Close this search box.
Close this search box.

A primary incentive for libraries’ participation in LSDIs is to provide broader and easier access to books through the popular search engines by aggregating supply and demand and enabling keyword-level searches. Although the current course of action may not be fully satisfactory, participating libraries maintain that without support from commercial entities, they would not be able to embark on such ambitious projects. Is this assertion strong enough to mitigate some of the concerns identified in this report? Should we perceive these ventures primarily as access projects, rather than as reformatting initiatives that yield high-quality digital surrogates for the original? If so, how can we define a preservation strategy that is built on this recognition?

Even the brief assessment presented in this paper shows that such questions are complex, interdependent, and open for interpretation. Formulating a joint action plan by the cultural institutions is desirable and will help clarify commonly debated aspects of LSDIs. It will be important to bring Google and Microsoft, as well as other commercial leaders, into this conversation. Participating libraries should take advantage of the partners’ meetings organized by Google and Microsoft to present and discuss the community’s digital preservation concerns and plans. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are institutional differences in opinion, digital library infrastructures, funding models, and strategic goals. In this context, the following recommendations aim to facilitate a discussion of the matter at hand. The recommendations center around five themes that weave through the LSDI preservation mandate: digitization as a potential method to preserve books (5.1–5.3); enduring access (5.4–5.5); preservation management (5.6–5.7); digital preservation strategies (5.8–5.9); and research library strategies (5.10–5.13).

5.1 Reassess Digitization Requirements for Archival Images

The prevailing digitization standards and best practices were established 15 years ago. They were created during a time of early implementations and were based on modest collection sizes and often on bitonal scanning. We need new metrics that are based on current imaging technologies, quality assessment tools, archiving practices, and evolving user needs. It is time to create new digitization metrics that take into consideration the following characteristics of the current landscape:

    • contemporary digitization technologies and image-processing tools93
    • ingest and storage guidelines and experience built over the past several years
    • new archival file formats, such as JPEG2000 and PDF/A
  • evolving access formats (such as XML) that are essential to support sophisticated retrieval and use of content such as text mining
  • the impact of lossy compression techniques and image processing on future preservation actions94
  • the correlation between image quality and OCR accuracy
  • the role, potential, and value of preservation metadata (PREMIS) and technical (NISO/ANSI Z39.87) metadata in supporting preservation actions
  • requisite descriptive and structural metadata for supporting discovery and retrieval of digital materials

There are anecdotal data about the quality of images provided to participating libraries. It may be useful to have a systematic image-quality study based on inspection of sample images and associated metadata to evaluate the suitability of digital objects for preservation purposes. Such an assessment should be undertaken with two key considerations in mind. The first consideration is how to judge image quality in such an analysis. Should we rely on existing best practices, or should the evaluation be based on newly defined parameters suggested in this recommendation? The second factor is understanding the role of institutional missions and resources in defining preservation quality.

5.2 Develop a Feasible Quality Control Program

We need to reassess the quality control policies, tools, and workflows that were created to support small-scale digitization projects and to acknowledge that it is neither practical nor feasible to apply existing QC protocols to LSDIs. Williams has noted that today’s ISO protocols for assessing digitization device performance are based on sound science and are quite reliable into the foreseeable future.95 However, these QC targets and software were not designed to work in the high-volume, high-demand workflows of LSDIs. It is time to devise new models with calculated risks. Here are some ideas to expand thinking about our options:

  • QC programs are important in ensuring the technical quality of digital content created by LSDIs. However, it is important to emphasize the importance of creating good-quality images during the initial capture so that QC is an assurance process to catch infrequent problems rather than a front-line strategy. The library community should negotiate rigorous technical specifications with digitization partners to reduce the pressure on the QC stage in catching missing or unacceptable images. The possibility of problems caused by equipment failure, digitization operator exhaustion, or use of uncalibrated equipment should be anticipated at the point of digitization, and appropriate measures should be in place to prevent them. A well-negotiated, well-developed QC program at the digitization center should enable the library to streamline the QC program it has in place to ensure that the digitizing partner is adequately meeting the agreed-upon quality.
  • Traditional QC programs have four key components: development of quality parameters and QC methodology, identification of problem images (or other deliverables such as OCR or metadata), correction of problems, and integration of these improved objects into the collection. It is usually easier to identify problems than to fix them and to integrate them into a digital collection. Even if funding is not available to correct unacceptable images or other digital products, it is worth recording this information to support future actions. Such data can also be used to document how digital surrogates differ from original print materials; in this context, they can be considered a component of provenance information. Quality control is not necessarily a fixed process. Image-enhancement techniques continue to evolve and can be applied as they develop.
  • Even a modest QC process will reveal errors that can be traced to problems at the point of digitization, such as poor performance of a specific piece of equipment or improper settings for image-processing applications. For such an approach to be effective, libraries would have to review files soon after they are received and report findings to digitization partners. Only in this way could patterns be investigated and their causes identified.
  • Should we consider changing our approach to quality control, that is, applying it “as needed,” rather than “just in case”? Such a strategy will involve relying on an automated image-quality process coupled with methods to promote receiving feedback from online readers. For example, the “Provide Feedback” link at the bottom of the Google Books page includes a form on which to report image-quality problems such as readability, completeness of page, curved or distorted text, and accuracy of bibliographic information. This may not be a comfortable practice for libraries; however, it may be a viable option given limited funding and QA concerns. With the as-needed approach, retaining leaf masters becomes more important.
  • What would be the value and financial implications of a system in which participating libraries are responsible for filling in missing pages or rescanning unacceptable images? Sometimes the most complicated process in making corrections is reintegrating the corrected pages with the original materials. In this case, what is the incentive for the digitizing partner to meet the agreed-upon quality guidelines?

5.3 Balance Preservation and Access Requirements

Because of stakeholders’ multiple perspectives, it has always been difficult to agree on a single digitization method that suits all circumstances. The LSDI institutions are recognizing that it is not feasible to fully adopt existing preservation digitization practices because of the scale of their endeavors. They are seeking compromises through various methods—dropping or reducing QC programs, settling for resolutions lower than 600 dpi, or switching to different file formats. The Society of Imaging Science and Technology’s Archiving 2007 Conference featured several presentations on the impact of image compression and digital preservation. Presenters acknowledged that LSDIs must implement space-efficient digitization strategies to minimize long-term storage costs and to increase transmission efficiency for delivery and transfer.96

Librarians recognize the value of high-quality images to support a range of future needs, including preservation. They also recognize that the scale of the LSDIs makes maintaining the current best practices for high-quality images problematic. It is time to try to reach agreement about what is “good-enough” quality in LSDIs and to clarify what future needs they are intended to address. In seeking compromise, the library community should continue to advocate for high standards. As Cliff Lynch suggested during the 2006 Symposium on Scholarship and Libraries in Transition, digitization can provide a form of insurance for preserving content, even though digital surrogates cannot replace physical originals.97

5.4 Enhance Access to Digitized Content

Research libraries are making significant investments in archiving LSDI-generated collections. Such investments will be more worthwhile if discovery, access, and delivery are given equal emphasis. Digital content that is not used is prone to neglect and oversight; reliable access mechanisms are essential to the ongoing usability of these online materials. It is also important to reach out to new users and to expand tools for discovering and using digital information.

When asked about their plans for the digitized content they receive, some LSDI libraries say they will experiment with enhanced access and discovery tools and text-mining techniques. Achieving this ambitious goal will be possible only if libraries pool their resources and build on each other’s accomplishments. An example of such a joint program (although modest in scale) is DLF Aquifer, which promotes effective use of distributed digital library content for teaching, learning, and research in the area of American culture and life.98

Noting that LSDIs to date have focused on keyword search to enhance discovery, Don Waters cautions the library community to consider sophisticated search and discovery methods, including new analytical techniques for content analysis.99 As libraries assess various LSDI image and metadata quality parameters, it is critical to involve scholars in the process to incorporate their evolving requirements for viewing and studying digital content. CLIR and Georgetown University are conducting a project to assess the utility to scholars of several large-scale digitization projects, including Google Book Search, Microsoft Live Search Books, Project Gutenberg, Perseus, and the American Council of Learned Societies’ E-Book project. CLIR expects to report on the project in mid-2008.

Copyright information is a critical element in making both preservation and access decisions. The Spring 2007 DLF Forum featured a session on building communities and systems for sharing and searching information about copyrights and their holders, especially within the context of LSDIs. This is a potentially rewarding area of collaboration for libraries. OCLC is defining core requirements for a collaborative copyright decision support tool that might help eliminate some of the system-wide redundancies. They are exploring the possibility of leveraging WorldCat, as it represents the shared investment of many libraries in aggregating various metadata for their print collections. MARC records do not contain all the information necessary to make a copyright determination and will need to be supplemented.

5.5 Understand the Impact of Contractual Restriction on Preservation Responsibilities

Google and Microsoft restrict the sharing of full-text digitized content. Participating libraries can, at best, share copies of digitized materials only with academic institutions and only as long as they agree not to make the files available to other commercial Internet search services. Such restrictions, which aim to prevent hosting of the digitized books by other commercial search engines, are likely to impede some preservation strategies, such as redundancy arrangements. Having more than one search engine host the same content is likely to increase the survival of digital materials. A group of legal scholars, including Jack Lerner and Jennifer Urban, is conducting research on legal restrictions imposed by LSDI contracts with a focus on the Google initiative.100 The library community will benefit from forming a united front to address with commercial partners the limitations that they place on their copies of digital materials.

5.6 Lend Support for Shared Print-Storage Initiatives

With the increasing value placed on online access, research institutions will be under pressure to justify investments in maintaining their legacy print collections, some of which are low use and redundant. Consolidation of holdings in a shared-storage environment can offer significant space savings as well as improved control of ambient temperature and humidity. Agreements among geographically distributed print repositories can create additional economies of scale. There is a long history of working groups and programs exploring shared print-storage solutions. However, efforts are often curtailed or stalled because of the complex and political nature of governance issues, especially in regard to types of materials, duplication, ownership, and funding for sustainability.

OCLC Programs and Research has embarked on a series of studies and programs aimed at identifying the key incentives and obstacles to institutional collaboration in this area.101 In 2006 RLG Programs began working with members of the North American Storage Trust to develop a policy framework that would enable participating libraries to assess local print collections in light of ongoing community investments in off-site storage.102 In fall 2007, OCLC Programs and Research published a report that examines the state of the art in library off-site storage, identifying gaps in the current infrastructure and new opportunities for community and institutional action.103 Several regional initiatives are also in place. National and regional shared-storage efforts demonstrating strong leadership need firm support from the library community.

5.7 Promote the Use of Registry of Digital Masters

Developed in 2001, DLF’s Registry of Digital Reproductions of Paper-based Monographs and Serials aimed to provide functional specifications for a registry that records information about digital reproductions of monographs and serials. It evolved into the DLF/OCLC Registry of Digital Masters (RDM), a central place for libraries to search for digitally preserved materials.104 The premise of the RDM was that a library, by registering digitized objects, indicated that the digital copy was created under established best practices for digitization and that the institution was commited to its digital preservation. However, books digitized as part of the LSDIs do not necessariy adhere to established best practices. As noted in Section 5.1, it is necessary to revisit what is considered “acceptable quality.” In addition, there is need to further articulate how institutions define a “commitment to digital preservation.”105 The registry has the potential to reduce redundancies and to record an array of relevant information that will support the preservation of content as well as the planning of future digitization efforts.

There is some debate about how much effort should be spent on reducing redundancy. Some argue that duplicating efforts is more cost-efficient than trying to manage a coordinated selection process. Another argument in favor of redundancy is that if one digital copy becomes corrupted or inaccessible, another will be available. Having more than one digital copy also increases the chance that there will be a better copy among the duplicates. Although each of these claims has merit, there are also compelling reasons for sharing information and minimizing redundancies, not the least of which is to be able to attract funding by identifying unique content.

Given the concentration on speed and production efficiency for LSDIs and the volume of materials processed, it is not realistic to attempt to locate missing pages or replacements for torn ones. It is possible for a digital collections registry to maintain information about such incomplete files, so that they are earmarked for future action or at least documented in authenticity and provenance metadata. Ideally, such a registry could also track quality problems with images, metadata, and OCR files.

Rather than relying on LSDI libraries to register digitized content, it may be more effective for OCLC to work with Google, Microsoft, OCA, and MBP to automatically ingest and record such information, though it would be best to supplement that information with pointers to the university’s digital copies. OCLC is working with Google and Microsoft to synchronize WorldCat with digitization efforts.106 OCLC eContent Synchronization is designed to automatically create a record in WorldCat representing the digital manifestation.

5.8 Outline a Large-Scale Digitization Initiative Archiving Action Agenda

The most newsworthy aspect of the CIC’s June 2007 announcement that it would join the Google Book Search initiative107 was the consortium’s decision to create a shared repository to jointly archive and manage the domain content, including producing customized discovery portals to meet the needs of each institution’s user community. Although this model may not suit all LSDI institutions, it presents an option for those with limited resources or preservation programs.

In their survey of e-journal archiving, Kenney et al. concluded that academic libraries have been slow to address the vulnerability of e-journal literature because of competing priorities in their organizations and because of a lack of experience in collective and shared digital archiving.108 The report recommends that archiving programs that meet the standards and best practices be certified as trusted digital repositories (when certification is available) and that they provide compelling public evidence that they are equipped to manage collections. Similar principles will apply to a joint LSDI digital archiving program. The archiving program could be structured among libraries that are using a cooperative approach such as LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) or by a third-party archiving program similar to Portico.109 Analogous to the involvement of publishers in the LOCKSS and Portico efforts, it will be useful for Google and Microsoft to be brought into dialogues to jointly address the long-term viability of digitized materials. The e-journal archiving report also urges consideration of whether there should be a certification process to assess the ability and readiness of commercial partners to digitize the library collections.

Developing a common archival strategy is a complex process. Agreeing on key principles and endorsing a joint plan continues to be a stumbling block. A wide range of archival models and policies have been customized to individual institutions’ goals, resources, and content types; furthermore, diversity of preservation strategies allows the library community to experiment and select the best of the approaches. Possibilities for collaboration extend well beyond providing a common preservation repository. Effective collaboration might also include the following:

  • defining minimum digital preservation requirements necessary to ensure the persistence of digital materials and associated metadata files to facilitate shared storage and registry initiatives
  • working with IT groups within cultural institutions (such as theory centers, central IT units, academic technologies, computer science departments) to develop and manage shared large-scale storage systems
  • making data-redundancy arrangements among libraries for backup, or implementing other distributed and collaborative strategies such as LOCKSS
  • developing storage metrics to share configuration and cost information in standardized ways
  • supporting standards for storage-management interoperability
  • sharing open-source preservation applications and collaborating to develop access and preservation services as flexible and scalable components to be added to repository models supporting preservation activities
  • exploring usage trends created by the online availability of materials to assess how the 80/20 rule applies in the digital world and to consider how usage statistics can inform preservation decisions in support of priority setting and risk taking110
  • exploring how to incorporate risk assessment strategies in making and implementing preservation decisions, being sure to consider how preserving the analog books might affect the risk assessment strategies for the digital versions, and vice versa.111
  • creating a wiki (or a similar collaboration tool) to systematically distribute up-to-date information about preservation strategies implemented by different libraries
  • offering consultancies, workshops, and training sessions

5.9 Devise Policies for Designating Digital Preservation Levels

One of the findings of the Getty Research Institute survey was that, organizationally and financially, we cannot keep all digital content and preserve it at the same level of service and functionality. LSDI libraries must therefore determine the extent and type of their preservation efforts. Given that the library community is unlikely to have funds to redigitize the same content, digital books will inevitably be viewed as “insurance copies”—as backups for originals (regardless of the questions about quality). Because selection can be time-consuming and expensive; it is likely that the trend will be to preserve everything for “just-in-case” use.

There are two options with respect to preservation: (1) all files can be automatically preserved at the same level; or (2) metrics may be used to make a decision on the basis of the material’s perceived value and use. For example, storage-redundancy arrangements may be implemented only for content that is considered of high scholarly value. This topic is well worth exploring further by means of a risk analysis of cost-efficient preservation strategies for low-use content.

Finally, as cultural institutions explore assessing preservation levels based on perceived scholarly value, it is important to consider the implications of such decisions on the breakthroughs that result as scholars rediscover and repurpose information that has been long out of use. Judging the scholarly value of library materials is a complicated and subjective process; nevertheless, it will be a stimulating undertaking for the library community.

5.10 Capture and Share Cost Information

Some LSDI libraries indicate in their FAQs and press releases that their commercial partners are digitizing content at their own expense.112 It is true that digitization costs such as materials shipping, scanning, processing, OCR creation, and indexing are covered by commercial partners. However, staff members at participating libraries are supporting these initiatives by spending significant amounts of time negotiating, planning, overseeing, selecting, creating pick lists, extracting bibliographic data, pulling and reshelving books, and receiving and managing digital content. This is an exhausting and disruptive workflow, and its associated local expenses are significant.

Cornell University Library currently invests close to seven full-time equivalent staff (distributed among a total of 25 staff members) in managing LSDI-related tasks for digitizing 10,000 books a month. It is difficult to calculate a fixed cost because of individual factors that affect selection and material-preparation workflows and the varied physical environments at participating institutions. Different staffing configurations are also required for ramp-up versus ongoing processes. It is important to document and acknowledge all the expenses for all the partners associated with LSDIs. Often neglected or underestimated in cost analysis are the accumulated investments that libraries have made in selecting, purchasing, housing, and preserving their collections.

It is difficult to identify the proportion of participating library contributions in overall LSDI expenses. Moreover, because of varying estimates of digitization costs, it is impossible to forecast the digitization investments of participating commercial partners. A quick review of the literature reveals no consensus on metrics or factors for calculating all the costs involved in digitizing a book. For example, the CIC’s Google Initiative FAQ estimates the costs of digitization for the libraries before joining the Google program at about $100 per volume.113 The Internet Archive claims that its digitization process costs about 10 cents a page, or $30 for a 300-page book.114 These are not inclusive totals and may not include several pre- or post-processes.

One characteristic of LSDI agreements is that participating institutions maintain full rights over print materials that have been digitized. Faced with criticism about poor image quality, some institutions have suggested the possibility of rescanning the same content in the future—perhaps using institutional funds that would give them the freedom to set their own quality parameters. Is that a cost-effective, realistic alternative?

5.11 Revisit Library Priorities and Strategies

LSDIs have been unexpected and disruptive—at least for some of the participating libraries. The initiatives began at a time when research libraries were exploring their futures in light of developments such as Google’s search engine for information discovery and a growing focus on cyberinfrastructure and the structures that support data-intensive initiatives. Libraries have been increasingly pressured to focus digital preservation efforts on the unpublished and born-digital information domain, where preservation concerns are most urgent. It will be tricky to balance the need to preserve the digital versions of already-published analog materials with the growing need to focus on born-digital materials.

Likewise, it will not be easy to deal with multiple and sometimes competing priorities in regard to access-related library projects. Although research and practice show that users increasingly prefer digital information and services, academic and research libraries remain under pressure to continue traditional services.115 For example, recent user studies at Cornell indicate a growing demand for extended library hours. It is rare to hear about a service being eliminated in order to shift funds into a newly growing area. But the costs of processing and archiving new digital material may cause a significant shift in how funds are distributed among services at many libraries. It is important to try to define the LSDIs’ relative role within the broader scope of library activities and mid-term strategies.

5.12 Shift to an Agile and Open Planning Model

One virtue of LSDIs is that the contributing libraries are gaining experience in interacting and negotiating with commercial information organizations, which function very differently than do academic institutions. As John Voloudakis has noted, today’s need for faster responsiveness has introduced the “adaptive organization” strategic planning model for IT.116This model is characterized by an institutional focus on sensing and responding to the evolving environment as quickly as possible. In today’s fluid IT environment, traditional strategic planning and consensus models are unlikely to support the decision-making processes of research libraries. There will be increasing pressure for quick responses to opportunities and changes. It will also be essential that libraries develop scalable and flexible infrastructures that facilitate rapid execution. Equally important is learning to take calculated risks. The summary of discussions at Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006 notes that there are no “best practices” for digital preservation.117 Instead, there are merely “good-enough” solutions. Holding out for an ideal solution is often not feasible; moreover, implementing less-than-perfect solutions can enable institutions to be flexible, modular, and nimble so that they can continue to refine their strategies as new options become available.

5.13 Re-envision Collection Development for Research Libraries

In October 2005, Cornell University Library hosted the Janus Conference, a meeting at which participants explored the role and future of collection development in research libraries.118 Several recommendations came out of the conference. For example, conferees called for coordination of a mass digitization project to facilitate retrospective conversion of research library collections (complementing the Google initiative) and urged research libraries to put in place a network of digital repositories that operate according to certified standards. Conferees also endorsed the creation of regional print repositories.

Although the forum was instrumental in pooling ideas and energy, there has not been much progress in advancing the agenda. The issues raised during the Janus Conference continue to be critical in determining the future of research library collections.119 At the heart of many LSDI-related questions is the future direction for collection development programs in research libraries, and especially, how future selection and acquisition decisions will be shaped in the light of increased online content and worldwide access to core collections.


93 Burns and Williams present 10 principal image-quality attributes and represent current imaging science knowledge distilled to a simple form. See Peter D. Burns and Don Williams. 2007. “Ten Tips for Maintaining Digital Image Quality.” Pp. 16-22 in Archiving 2007. Final proceedings of conference held May 21-24, 2007, Arlington, Va. Springfield, Va.: The Society for Imaging Science and Technology.

94 The National Library of the Netherlands is investigating the advantages and disadvantages of using compression within a long-term preservation context. The goal is to compromise between the need for reducing storage costs and the requirements for digital preservation, suggesting a more realistic approach to the long-term storage challenge. See Judith Rog. 2007. “Compression and Digital Preservation: Do They Go Together?” Pp. 80-83 in Archiving 2007.

95 Excerpt from e-mail communication between the author and Don Williams, technical imaging consultant, standards and image quality, June 2007.

96 See Stephen Chapman, Laurent Duplouy, John Kunze, Stuart Blair, Stephen Abrams, Catherine Lupovici, Ann Jensen, Dan Johnston. 2007. “Page Image Compression for Mass Digitization.” Pp. 37-42 in Archiving 2007. See also Rog 2007, op cit.

97 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Mass Digitization: Implications for Information Policy. Report from Scholarship and Libraries in Transition: A Dialogue about the Impacts of Mass Digitization Projects. Symposium held March 10-11, 2006, at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Available at

98 The Digital Library Federation’s Distributed Open Digital Library initiative was launched in 2003 to pool existing digital library assets, resources, and services. In 2006, the initiative evolved into DLF Aquifer with a refined focus on promoting effective use of distributed digital library content for teaching, learning, and research in the area of American culture and life. The project specifically addresses the difficulty humanities and social science scholars face in finding and using digital materials located in a variety of environments with an array of interfaces and protocols. The project is funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. DLF Aquifer:

99 Don Waters’ comments are included in Richard K. Johnson, “Google’s Broad Wake: Taking Responsibility for Shaping the Global Digital Library.” ARL: A Bimonthly Report 250 (February 2007). Available at

100 Jack Lerner is a visiting clinical assistant professor at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) and acting director of the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic at USC. Jennifer Urban is clinical associate professor of law and director of the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic at Gould School of Law at USC.

101 OCLC/RLG Shared Print Collections Program:

102 The planning efforts involve identifying critical governance issues such as joint commitments to retain and provide continuing access to locally owned research collections. The goal is to establish a network of print repositories bound by explicit community agreements to long-term preservation and access. Institutions participating in the network would commit to disclosing retention and access policies for discrete collections (e.g., materials held in off-site storage facilities) and would gain priority access to the collectively maintained preservation collection. Locally redundant holdings might then be reduced or eliminated in light of aggregate holdings and shared preservation and access commitments. OCLC/RLG Shared Print Collections Program: North American Storage Trust:

103 Lizanne Payne. 2007. Library Storage Facilities and the Future of Print Collections in North America. Report commissioned by OCLC Programs and Research. Available at

104 DLF/OCLC Registry of Digital Masters:

105 According to an August 2007 e-mail message to the author from OCLC’s Susan Westberg, “the guidelines follow the basics of DLF digitization best practices, but whatever the institution chooses, to follow DLF standards or their own, they need to include a statement about or access to their digitization standards in the bibliographic record, to let other institutions determine whether or not those standards are high enough and objects don’t need to be digitized again.”

106 Author’s personal e-mail communication with Bill Carney, OCLC, August 2007.

107 CIC/Google Book Search Project: Frequently Asked Questions:

108 Anne R. Kenney, Richard Entlich, Peter B. Hirtle, Nancy Y. McGovern, and Ellie L. Buckley. 2006. E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. Available at

109 LOCKSS is open-source software that provides libraries with an efficient way to collect, store, preserve, and provide access to their own, local copy of authorized Web published content ( Examples of LOCKSS cooperative preservation projects (based on Private LOCKSS Networks) are available at The mission of Portico is to preserve scholarly literature published in electronic form and to ensure that these materials remain accessible to future scholars, researchers, and students. It offers a service that provides a permanent archive of electronic scholarly journals (

110 Cornell’s sampling of usage data for some of its digital collections showed that about 40 percent of the downloads are drawn from 20 percent of the collection. The initial sale statistics for Cornell digital books offered through Amazon’s print-on-demand option indicate that 13 percent of the titles have been ordered once or more. This is an early finding of sales with minimal marketing. However, every day there are new “first-time sales” of titles, indicating that aggregating supply creates demand even for unused library materials.

111 Risk assessment and management within the context of digital curation and preservation is described in the Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment toolkit, available at

112 The costs are across the board as both Google and Microsoft are including reimbursement provisions under nondisclosure agreements. According to the University of Michigan Library/Google Digitization Partnership FAQ, all costs related to pulling and reshelving materials are borne by Google. Often, information is concealed by the use of language; for example, Harvard’s FAQ states that “Google is bearing the direct costs of digitization” (see

113 CIC/Google Book Search Project: Frequently Asked Questions:

114 Barbara Quint. 2005. “Open Content Alliance Expands Rapidly; Reveals Operational Details.” Information Today, October 31. Available at

115 The New York University Library’s study of faculty and graduate student needs for research and teaching conclude that across disciplines there are widely differing expectations of the roles of the library. Many scholars still care deeply about the traditional roles of the library. Cecily Marcus, Lucinda Covert-Vail, and Carol A. Mandel. 2007. NYU 21st-Century Library Project: Designing a Research. Library of the Future for New York University. Available at

116 John Voloudakis. 2005. “Hitting a Moving Target: IT Strategy in a Real-Time World.” Educause Review 40(2) [March/April]. Available at

117 Christy E. Allen. 2006. “Foundations for a Successful Digital Preservation Program: Discussions from Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006.” RLG DigiNews 10(3) [June 15]. Available at

118 Janus Conference on Research Library Collections: Managing the Shifting Ground Between Writers and Readers. October 2005. Available at

119 Ross Atkinson. 2005. Introduction to the Break-Out Sessions: Six Key Challenges for the Future of Collection Development. Remarks delivered at the Janus Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., October 2005. Available at

Skip to content