

4 

Corbyn, pg. 1 

5 

Edgar, et.al. pg. 11. 

6

For journals in the social sciences and humanities (SSH), publishers are eligible for government 

grants from the federal government (e.g. SSHRC) as well as the Quebec government, although, 

these grants do not generally cover the full costs of publishing. The SSHRC subsidy program 

currently supports over 150 Canadian journals. A recent article describing the situation with 

Canadian SSH journals asserts, “Were subsidies not in place, few Canadian social science and 

humanities (SSH) journals would exist: the market is simply not big enough to support such 

publications. Without such journals, Canadian research would become far less visible.” 6 

Several university libraries in Canada 7 have recently launched open access funds that enable their 

authors to publish in fee-based open access journals. The funds divert subscription monies 

towards open access publications and pay for article processing fees or institutional memberships. 

The case studies detailed below demonstrate some of the new funding models being employed by 

open access journals/publishers in Canada. 

Case Study: Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/CJS/index 

The Canadian Journal of Sociology is an open access journal that publishes rigorously peerreviewed 

research articles and innovative theoretical essays by social scientists from around the 

world, providing insight into the issues facing Canadian society as well as social and cultural 

systems in other countries. 

In 2007, the journal transitioned from subscription model to open access. The editor made the 

decision to adopt an open access model principally in order to broaden the journal’s readership in 

Canada and abroad, ultimately improving the impact of the journal. In addition, the editor 

believed that the move was necessary in order to attract a younger generation of readers and 

authors. 

As part of the transition, the journal left University of Toronto Press and moved to the University 

of Alberta site. The editor discontinued the print version of the journal and since 2008, they have 

published in electronic format only, using the OJS software. The costs of publishing declined 

significantly because most of their subscription revenues “went to cover the costs associated with 

producing a print volume, such as printing, subscription management and postage” 8 . The major 

costs for the journal are the salary of the editorial assistant and some funds to occasionally 

purchase new technology. 

6 

Lorimer et al. pg. 175 

7 

University of Calgary, University of Ottawa, and Simon Fraser University have all recently announced OA funds. 

8 

Haggerty, pg. 1 

7

The journals single revenue source is a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research 

Council of Canada. Hosting and technical support are provided for free through the University of 

Alberta Libraries and the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta provides the 

journal with an office. In addition, the editor receives a competitive grant from the University of 

Alberta that releases him from teaching one course in order to work on the journal. 

Case Study: Open Medicine 

www.openmedicine.ca 

Open Medicine is a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access general medical journal. The 

mission of Open Medicine is to facilitate the equitable global dissemination of high-quality health 

research; to promote international dialogue and collaboration on health issues; to improve clinical 

practice; and to expand and deepen the understanding of health and health care. The Journal 

examines issues relevant to health and clinical medicine both in Canada and internationally. 

Open Medicine is a full open access journal and makes its content available through a Creative 

Commons Attribution Share Alike Licence. This means, users can copy, download, reprint, reuse, 

distribute, or display the Open Medicine content as long as the source is attributed. Authors retain 

copyright of their work when they publish in open medicine. 

Open Medicine is an independent scholar-led journal with two co-editors and a number of deputy, 

associate and contributing editors. The journal relies heavily on volunteer time for much of its 

publishing activities. A recent article by Open Medicine editors says that it takes from about 25 to 

31 hours to process each article- most of which is volunteer time. 9 

The journal uses the OJS system. It is part of Synergies Canada and thus receives free hosting and 

technical services by Simon Fraser University Library. 

Until recently, the journal has received funding solely through donations and sponsorships. 

The journal has a number of categories by which individuals and organizations can contribute: 

• Supporters: provide a one-time, monthly or annual donations- a minimum donation of $10 

is accepted. 

• Sponsors: Companies, individuals and other organizations are invited to support the 

development of Open Medicine by becoming a journal sponsor. Sponsorships provide 

funds that will help Open Medicine advance its service to authors and readers and fulfill its 

mission. 

• Partners: Mainly libraries who support the mission of Open Medicine and provide funding 

9 Murray et al., pg. e1 

8

on an annual basis to the journal. 

In January 2010, Open Medicine was accepted for indexing in PubMed. This is important because 

it is a stamp of approval of the quality of the journal and also raises the visibility of the articles 

published within. However, as a result of being indexed in PMC, the editors are anticipating an 

increase in article submissions, and a corresponding increase in the work required to review 

article submissions. In response, Open Medicine has introduced a publication charge for articles 

accepted by the journal. The fee is $1200.00 Canadian for research and review articles and $300 

for commentary and analysis pieces. The fee will enable the editors to continue maintain the 3-4 

month turn around times from acceptance to publication of articles. 

Open Medicine also maintains a blog on the journal website that is authored by Dean Guistini a 

librarian at UBC Libraries. 

Case Study: The Journal of Medical Internet Research 

www.jmir.org 

The "Journal of Medical Internet Research" (JMIR) was founded in 1999 and is a leading health 

informatics and health services/health policy journal. JMIR was the first open access journal 

covering health informatics, and the first international scientific peer-reviewed journal on all 

aspects of research, information and communication in the healthcare field using Internet and 

Intranet-related technologies; a broad field, which is nowadays called "eHealth" 

The Journal of Medical Internet Research is an independent non-profit academic project, 

maintained by researchers without the involvement of any major publishers. It is hosted at the 

University Health Network, Centre for Global eHealth Innovation in Toronto, Canada. JMIR is a 

fully open access journal. The publishers believe that the Internet opens novel ways to publish 

scholarly work independently from any of the large publishing houses and they argue that 

research work should remain the property of the creator. 

JMIR is financially supported by article processing fees ($1500US) as well as through a network 

of individual and institutional memberships, forming a "Network of Excellence in eHealth 

Research". Membership options for JMIR are as follows: 

• Individual Memberships are $59.00 US dollars per year for a single user. Membership 

provides unlimited access to and downloading of all past and future PDF versions of JMIR 

articles and complete JMIR issues in PDF format; Discounts for conferences, events, 

products, and services from organizations we partner with and waivers of all article 

processing fees 

• Institutional Memberships range from $390US per year for an unlimited number of users 

(but does not include article processing fee waivers) up to $25,000 for organizations that 

9

want to be “Main Sponsors”. 

• Article Submission fees of $90 US are payable by all authors submitting articles for 

publication 

Case study: Bioline International 

www.bioline.org.br 

Bioline International (BI) is a not-for-profit scholarly publishing cooperative that currently 

publishers over 70 open access journals. BI's goal of reducing the South to North knowledge gap 

is crucial to a global understanding of health (tropical medicine, infectious diseases, 

epidemiology, emerging new diseases), biodiversity, the environment, conservation and 

international development. By providing a platform for the distribution of peer-reviewed journals 

from developing countries, BI helps to reduce the global knowledge divide by making bioscience 

information generated in these countries available to the international research community worldwide. 

Bioline is managed by scientists and librarians. It is a collaborative endeavor between Bioline 

Toronto (management office) and the Reference Center on Environmental Information in Brazil 

(host computer and software development). The project is supported by the University of Toronto 

Scarborough Department of Social Sciences (infrastructure) and sponsored by libraries and 

members. 

Between 2000 and 2008, Bioline International was supported by in-kind contributions from the 

University of Toronto and the Reference Center on Environmental Information (CRIA) in Brazil, 

library acquisitions payments from University of Toronto Libraries, and the occasional grant from 

the Open Society Institute and others. 

In 2008, Bioline implemented a new business plan involving membership and sponsorship 

contributions. The aim was to have revenues from these contributions support all aspects of 

Bioline International operations. Annual membership fees are $500 US per year for Library or 

organizational membership and $5000 US per year for Consortial Membership. Individual 

memberships and sponsorships are also available. 

Bioline has also been seeking short term funding in the form of foundation sponsorships. These 

are negotiated individually, and are instrumental in helping Bioline to make the transition to a 

membership-supported model over a three-year period. 

Case study: University of Toronto Journal of Undergraduate Life Sciences. 

http://juls.library.utoronto.ca/ 

There is an increasing number of student-run journals in Canada. These peer-reviewed journals 

10

provide the opportunity for students to “participate in the many facets of publishing and editing 

not directly offered through coursework” 10 . They enable students to gain experience in preparing 

and submitting manuscripts and sharpening their editorial skills. In addition, student-run journals 

are a vehicle for sharing research being conducted by students and are a “forum for students to 

showcase their talents in scientific research and social thought”. These journals are often hosted 

by libraries. 

The University of Toronto Libraries is currently hosting 10 open access student-managed 

journals. One of these is the University of Toronto Journal of Undergraduate Life Sciences 

(JULS). JULS is dedicated to showcasing the research achievements of undergraduate life science 

students and to encourage intellectual exploration across the various life sciences disciplines. The 

Journal was established in the summer of 2006 and publishes once annually. All articles are 

edited by a two-stage peer-review process. 

The journal project began with a small group of students who wanted to showcase various works 

of research by other students, and has quickly gained support from various departments and 

faculty members at the University of Toronto. 

The Journal is an open access journal hosted by the University of Toronto Libraries using the OJS 

platform. It publishes in both print and electronic format. The journal receives free hosting 

services from the library, and is sponsored by 15 departments across the U of T campus. 

II. Library Hosting and Publishing Services 

Libraries are becoming increasingly involved in publishing activities on campus. In Canada, the 

Synergies project, has contributed to the relatively rapid deployment of these programs. Funding 

from Synergies is distributed to participating libraries, which in turn provide free hosting services 

and technical assistance for eligible journals. 

Library services typically involve basic activities like hosting, technical assistance, and training in 

the use of the journal publishing software. In most cases, libraries are providing the services for 

free, although a few have or are planning to adopt adopted a fee based model. OJS software is 

being widely used by Canadian libraries, and a number of libraries are also assessing whether 

they can expand publishing and hosting services to include monographs, when the Open 

Monograph Press software is released by the PKP project. 

The majority of libraries approach their publishing services as part of broader, open 

access/scholarly communication initiatives on campus. These are strategic programs aimed at 

10 Antonius et al. pg. 1 

11

improving access to research results. As such, libraries often encourage, and sometimes require, 

that the journals they work with are open access. In most cases, library hosting and publishing 

services are distinct from those of the university press. 

Publishing programs have helped libraries develop stronger relationships with departments, 

scholars and students who they are working with to publishing journals. However, there have also 

a number of challenges for libraries. Publishing services require significant staff time and 

expertise and there is not always an obvious fit for these programs within the tradition library 

organizational structure. In addition, it is not always easy to justify services that are not 

considered to be part of the core activities of the library, especially in lean times. Develop a 

sustainable service model that can meet the needs of very diverse clientele can also be 

problematic. Ultimately, because they are not known for providing publishing support, libraries 

need to actively market their services on campus. 

Although library-hosted journals still represent a small minority of the academic journals 

published in Canada, the trend is likely to continue because there is a growing demand for these 

services from authors and editors. 11 A number of case studies of library services are described 

below. Summaries of other library programs can be found in Appendix 1. 

Case Study: Software @ SFU Library 

http://software.lib.sfu.ca/ 

The Simon Fraser University Library in Vancouver, British Columbia is a major partner in the 

Public Knowledge Project, an initiative directed toward improving the scholarly and public 

quality of academic research through the development of innovative online publishing and 

knowledge-sharing environments. SFU Library operates the entire support infrastructure for the 

project and is the home for the ongoing coordination and development of the PKP software suite, 

which includes the Open Journals System. 

OJS and other PKP developed software are open source, can be downloaded for free, and users 

can make use of a free support forum. However, the SFU Library receives numerous requests for 

assistance by users of the software. In response, the library has established Software @ SFU 

Library, a fee based service which provides extra help to users. 

Software @ SFU Library consists of a range of services related to the PKP software, with an 

additional level of publishing services available from the Canadian Centre for Studies in 

Publishing, which, through their CCSP Press. The services for e-journals are as follows: 

• Annual Hosting and Support Package: installation, configuration, updating and hosting of 

11 A 2007 ARL survey that there is a significant demand for these services on campus. See Hahn, 2008. 

12

OJS software. 

• Custom Programming and Consulting Services: systems expertise at an hourly or daily 

rate. 

• Training Services: in-person or remote, web-based training sessions at a daily date, plus 

travel if required. 

• Layout Copy Editing and Publishing Services: layout work, copy editing and other general 

publishing services provided by SFU’s Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing. 

To date, the SFU Library has worked with hundreds of publishers, and currently hosts over 230 

journals from around the world, 25 of which are local journals participating in the Synergies 

Project. The services are available exclusively to journals using the OJS software, but they will 

work with both subscription-based and open access journals. The revenues are used to off set the 

staff costs associated with services and towards the library’s contribution to open source software 

development projects. 

According to library staff, library participation in PKP has been a successful and mutually 

beneficial partnership. The library's software development expertise and experience with 

managing and operating systems infrastructure have provided a solid foundation for the continued 

expansion and support of the PKP software suite. In turn, PKP has provided an opportunity for 

the library to be an active partner and to work with researchers, software developers, and 

scholarly journal publishers on an exciting initiative that has already made a significant 

contribution to the still-evolving environment of scholarly publishing. 12 

Case Study: York Digital Journals Project 

www.fsc.yorku.ca/yul/drupal/ydj/ 

The York Digital Journals Project (YDJ) provides the technical infrastructure for hosting York 

University based academic journals. The services are offered and funded through the York 

University Libraries and include providing the storage, software, expertise and training required 

for journals. The Project is using OJS Software, which was chosen because of its large user 

community and its endorsement by the Synergies initiative. 

The Project is currently hosting 18 journals. Most of these journals are either fully or partially 

open access. Some are SSHRC funded, others partially sustain themselves via subscription 

funding, and some are partially funded by departments/research centres. Most of them involve a 

lot of volunteer time and effort on the part of York faculty and graduate students. 

The specific services offered to the York University community through the Project are as 

follows: 

12 Summarized from Owen et al. 

13

• Provide the server space to host your journal. 

• Create the journal using OJS software, and help you with some basic design. 

• Train journal editors and staff to use of OJS software. 

• Provide help with any questions or assistance needed. 

York University Libraries is committed to the dissemination of Canadian scholarly information to 

a global audience. The library launched the York Digital Journals Project in order to promote the 

availability and accessibility of scholarly output produced by the York University community and 

its affiliates. 

Funding for the Program come from the York University Library, with some limited 

supplementary funding through the Synergies project. The library funding supports the hosting 

environment, and staff time to create the journal web presence, training for journal editors, and 

other technical assistance. It was determined that a cost recovery model for services rendered 

would be prohibitive to their user community, however, the library will continue to periodically 

evaluate whether some of all these services should be fee-based. 

Initially the hope was that journals would become self-sufficient and ultimately be able to publish 

without the help of the library, however, the library has come to realize this may not be possible 

given the high staff turnover at the journals that they are working with. 

Case Study: McGill University Libraries 

www.mcgill.ca/library 

McGill University Library is currently acting as publisher for one McGill University journal: 

CuiZine, a new McGill e-journal that was launched in January 2009, and is in the process of 

moving the McGill Journal of Education to McGill, from its currently hosted site in the United 

States, with a view to publishing it as well. Both journals are open access and published in 

electronic format only. One is using the OJS software. 

As publisher of these journals, the library is hosting the journal, providing technical assistance 

and training to editors, and distributing the journal via the McGill University website and the 

Érudit platform based at the Université de Montréal. In addition, as a publisher the library is 

providing endorsement for the journal content, as well as offering an extra level of support 

beyond the more common hosting services being offered by other libraries. 

The publishing services are considered a pilot project and the library is in the initial stages of 

putting together a formal program that will offer these types of services to the broader McGill 

community. The services are offered free of charge to the journals, but the library may introduce 

fees if the program is expands. 

14

E-journal publishing is considered part of the library’s efforts to promote wider access to 

academic scholarship. Therefore, future services will likely be available only to journals that are 

open access. 

III. Other Journal Hosting and Publishing Services 

Libraries are not the only entities providing a range of journal hosting and publishing programs in 

the digital environment. A growing number of organizations, both for profit and non-profit, are 

offering these types services, often for a fee. The services tend to be more comprehensive than 

those offered by libraries. Several examples of Canadian service providers are included below: 

Case Study: Érudit 

www.Érudit.org 

Érudit is a multi-institutional publishing consortium comprising the Université de Montréal, the 

Université Laval and the Université du Québec à Montréal. It is a non-profit society that offers an 

innovative model for the promotion and dissemination of research outputs. Érudit forms the 

“Quebec node” of the Synergies project and is both a publisher and an aggregator. It serves as a 

publishing centre for journals supported by the Fonds québécois de recherche sur la société et la 

culture. Retrospective digitization is done for more than half of the 67 journals. Érudit has been 

instrumental in providing online access to Quebec, French-language journals. 

The Érudit platform aggregates and provides access to several types of documents: academic 

journals, e-books, proceedings, theses and dissertations, and other documents and data. A specific 

editorial process is applied to each type, and a search tool allows all types of documents in the 

entire collection to be queried, while also presenting results in the various categories. The Érudit 

platform currently provides access to over 140 journals covering a wide range of disciplines, most 

of which are Canadian French language publications. Érudit requires that all journals provide 

open access to their publications within two-years of publication. 10 of the journals in the 

collection are full open access. The other journals are available through subscription for up to two 

years, after which they are available free of charge. Over 80% of the content is open access while 

still allowing journals to obtain the revenue they need to ensure the continuation of their 

publishing projects. 

The Érudit platform also includes an e-Books and Conference Proceedings zone, with the primary 

concern of publishing within short deadlines. The Digital Publishing Service for Proceedings 

permits dissemination in PDF format, as well as offering search services. At the same time Érudit 

provides an access page structure for the digital publishing of theses from various universities. 

The publishing process adheres to the most consistent standards applicable to digital book 

15

processing with respect to both eBook and Web texts. Apart from the digital processing of books, 

this area also serves as an experimental zone for publishers and academics studying uses and new 

services for readerships. 

Érudit also hosts and disseminates other types of non-peer review content such as reports and 

research notes, lectures, communications and other content that authors and researchers want to 

make available online (in text, audio or multimedia formats). It is both freely accessible and 

independent of the journals Érudit publishes. 

Case Study: Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing Press 

www.ccsppress.com 

The Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing (CCSP) Press publishes works that examine 

publishing (excluding newspapers), report the results of research into publishing, and inform 

students of the practicalities of publishing. CCSP Press publishes for the scholarly, educational 

and trade markets, and is an innovative lab where new models and technologies of publishing will 

be developed and investigated with the intent of advancing industry practice. 

CCSP Press addresses the needs of a wide range of journal publishers, delivering support on all 

levels of the journal publishing process. In support of their participation in the Synergies project 

and their partnership with the SFU Library and the Public Knowledge Project, CCSP Press has 

made available various publishing fee-based services including journal founding, transition of 

print to online journal publishing, editing, layout, proof-reading, marketing, and subscriptions 

management to assist journal in their publishing activities. 

Case Study: Multimed Inc. 

www.multi-med.com 

Multimed Inc. is a Canadian-based international medical publishing and marketing corporation 

that was established in 1980. It publishes medical textbooks, reference books, periodicals, and 

peer-reviewed journals and offers a complete selection of publishing services and products. 

Recently, Multimed Inc. launched a fee-based publishing service for open access journals. 

Multimedia will publish an open access journal using the OJS software. Multimed Inc. open 

access journals provide free access to the full text of articles and permit self-archiving by authors. 

They do not charge authors or authors’ institutions for article submission, processing, or 

publication from the authors or authors' institution. The services offered, which can be tailored to 

suit the needs of individual journals, are as follows: 

• Journal website creation and management 

• Online manuscript submission and peer-review systems 

• Advertisement management 

16

• Installation and management of Open Journal Systems on Simon Fraser University’s 

servers 

• Training and support to editors, reviewers and authors 

• Deposit data to databases such as Pubmed and CrossRef 

• Access to our expert copyeditors, typesetters and proofreaders who specialize in the 

medical field 

• Design, printing and distribution of print journals 

• Secretariat functions for the society 

Case Study: Resilience Alliance 

www.resalliance.org 

The Resilience Alliance is a research organization comprised of scientists and practitioners from 

many disciplines who collaborate to explore the dynamics of social-ecological systems. The 

body of knowledge developed by the RA, encompasses key concepts of resilience, adaptability 

and transformability and provides a foundation for sustainable development policy and practice. 

Resilience Alliance currently publishes 2 open access journals in the field of ecology. 

The organization has recently launched journal development and journal management and 

maintenance services for academic societies, government agencies and other interested parties 

wanting to launch an open access journal or revitalize an existing journal. Using the OJS 

software, Resilience Alliance will help to establish a new peer-review journal or transform an 

existing journal to an online open access format. Each service agreement is unique, but service 

offerings include: 

• Journal user interface design 

• Guidance in the development of editorial processes and policies 

• Hardware and software configuration and training 

• Arranging journal abstracting and registration with libraries 

• Hardware and software maintenance 

• Managing peer review workflow 

• Managing copy editing and publication 

• Conversion of published HTML articles to print style PDF format 

IV. University Presses 

A university press is an academic, non-profit publishing house usually affiliated with a research 

university. Like all publishers, university presses are feeling the effects of changes to scholarly 

communication. A recent report published by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources 

Coalition (SPARC) talks about the pressures exerted on university presses in the digital 

environment. “As they have struggled in a difficult market, university presses have been 

17

criticized for failing to exploit the benefits of online publishing models. Yet such criticism often 

ignores the constraints under which the presses operate, including a financial model that typically 

requires them to recover almost 90% of their costs, and—more significantly—the expectations of 

their host institutions, indeed of the entire academy, that they continue to fulfill their traditional 

roles as publishers of original scholarly monographs.” 13 In addition, “university presses have 

become less integrated with the core activities and missions of their home campuses over the 

years — a drift that threatens to widen as information technology transforms the landscape of 

scholarly publishing.” 14 Without strong institutional support, it has been difficult for presses to 

adapt to changing circumstances. 

Despite these challenges, a recent survey by the Association of American University Presses 

found that many of their members are moving towards e-book publishing and marketing their 

content through digital content vendors and aggregators. The survey also found that some presses 

are also experimenting with open access by making some of their digital monographs available 

free of charge. Below are a number of case studies describing new approaches being undertaken 

Canadian university presses in order to adapt to the changing publishing environment: 

Case Study: Athabasca University Press 

www.aupress.ca 

Athabasca University Press (AU Press) is the centre of scholarly publishing expertise at 

Athabasca University. It was launched in 2006 and is the first scholarly press to be established by 

a Canadian university in the twenty-first century. It publishes from 10-20 monographs per year 

and also 7 academic journals. The Press has an active, interdisciplinary editorial board that 

ensures that it publishes only high quality manuscripts and its books won 4 awards in its first year 

of production. 

Athabasca University is dedicated to the removal of all barriers to knowledge. As such, the AU 

Press is committed to the dissemination of knowledge and research through open access and the 

digital environment. The Press is completely open access. All of its digital publications are 

available for free over the Internet and, wherever possible, its publications are licensed with 

Creative Commons licences. 

AU Press receives funding from Athabasca University, government grants, and it actively pursues 

co-publishing agreements with other universities. It also receives revenue from the licensing of ebooks 

to content aggregators, as well as sales of print editions Although difficult to assess, staff 

do not believe that free online access to the monographs have had a negative impacted print sales 

13 Crow, pg.1 

14 Brown, pg. 4 

18

of the book, but rather have increased sales in some cases. 

The Press is primarily focused on producing digital publications. However, it has a cooperative 

agreement with the UBC Press to undertake the printing of monographs for larger print runs, and 

contracts out with a company for more modest print runs. They are currently assessing the 

feasibility of incorporating a print on demand option. 

Each book published by the AU Press has its own web presence. The web pages include a PDF 

copy of the entire book, as well as PDF copies of each of the chapters individually. The web site 

also contains supplementary material, which may include an introductory video produced by the 

Press, book reviews, and other related material pasted by the author. A print copy of the book can 

also be ordered through the book’s web presence. 

AU Press will also publish websites under its imprint that have scholarly parameters and 

standards (e.g. primary sources in labour studies, Métis and gender studies, the environment, 

etc.). Each website published by AU Press will be research content-based and subjected to an 

initial editorial peer-review assessment and periodic reviews. They have currently published two 

of these: The Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia and Aurora: Interview with Leading Thinkers and 

Writers. 

The AU Press is investigating the use of new technologies that can enhance book publishing. 

They are working with the Public Knowledge Project to develop the new Open Monograph Press 

(OMP) electronic publishing platform. Like Open Journal System, OMP will provide an online 

workspace for publishing monographs, edited volumes and scholarly editions. Proposed features 

include an incubation site where authors can blog ideas; online composition tools to create text 

and related resources; and an interactive publication site that will support reader comment and 

other input. 

Case Study: University of Calgary Press 

www.ucalgary.ca/UP/ 

The University of Calgary is actively involved in reviewing traditional publishing, digital 

publishing, scholarly communication and open access issues. The University of Calgary Press 

currently publishes 15-25 books a year and provides their imprint to 10 scholarly journals. 

It is uniquely positioned under the umbrella of the University Libraries & Cultural Resources 

division (LCR). In early February, a major reorganization of the Libraries & Cultural Resources 

Division resulted in the Press now forming part of a new Centre for Scholarly Communication 

within the LRC. The Press has been actively involved in this restructuring and is very pleased 

with the potential it offers. 

19

Funding for the Press comes from block and project grants through Canadian Heritage and the 

Alberta Government. The Press actively seeks additional support from foundations and faculties. 

They also receive revenue from sales of the books and support through the parent organization, 

Libraries & Cultural Resources. Modest revenues to cover management fees come from the 

journals. 

With a new vision of ‘Making a difference. Making you think’, the Press is undergoing a 

transformation from a traditional print-only operation to a multi-option publishing house that will 

include e-Books, e-journals, print-on-demand and open access materials. 

The close relationship between the Press and the library has supported and driven these changes. 

The library has helped with understanding user expectations, as well as how to be more visible to 

their clients. 

The transformation of the Press is expected to take from 2 to 3 years. As part of this transition, 

the Press will focus their book publishing activities on six or eight areas of specialty rather than 

publishing in many subject areas. They will be actively fundraising, seeking outside and 

unconventional funding for these areas. 

The Press is developing electronic databases of scholars in North America who publish or have 

an interest in these subject areas and market directly to them for sales and course adoptions. In 

addition, they are undertaking the following initiatives: 

• In-depth review of all operations from peer-review and acquisitions to distribution, 

fulfilment and marketing. They have been doing some initial testing with the Open 

Journal Software to assess whether this online journal production software can help to 

lower production costs and streamline pre-production processes. 

• Print on demand: The Press will continue to print books, but will move towards a printon-demand 

model with shipment directly to the client. The quality of print-on-demand is 

increasing and they and see it as a solution for meeting the needs of the readers, while 

also cutting down on storage and distribution costs. 

• Open access: The Press will be contacting its current and backlist authors to obtain 

permission for converting their files to open access. Going forward, authors will be asked 

to sign a Creative Commons agreement and to give permission for open access to their 

books. 

• E-books: The Press will provide free access to pdf versions of monographs on their 

website, but intends to sell the e-Book versions with some value-added components. The 

e-Books will be released at the same time as the print version and will be sold for the 

same price as the print version (softcover only – the Press doesn’t normally print 

hardcovers). 

20

• E-journals: University of Calgary is a partner in the Synergies project and the Press is 

encouraging relevant journals to participate. The Press is currently advising its journals to 

covert to online formats by the end of the current contract year (three years). They are 

using the Open Journal Software for publishing their journals and are looking at how to 

adapt this to their monograph publishing, possibly using the Open Monograph Press 

software now being beta tested by Athabasca University Press. 

• Author agreements: The Press received a Flying Squad publishing consultation grant 

from Canada Council to review their author agreements with the above arrangements in 

mind. They are revising their author contract and are happy to share it with interested 

publishing colleagues. 

Case Study: University of Toronto Press 

www.utppublishing.com 

The University of Toronto Press was founded in 1901 and is Canada's oldest and largest scholarly 

press and is one of the largest university presses in North America. They publish approximately 

150 new scholarly, reference, and general-interest books and maintain a backlist of over 1800 

titles in print; as well as publish over 30 scholarly journals. In 2008 they acquired the Social 

Science & History lists from Broadview Press and have established a new division which focuses 

on publishing textbooks. 

The Press is a global publisher drawing authors from both Canada and the International academic 

communities. The market for their monographs reaches well beyond Canada, with about 45% of 

sales going to the US market. Books are sold into libraries, the trade market and for use on course 

with sales fairly evenly split between the three major sectors. 

In 2008, UTP digitized over 1300 of their backlist titles for release though library e-bok 

aggregators, such as the Canadian Electronic Library. Books in this initial collection were 

published prior to 2006. UTP continues to add to their collection and has included the majority of 

titles published up until 2009. While the uptake in Canada through the CRKN process was 

significant, sales into the broader market have been modest. The bulk of revenue continues to 

come from print sales. A recent survey they conducted across North America confirmed that 

monographs are in the midst of a transition period where the demand is still high for print books 

but interest in growing for electronic books. 

Late in 2009, the Press made their first foray into digitizing some of their backlist in order to 

make selected titles available in e-book format (xml) for sale to consumers through the ebook 

retailers (e.g. Sony, KOBO, Amazon, Apple (later this year). As with the previous 

digitization/conversion project, the work was contracted out to an offshore vendor. The 

21

experience dealing with the epub/xml files was significantly different and far more challenging 

when compared to the conversion to web-enabled pdf files. The quality control/proofing process 

was unexpected and very labour intensive. Several rounds of checking were required before the 

files were finalized. The complex nature of the Press’s publications (i.e. references, footnotes, 

tables and other types of figures, etc) make the process of conversion to xml quite difficult. The 

UTP Press is in the process of developing and transitioning to a xml editorial workflow which 

will reduce the impact of the conversion. 

The Press has been using two vendors to do short run digital printing which ensures that books no 

longer need to go “out of print”. They are considering alternative POD vendors, such as 

Lightning Source, particularly for off-shore markets. 

The UTPress’ books are available through a number of discovery services, such as Amazon and 

Google Book Search. PDF files of all new releases are sent to Amazon and Google Books on a 

monthly basis to enable online browsing through the ‘Search inside the Book’ programs. These 

services have significantly raised the visibility of their monographs. For example, figures for the 

last week of February 2010 show that the UT Press books have received 30,844 visits of 1853 

unique titles, with 404,000 pages viewed. 454 books received ‘Buy the Book’ clicks sending the 

user to a online retailer (although these do not always translate into a sale – stats indicate 

approximately 1.5% of the 454 “clicks” to an online retailer actually purchased a book). 

In terms of journals, the Press publishes 32 scholarly journals mainly in the social sciences and 

humanities. 19 these journals are available in digital format (in addition to the print editions). The 

online journals are available through MetaPress, an e-content management system for scholarly 

publishing. Each journal is indexed at the article level and can be searched through a single 

access point. They also distribute their journals through a number of article aggregator services 

including MUSE, JSTOR and EBSCO. 

All UT Press journals are available through subscriptions, though subscription prices are lower 

than many other scholarly journals. Some of the journals are receiving SSHRC grants, but these 

grants do not cover the full costs of publishing. In the last several years, the Press has seen 

subscriptions for journals decrease, but this has been offset by an increase in royalties from 

aggregators. This represents a preference by users (mainly libraries) towards accessing content 

via the electronic aggregators. 

The Press is also involved with the University of Toronto Library and scholars in a project called 

“Lexicons of Early Modern English” which is described in more detail in the Digital Humanities 

section of this report. Lexicons of Early Modern English (LEME) is a historical database of 

monolingual, bilingual, and polyglot dictionaries, lexical encyclopedias, hard-word glossaries, 

spelling lists, and lexically-valuable treatises surviving in print or manuscript. The database 

22

enables scholars to undertake original research into the entire lexical content of Early Modern 

English. The Project is run by scholars, and co-published by the University of Toronto Press Inc. 

and the University of Toronto Library. The University of Toronto Libraries provides technical 

support for the project and hosts both the public and licensed database. The University of Toronto 

Press provides the sales, marketing and access control for the licensed product. 

One of the challenges for the Press has is keeping up with the rapidly changing technologies for 

both journals and book production. Choosing and implementing the appropriate technical 

platforms for publishing and providing access to content involves significant investments in both 

staff time and money. Yet, these choices are hard to make because technologies are changing so 

rapidly, the market for print products continues to dominate and it is difficult to predict their 

future direction. That being said, UTP is well underway in changing to meet the new digital 

reality. 

V. Digitization and Print on Demand Services 

Both libraries and publishers are looking at print on demand (PoD) services for monographs and 

other types of material. PoD enables books to be printed one at a time. “The book, including the 

cover, is set up as a digital file. When an order comes through, the right file is selected by the 

computer, which then gives the instruction to the print on demand machine to produce it.” 15 

Publishers view print on demand as a cost-effective way of keeping their backlist going. For 

books ‘in print’, PoD saves money on storage and warehousing costs and no funds get tied up in 

stock, “allowing books to be published with very much less initial investment and ongoing 

cost” 16 . For libraries, print on demand usually means offering out-of-copyright books from its 

digitized collection to a wider readership- sometimes for a fee. 

Case Study: McMaster University Libraries Digitization Program 

http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/mcmastercollection/ 

The McMaster University Library owns a Kirtas robotic book scanner and has begun a program 

to digitize out-of-copyright books in the collection. Collectively dubbed “The McMaster 

Collection,” the library has more than 90,000 books available for scanning through its digitize on 

demand site, described below. As books are digitized, records for the electronic version will be 

added to the library catalogue, integrating them with the full collection of print and electronic 

resources available through the library. 

The library has established relationships to support re-publication of their digitized collection. 

15 Definition taken from the website, Writers Services, http://www.writersservices.com/res/ri_POD.htm 

16 Definition taken from the website, Writers Services, http://www.writersservices.com/res/ri_POD.htm 

23

Working with Kirtas Technologies, they have established a Digitize on Demand (DOD) site 

through Kirtas Books that displays more than 90,000 potential digitization targets from the 

McMaster University Library. Fully indexed in Google and searchable from the site itself, the 

DOD catalogue allows the library to sell downloadable e-book and print reproductions in both 

hard and softcover. Kirtas provides the e-commerce, shipping, and order tracking components, 

and the Library contributes its rich collections. This has proven to be a fruitful arrangement, with 

20-30 orders per month being placed through this single site. Their agreement with Kirtas also 

provides for their content to be distributed to major retailers including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, 

Lulu.com, and the Sony eBook Store. Their digitized books will begin to appear in Amazon 

shortly, with the other sites to follow. 

The library’s digitization services are also complemented by a print on demand service being 

offered by the campus bookstore. The bookstore owns an Espresso Book Machine, which prints 

digital books quickly and inexpensively from a digital file. So far, the library has collaborated 

with the bookstore to produce several themed publications—reproductions of a first-edition copy 

of A Christmas Carol in December, books of poetry for Valentine’s Day, and several works by 

Charles Darwin in conjunction with a conference held at McMaster on Darwin’s birthday—and 

expect this partnership to expand as more finished digital files become available available. 

Case Study: University of Toronto Libraries’ Digitization Services 

http://discover.library.utoronto.ca/resources-research/special-collections/local-digital-specialcollections 

The University of Toronto Libraries' Digitization Services fall into three broad areas: 

1) The digitization of local special collections has focused on unique, special materials that are 

of interest to the scholarly community. Typical collections are: "Anatomia 1522-1867: 

Anatomical Plates from the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library", "The Barren Lands: J.B. 

Tyrrell's Expeditions for the Geological Survey of Canada, 1892-1894", and "Discovery and 

Early Development of Insulin, 1920-1925". Work on these collections is often grant funded 

and involves the development of a web site specific to the collection that help "tell a story" 

about the collection or that provide a navigational dimension that extends beyond the raw 

metadata helps to bring the collection to life. 

2) The digitization of resources and/or the development of information delivery tools in 

conjunction with faculty research projects. Typical initiatives are: "Jackson Bibliography of 

Romantic Poetry", "Lexicons of Early Modern English", "University of Toronto English 

Library", and "REED (Records of Early English Drama) Patrons and Performances" which is 

operated in conjunction with the University of Toronto Press. Typically, these research 

project based initiatives are focused on the humanities. This project is described in more 

detail in the “New forms of digital scholarship” section. 

24

3) The mass digitization of out-of-copyright materials in conjunction with the Internet Archive 

digitization facility, which is collocated with the Libraries' Information Technology Services 

Department. The IA facility operates 19 Scribe scanning stations that are operated two shifts 

per day, five days per week. To date the facility had digitized nearly 250,000 volumes from 

the collections of the University of Toronto Libraries and from other institutions. These 

digital resources are accessible via the Internet Archive and via the Scholars Portal e-book 

platform. 

VI. Open Repositories 

Open repositories make their contents freely available over the Internet. They are not publishers, 

but rather are an infrastructure for providing access to content. Open repositories collect copies of 

journal articles published elsewhere (often in subscription-based journals) and make them freely 

available over the Internet. Open repositories are possible because the majority of journals (about 

70% 17 ) permit authors to archive copies of their articles in a repository, including journals 

published by many of the major commercial publishers. 

Open repositories may be institution-based or discipline-based. Disciplinary repositories focus on 

collecting publications within a specific subject area, while institutional repositories tend to have 

broader collection policies and collect publications in a wide variety of disciplines. In addition, 

most discipline-based repositories are international in scope, while Institutional repositories are 

maintained by libraries are usually mandated to collect the output created at a single institution. 

According to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, over 80% of their academic 

members have an institutional repository, and that number is expected to continue growing. 18 

Right now, Canadian institutional repositories collect mostly electronic theses and dissertations, 

followed by e-prints of published articles. 

Case Study: QSpace Repository 

https://qspace.library.queensu.ca 

The QSpace digital repository at Queens University collects, preserves, and distributes digital 

content produced by members of the Queen's community. QSpace content consists of collections 

produced by Queen's communities. The collections are managed, preserved and made accessible 

by Queen's Library and IT Services through QSpace. Content and access to collections are 

determined by Queen's University department or community responsible for the 

17 According to the UK-based SHERPA-ROMEO service, a service that monitors publishers so called ‘self-archiving’ 

policies, about 70% of publishers allow authors to make their articles available through an institutional or disciplinary 

repository. 

18 From private communications with the Canadian Association of Research Libraries and its members 

25

collection. Contributors are encouraged to deposit materials into the repository themselves. 

However, assistance with the deposit process is available upon request. 

The QSpace repository currently contains over 4000 full text documents. The document types 

included in the repository are electronic theses and dissertations, preprints, working papers, 

technical reports, conference papers and data sets in various digital formats. Content grows daily 

as new communities and collections are added to QSpace. 

Case Study: Archimède 

http://archimede.bibl.ulaval.ca 

Archimède is a digital repository hosted at l’Université Laval Library. The repository collects and 

makes available the entire collection of theses and dissertations produced that the University 

since 2006. The repository is a collaborative project between the Graduate Studies Department 

and the University Library. Archimède currently contains over 3000 dissertations and theses. 

The Archimède repository software was developed by the l’Université Laval Library. It is free, 

open source software that can be downloaded and used by anyone interested. The software was 

developed with a multilingual perspective, with. Using the open source standard (i18n), the text 

(or content) of the interface is independent and not embedded in the code. It is then relatively 

easy to develop an interface in a specific language without having to work on the code itself. 

English, French and Spanish interfaces are already offered in Archimede. That software also 

allows the user to switch easily from language to language anywhere and anytime during his 

search and retrieval process. 

Case Study: PMC Canada 

http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca 

PubMed Central Canada (PMC Canada) is a full-text, free digital archive of peer-reviewed health 

and life sciences research publications. It builds on PubMed Central in the US, which is managed 

by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). PubMed Central Canada receives its entire 

journal content, over 1 million articles, directly from the US PMC archive. But, PMC Canada 

provides a bilingual search interface and deposit mechanism for Canadian users. 

PMC receives the majority of its content through publisher deposit, but it also supports deposit 

from authors whose research is funded by the National Institutes of Health and several health 

funding agencies in the UK. PMC Canada was developed to enable researchers funded by Canada 

Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) to deposit their publications directly into the repository, 

supporting the implementation of the CIHR Policy on Access to Research Outputs. 

26

VII. Aggregators and Harvesters 

Aggregators and harvesters improve the accessibility and visibility of digital publications. 

Harvesters aggregate the metadata from digital collections, so that they are searchable from a 

single location. Digital aggregators bundle content from different publishers together. They 

partner with multiple publishers to supply content (e-books, audio books, other media) and 

provide a platform for libraries and end users to search, order, access, and download the content 

on the Web. Libraries favor using aggregators and harvesters because they provide access to 

content from groups of publishers or repositories, instead having to deal individually with each 

organization. 

Canadian Electronic Library Publishers Collection 

http://www.canadianelectroniclibrary.ca/Cdn_publishers_collection.html 

The Canadian Electronic Library Publishers Collection is a collection of over 25,000 Canadian 

monographs (of which over 10,000 are current in-copyright titles) from 65 Canadian publishers, 

making the service Canada's largest collection of online books for libraries. Among these are all 

the major Canadian University Presses. Many of the titles in the collection are from Canada's 

leading scholarly publishers, most being offered for the first time in online e-book form. Over 

80% of the titles in the Canadian Publishers Collection have never been available in digital form 

and most of the titles in the collection are available electronically only through the Canadian 

Electronic Library. 

Any item in the collection is available to all users simultaneously, and sophisticated search tools 

allow for quick location of items of interest. Users may move easily between material on all 

media (text, audio, video) and local collections may be integrated with published sources. 

The Canadian Publishers Collection is produced by Gibson Library Connections a Canadian 

company that aggregates and licenses products to libraries and library consortia across Canada. 

The Collection is widely available in Canada because has been purchased by the Canadian 

Research Knowledge Network a licensing consortium representing over 70 Canadian universities. 

Case Study: Canadian Association of Research Libraries Metadata Harvester 

http://carl-abrc-oai.lib.sfu.ca/ 

The CARL Harvester is the search service that aggregates the metadata records from participating 

Canadian repositories, allowing users to seamlessly search all of the repositories at once, using 

one common point of access. The harvester is hosted at Simon Fraser University Library, was in 

March 2004 to enhance the visibility of Canadian repository content. The harvester currently 

aggregates metadata from 23 Canadian repositories representing over 140,000 full text documents 

housed in the repository. 

27

The content is updated daily. Once a day, the harvester makes a request to each of the 

participating repositories using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting 

(OAI-PMH), returns all new or updated records, and incorporates them into its database. The 

updating is fully automated and the new records are available immediately for searching after 

they are retrieved. 

VIII. New Forms of Digital Scholarship 

New forms of peer-reviewed scholarship are being developed because of new technologies. These 

types of projects represent the next stage in scholarly publishing, that enable “scholars to work in 

deeply integrated electronic research and publishing environments that will enable real-time 

dissemination, collaboration, dynamically-updated content, and usage of new media.” 19 

There are a wide variety of projects spanning almost all disciplines that fall into this category and 

it is difficult to generalize about them because they are so diverse. However one common 

characteristic is that they are often collaborative in nature and are usually developed and 

maintained by a community of scholars, with assistance from a university library or technical 

services. Below are two case studies which highlight this burgeoning area of scholarly 

publication. 

Case Study: Lexicon of Early Modern English 

http://leme.library.utoronto.ca/ 

Lexicon of Early Modern English (LEME) is a database of 123 glossaries, bilingual lexicons, and 

monolingual dictionaries from the Early Modern English period, 1480-1702. Its alpha version 

contains 430,000 word-entries. The database enables scholars to undertake original research into 

the entire lexical content of Early Modern English. 

The development and maintenance of LEME was supported through grants from the Social 

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from McMaster University's 

TAPoR Project (Text Analysis Portal for Research), which received a research infrastructure 

grant of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Ontario Innovation Trust (OIT). 

There are two versions of LEME, a public one and a licensed one. The public version of LEME 

allows anyone, anywhere, to do simple searches on the multilingual lexical database but lacks 

advanced retrieval options. The licensed version of LEME is designed as a full-featured scholarly 

resource for original research into the entire lexical content of Early Modern English. 

The Project is run by scholars, and co-published by the University of Toronto Press Inc. and the 

19 Brown, pg. 4 

28

University of Toronto Library. The University of Toronto Libraries provides technical support for 

the project and hosts both the public and licensed database. The University of Toronto Press 

provides the sales, marketing and access control for the licensed product. 

Case Study: Barcode of Life Data Systems 

http://www.boldsystems.org 

The Barcode of Life Data Systems is a global library of DNA barcodes, which are short genetic 

sequences that distinguish species from each other. Barcode of Life Data Systems supports the 

organization and analysis of barcode data. The data in this free and public database are being used 

by thousands of researchers and practitioners around the world. 

The Barcode of Life Data Systems was developed and is maintained by scholars at the University 

of Guelph. All these barcoding projects share the goal of building an open-access database of 

reference barcodes that will improve our understanding of biodiversity and will allow nontaxonomists 

to identify species. As of August 2009, researchers had deposited over 670,000 

barcode records from 61,000 species into the international Barcode of Life Database. 

Direct funding for the Network currently exceeds $24M. Major sources of support include 

Funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada through the Ontario 

Genomics Institute, Ontario Innovation Trust, NSERC and the Gordon and Betty Moore 

Foundation. Additional contributions ($1M) were secured from various federal agencies and 

private sector organizations as part of our co--funding strategy. 

29

References 

Antonius, Daniel and Adam D. Brown. The Development of a Student-Operated Journal. 

Observer 20(5), May 2007. [Available at: 

www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2170] 

Association of American University Presses. Digital Publishing in the AAUP Community Survey 

Report: Winter 2009-2010. November 2009. [Available at: 

aaupnet.org/resources/reports/0910digitalsurvey.pdf] 

Brown, Laura, Rebecca Griffiths, and Matthew Rascoff. University Publishing in a 

Digital Age. New York: Ithaka, 2007. [Available at: www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s- 

r/strategy/university-publishing] 

Corbyn, Zoe. “A threat to scientific communication”. Time Higher Education, August 13, 2009 

[Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407705] 

Crow, Raym. Campus-based publishing partnerships: A guide to critical issues. Scholarly 

Publishing ad Academic Resources Coalition. January 2009. [Available at: 

www.arl.org/sparc/partnering/guide/] 

Edgar, B. D. & Willinsky, J. (in press). A survey of the scholarly journals using Open Journal 

Systems. Scholarly and Research Communication. [Preprint Available at: 

http://pkp.sfu.ca/node/2773] 

Haggerty, Kevin. “Case studies in open access publishing. Number Five. Taking the plunge: open 

access at the Canadian Journal of Sociology”. Information Research, 13(1), paper 338. [Available 

at: http://InformationR.net/ir/13-1/paper338.html] 

Hahn, Karla L. Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University 

Publishing. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2008. [Available at: 

www.arl.org/bm~doc/arl-br-258.pdf] 

Jordan, Mark. “The CARL metadata harvester and search service”. Library High Tech. Vol. 24 

No. 2, 2006 pp. 197-210. [Post-print available at: http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/2613] 

Kosavic, Andrea. “The York Digital Journals Project: strategies for institutional Open Journal 

Systems implementations.” College and Research Libraries: Preprint Articles. Forthcoming July 

2010 [Preprint available at: 

30

www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/preprints/Kosavic.pdf] 

Lorimer, Rowland and John Maxwell. (2007). Canadian Social Science and Humanities Online 

Journal Publishing, the Synergies Project, and the Creation and Representation of Knowledge. 

Publishing Research Quarterly, 22(4): 175-193. [Available at: http://pkp.sfu.ca/node/2024] 

Murray, Sally, James Brophy, John Hoey, Stephen Choi, Dean Giustini, Claire Kendall, James 

Maskalyk, Anita Palepu. “Open Medicine is indexed in PubMed” Open Medicine 2010; 1(1):e1. 

[Available at: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/341/252] 

Owen, Brian and Kevin Stranack, “The Public Knowledge Project and the Simon Fraser 

University Library: A Partnership in Open Source and Open Access,” The Serials Librarian 55 

(2008): 140-67. [Available at http://eprints.rclis.org/15613/] 

Pannekoek, Frits, Walter Hildebrandt, Kathy Killoh and Shubhash Wasti. Being an Open Access 

Press - the first two years. Presentation from the International PKP Scholarly Publishing 

Conference 2009. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC. July 8-10, 2009. [Available at: 

http://pkp.sfu.ca/ocs/pkp/index.php/pkp2009/pkp2009/paper/view/138/171] 

31

Appendix 1: More examples of journal publishing services at Canadian libraries 

University of Alberta Libraries 

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/ 

University of Alberta Libraries currently manages a journal hosting service using the OJS 

software. They host both student and faculty journals, both open access and subscription-based 

This popular service has spread throughout our scholarly environment largely via word-of-mouth 

and includes journals of both longstanding reputation and brand-new publications, as well as 

student-run, faculty-supervised journals which serve to enhance undergraduate/graduate research 

competencies for dissemination competencies. 

The services provided by the library are as follows: Hosting, preservation via the COPPUL 

LOCKSS Alliance, upgrades, provide start-up support (usually 3-4 meetings), troubleshooting 

routine issues that pertain to the local hosting environment, and they will on occasion liaise with 

the Public Knowledge Project on behalf of hosted journals. They do not provide design support 

and promote self-directed learning, the use of Public Knowledge Project forums and 

documentation, the retention of the services of technical editors, and a sustainable plan for 

ongoing knowledge transfer so that the journals are responsible for “passing the torch” for system 

knowledge. 

The journal hosting services fall within the ‘Information and Financial Services’ portfolio, which 

holds responsibility for collections strategy and development. They offer free services for open 

access journals and charge a nominal fee for subscription journals. Their business model has 

involved fully articulating all elements of support (staff and basic infrastructure) for this service. 

We did this so that we may plan for sustainability of the service. 

University of British Columbia 

http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/ 

The UBC Library runs a journal hosting service for open access journals. The service provides 

access to server space and to the open source OJS software for UBC faculty members who are 

editing or supporting Open Access electronic journals as well as recognized UBC student 

journals. UBC Library currently hosts 5 open access journals through this program and are 

interested in expanding to other journals. 

UBC Library is hosting the journals without charge, for now. Faculty interested in having 

ejournals hosted by UBC Library sign an agreement outlining the responsibilities and liabilities 

for the Library and participating ejournals. The agreement indicates that the Library will offer 

server space and the OJS software to store and disseminate the contents of the ejournals. Each of 

32

the journal publishers will be provided with administrative control to allow them to set up their 

own online area for their respective journals. 

In addition, the UBC Library/UBC Press are in the early stages of collaborating on some projects. 

To date this includes digitizing UBC Press publication ‘Atlas of British Columbia’ and hosting 

ancillary or supplementary materials of UBC press publications in cIRcle, UBC's Information 

repository. 

University of Guelph Library 

http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/ 

The University of Guelph Library currently hosts 8 journals, with 2 more in development, using 

the open journal system. The hosting services are part of the broader Scholarly Communication 

Program at the library. All journals hosted by the library are open access. The library services are 

currently provided to journals for free. The specific services offered by the library are as follows: 

• Provide the server and software, namely Open Journal Systems (OJS) 

• Provide initial OJS software training to one or more journal representatives 

• Provide consultation on journal policies and metadata 

• Provide troubleshooting support to resolve questions and problems that arise 

• Customize the software to meet the particular requirements of the journal 

• Install software upgrades as they become available 

• Ensure perpetual access to the journal 

• Include the journal in high-profile discovery systems including the National Synergies 

platform 

• Promote the journal as part of their communications strategy 

• Provide usage statistics 

McMaster University Libraries 

http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/peer_review_list.html 

McMaster University Libraries offers a number of services for online peer-review journals using 

the DigitalCommons platform. The services are part of the Scholarly Communication Program at 

the library. They are provided free of charge and include hosting, training, and technical support. 

In addition, the Digital Strategies Librarian works closely with editors upon initial start-up of the 

journal to create a look and feel unique, giving each of them a distinct character. 

The library currently hosts 10 journals, 4 of which are student-managed publications. The 

33

services are available to the McMaster University community and support both subscriptionbased 

and open access journals. However, the library encourages journals to consider open access 

as an option, where possible. The library is considering requiring editors to sign a memorandum 

of understanding with the library to ensure that participant are serious and committed to their 

journal projects. 

University of New Brunswick Electronic Text Centre 

www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/ 

The Electronic Text Centre at University of New Brunswick Libraries offers a variety of services 

in the area of electronic publishing, digital imaging, and humanities computing. The Centre 

partners with people and institutions across Canada to promote advanced technologies in 

scholarly communication. The Centre is considered a vital part of the Library's commitment to 

enriching scholarly communication through advanced technologies and to preserving our digital 

heritage. The collaborative projects are based on a shared commitment to open standards for 

engaging with content and technologies. 

The Text Centre is involved in a diverse number of projects. However, in terms of peer-reviewed 

publications, the Centre works with both electronic journals and e-books. It is the regional node 

for Synergies and hosts journals participating in the project originating in the Atlantic provinces. 

The Centre creates and distributes 16 university journals employing a variety of business models. 

They also occasionally publish monographs. 

Queens University Library 

http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/index/index 

Queen's University Library (QUL) has installed the Open Journals System software for use by 

Queen's faculty and staff wishing to publish an online open-access or subscription-based journal. 

The library currently hosts 7 journals employing a variety of business models (open access and 

subscription based). The major journal in the field of surveillance studies (Surveillance & 

Society) has just moved to the QUL site from Germany and will be available soon. 

The library services are offered free of charge. Through the program, the library will provide the 

server space to host the journal; create the journal using OJS software and help with basic design; 

train editors in the use of OJS software; provide ongoing advice and support. The goal of the 

program is that eventually journal editors will be self-sufficient and will be able to publish future 

issues independently. 

34

University of Toronto Libraries 

http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/ 

University of Toronto Libraries runs two publishing programs: Open Journal System and Open 

Conference system. The journal program currently hosts 24 titles, 10 of which are student led. 

The University of Toronto is the regional lead for the Synergies project and a number of the 

journals hosted by the University of Toronto have received support through Synergies to go 

online. 

The program focuses on hosting and providing advice to publishers. The library makes sure that 

the Canadian Social Science journals are added to Scholars Portal. They are also working on OJS 

software development. For example, they are trying to improve the ability of OJS to host multiple 

journals. 

For the student-run journals, the hosting is free of charge. For the other journals, the library 

charges a hosting fee of $750.00 per year. For publishers that cannot pay this fee, the library will 

consider waiving the fee. In addition the library will waive the fee in cases where it will help 

journals shift to an open access model or make the transition from print etc. Most of the journals 

and conference proceedings hosted by the library are open access. For the journals that are not, 

the library requests a free institutional subscription in exchange for free hosting services. 

University of Victoria Library 

http://journals.uvic.ca 

The University of Victoria offers a Journal Publishing Service using the Open Journal Systems 

software. The services are located on the central university server in order for them to be 

perceived as university wide services- although the staffing support comes from the library. The 

services include hosting, as well as assistance with clients to get the journal up and running. In 

the case where editors have little technical experience, library staff will train them to use the 

software. 

In some instances, hosting is provided for free, in others, where funds are available, a hosting fee 

is charged to the journal. All publishing activities, such as copyediting and distribution, must be 

funded by the publishers themselves. 

The library currently hosts 6 journals. Most of the journals are open access and the library 

encourages the editors of the journals it works with to consider the open access option. Because 

University of Victoria does not have a university press, the library is considering publishing 

monographs once the PKPs open monograph software is available. 

35

University of Western Ontario Libraries 

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/peer_review_list.html 

At the University of Western Ontario, the library has partnered with different campus units to 

create two peer review open access journals. It also provides a site at which a Canadian scholarly 

society offers delayed open access to its peer review journal. Several research centres on campus 

have adopted the library's publishing services to enable free public access to their academic 

publications and conference materials. The library uses the Digital Commons platform to host 

and manage the aforementioned scholarly content. 

36

PDF - CARL - ABRC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?