![]() They pointed to efforts to include archiving clauses in licensing agreements. ![]() Virtually all expressed a lack of trust in publishers providing the solution, but many argued that publishers had to take on more responsibility. One-third of the directors expressed more concern about the preservation of digital content other than e-journals. One acknowledged that her institution’s willingness to support digital archiving stemmed from the losses caused by a devastating flood: “Natural disasters make people focus.” Another director indicated that 9/11 raised his level of concern: “Prior to that, I had scoffed at the idea that the Internet would break down and I wouldn’t have access to my journals restored in 24 hours.” Several directors who have committed to supporting e-journal archiving do so because they have experienced loss. ![]() Digital preservation is a “just-in-case scenario,” commented one director, “and this is very much a just-in-time operation.” Another noted, “Archiving is the last thing that gets taken care of because it’s the farthest thing out.” One director did assert that she would not want to gamble on what it would take to obtain access later if her institution did not invest now, likening that decision to not buying a book and waiting three years to see whether there was a demand for it. Some felt the sense of urgency as a vague concern rather than as an immediate crisis, and several were willing to defer action until a crisis point is reached. These directors were all aware of digital preservation as a major concern, but they differed on whether it was a priority for support and action. Three common themes emerged in the interviews: the sense of urgency, resource commitment and competing priorities, and the need for collective response. They also revealed some interesting opinions on the topic. The interviews helped refine the issues to be covered in our survey.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |