E-publishing in libraries: the [Digital] preservation

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives E-publishing in libraries: the [Digital] preservation imperative Heather Lea Moulaison A. J. Million

Downloaded by University of Missouri Columbia At 08:23 22 May 2015 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Heather Lea Moulaison A. J. Million , (2015),"E-publishing in libraries: the [Digital] preservation imperative", OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 87 98 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0009 Downloaded on: 22 May 2015, At: 08:23 (PT) References: this document contains references to 42 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 70 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Charlene N. Simser, Marcia G. Stockham, Elizabeth Turtle, (2015),"Libraries as publishers: a winning combination", OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 69-75 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-01-2014-0006 Somaly Kim Wu, Heather McCullough, (2015),"First steps for a library publisher: Developing publishing services at UNC Charlotte J. Murrey Atkins library", OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 76-86 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ OCLC-02-2014-0016 Kelly Riddle, (2015),"Creating policies for library publishing in an institutional repository: Exploring purpose, scope, and the library’s role", OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 59-68 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0007

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 191705 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm

E-publishing in libraries: the [Digital] preservation imperative

E-publishing in libraries

Heather Lea Moulaison and A.J. Million iSchool, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA


Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to, through an analysis of the current literature, explore the current state of the library e-publishing community and its approach to preservation. Libraries are increasingly proposing publishing services as part of their work with their communities, and recently, there has been a pronounced interest in providing electronic publishing (e-publishing) services. The library e-publishing community, however, has not systematically studied the need for the long-term preservation of the digital content they help create. Design/methodology/approach – Through a reflective analysis of the literature, this paper explores the context and the evolution of e-publishing as a trend that aligns with public library missions; in doing so, it also explores implications for digital preservation in the context of these new services and identifies gaps in the literature. Findings – Digital preservation is an important and worthwhile activity for library e-publishers; preservation of community-based author content cannot, however, be an afterthought and should be planned from the beginning. Future study should take into consideration the needs and expectations of community-based authors. Existing digital preservation guidelines also provide a point of reference for the community and researchers. Originality/value – This paper addresses the understudied area of the importance of digital preservation to library e-publishing. In doing so, it also investigates the role of the library in supporting community-based authors when e-publishing through the library.

87 Received 2 February 2014 Revised 14 March 2014 Accepted 14 March 2014

Keywords Public libraries, Library publishing, Digital preservation, Community-based authors, Library e-publishing Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Libraries are increasingly proposing publishing services as part of their work with their communities. Recently, there has also been a pronounced interest in providing electronic publishing (e-publishing) services (LaRue, 2012). E-publishing has the potential to provide a valuable service to community-based authors, who, in turn, enrich the community through their work. By sponsoring e-publication services, libraries are not only being faithful to their missions but also working to provide access to valuable material that, whatever the content or approach, is an important and irreplaceable part of the cultural heritage of the community. This conceptual paper argues that the digital preservation of unique, community-based content is also part of the mission of the library due to its interest in providing democratic access to content. Yet, cultural heritage content available in digital formats is vulnerable and, for this reason, must be a focus of particular attention. The library e-publishing community has not systematically addressed its role in the long-term preservation of digital content that it helps to create. Thorough an analysis of the current literature, this study demonstrates the need for reflective and systematic

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 31 No. 2, 2015 pp. 87-98 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X DOI 10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0009

OCLC 31,2


88

consideration for digital preservation in library e-publishing initiatives. We begin by exploring the context and the evolution of e-publishing as a trajectory for the library; in doing so, we also identify implications of these new services and gaps in the literature. Next, we describe the necessity of digital preservation, giving examples and identifying caveats. After a discussion based on the literature, we recommend both future courses of action for libraries to take to safeguard e-published content and future study to support that work. The library and democratic access to information Libraries have a mission to provide access to information to their user communities. Since the emergence of the World Wide Web, libraries have been challenged by the high prices publishers are charging for electronic materials. In academic libraries, an “increasing portion of a library collection […] is now comprised of licensed, not owned, electronic materials” (Fenton, 2008, p. 32). One recent way to promote equitable access to a broad cross-section of content is for libraries to become publishers in an attempt to control costs and access. The 2013 Library Publishing Toolkit (Brown, 2013) provides a collection of in-depth chapters for libraries interested in publishing. Since the turn of the millennium, university libraries have primarily expressed an interest in self-publishing; public libraries, however, were first interested in self-publishing as early as the 1970s (Perkins, 1978). Although vanity presses may have wielded the fatal blow to academic careers in the past (Savage, 2008), the broad value of self-publishing is increasingly being acknowledged. The evolution of self-publishing As an alternative to traditional publishing, self-publishing in the form of subsidy or vanity presses has been active for a number of years. Printing a run of books through vanity presses is an expensive proposition, however, and the Web now permits other, less-expensive models for self-publishing. Author services models, using print on demand, became popular in the early 2000s (Dilevko and Dali, 2006) and have provided a venue for self-publishers to print smaller runs of books successfully, allowing authors to “dispense with publishers in the traditional sense and become their own publishers” (Jobson, 2003, p. 20). Even more economical up-front are services like Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing (https://kdp.amazon.com) where e-books are published directly to the Amazon Kindle Store and authors retain 70 per cent of the royalties their books earn. These initiatives yield physical volumes that can be stored, under good conditions, for generations. Products of self-publishing have been generally considered to be inferior to traditionally published works due to the low quality of the content and the niche subject matter discussed (Dawson, 2008). The self-publishing model does not include some of the elements of traditional publishing, and, for example, would not necessarily support authors in the creation or editing of their work or in its subsequent marketing or distribution. Whereas traditional publishing vets authors, selecting only those with a proven track record and whose work is recognized to be of high quality, self-publishing has a low barrier to access. Huffman (2013) concedes that self-publishing may, under some circumstances, be like blogging or other Web-based publishing; the purpose of the publication, according to him, is what makes the difference. In terms of the subject matter, concern about the value of self-published books has also been voiced:


It’s safe to say that many of these titles are memoirs. Many are also regional titles, or books about a particular, very specific area of expertise. It’s also pretty safe to say that a large percentage of these titles are not of interest to anyone outside the writer’s immediate family (and arguably to them, either) (Dawson, 2008, p. 44).

Yet, calls for libraries to re-evaluate self-published works based on their increasing success (Dilevko and Dali, 2006) have been echoed by those interested in the business of niche markets (Anderson, 2006). Bowkers’s (2009) data indicate that two-thirds of books published were from nontraditional publishers (Bradley et al., 2012) and the 2011 data for 2010 indicated that “The output of non – traditional titles was eight times as great as the number of mainstream published books” (Bradley et al., 2011). These numbers may indicate a potential lessening of the self-publishing stigma, or they might be indicative of authors wishing for the control that self-publishing affords them. In terms of collections, self-published materials are being acquired in libraries. Dilevko and Dali (2006, p. 216) found that 57.6 per cent of public libraries and 22.5 per cent of university libraries held titles published by seven American self-publishers: AuthorHouse, Dorrance, iUniverse, Ivy House, PublishAmerica, Vantage Press and Xlibris. School library media specialists have also indicated their willingness to consider self-published materials for their collections (Glantz, 2013), but, at present, this has tended to imply physical copies. Public library as e-publisher? Standard publishing models generally require that copies of a textual work be printed. With the advent of e-readers and tablet computers, however, accessing electronic books has become commonplace, as library offerings of e-books attests. Amazon and others have been promoting author services for e-books and other electronic resources. Library work in the e-book publishing area remains new, with only one section of the Library Publishing Toolkit (Brown, 2013) focusing on the potential for e-publishing. Contributions to that section focus on a university e-press (Missingham and Kanellopoulos, 2013), describe workflows and models (Pressley, 2013) and report on a pilot project to create an ePub file for the university’s repository in an academic library (Bakker, 2013). Yet, offering e-publishing services is a logical and potentially economically sound method of providing needed publishing services to community-based authors. Public libraries have been increasingly promoting publishing as a kind of maker space service, allowing patrons the creativity to record “the story they have inside” (Potter, 2013). LaRue (2012, p. 34) has called for libraries to “Acquire the means of e-content production and management”, opening the door for libraries to become key partners in creating e-book content. Dawson (2008, p. 49) points out that, “for years, libraries have been making e-books available through Overdrive or NetLibrary, or ebrary, or other vendors. Adding self-published books to the mix really isn’t such a stretch”. As public libraries look to expand their services into e-publishing, however, the conversation must turn to digital preservation. At present, it has not. Digital content cannot be ignored for long periods of time, as print can be and must be actively managed if it remains accessible (Corrado and Moulaison, 2014). Work in academic libraries on the topic of digital preservation writ large has been done by Li and Banach (2011) with Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries in 2010. At that time, Li and Banach assessed the state of academic library preservation policies and initiatives. A


89

OCLC 31,2


90

review of the literature indicates that no similar work has been done investigating digital preservation in public libraries, especially in light of their potential commitment to community-based authors through e-publishing. Only one chapter in the Library Publishing Toolkit addresses digital preservation (McGlone, 2013). McGlone (2013) acknowledges the importance of digital preservation before describing some flavors of XML, but given the short length of the chapter he is not able to discuss digital preservation in depth. At present, therefore, there has been no in-depth assessment of the question of the digital preservation of electronic materials published by public libraries despite the imperative that digital preservation represents. Role of digital preservation Digital content is fragile (Li and Banach, 2011) – unlike most paper, if not properly organized, managed and stored, it will not be retrievable or usable over the long term. Digital media is also fragile due to its reliance on technology that can quickly become obsolete (Granger, 2000). APARSEN (Alliance Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe Network, 2013, p. 22) defines digital preservation as “a comprehensive set of lifecycle management and appraisal activities to ensure current and future use of digital assets”. Strategies for dealing with digital preservation are complex (Corrado and Moulaison, 2014), requiring more than backups to protect the bits and bytes over the long term (Breeding, 2012). Digital preservation involves a host of complicated decisions including the selection of materials to preserve, the technical elements to adopt and the ability to ensure sustainability of a project through rights management and funding. Digital preservation has been increasingly recognized as an essential aspect of the management of digital content throughout its life cycle; yet, not all content will necessarily be retained for preservation. Ideally, significant items will be retained and preserved after a thoughtful decision has been made; librarians will need to keep in mind that “the decision not to save unique documents is irrevocable” (Jimerson, 2003, p. 135). Items identified as having intrinsic value must be preserved (Westney, 2007). To facilitate the digital preservation of born-digital content, some of that work can and should include work with selected authors and producers of content to produce accurate metadata and to secure necessary rights (Corrado and Moulaison, 2014). Additionally, promoting sustainability through the selection of relevant, high-quality resources with lasting value to a given community of users will need to be a focus. Technical decisions will also need to be made. To preserve digital content, three strategies can be adopted by libraries that apply to e-publishing content – migration, refreshment and emulation (Jisc, 2014). Migration refers to moving digital files from one format to a newer format (e.g. CD-ROM to USB flash drive). Refreshment involves copying data onto a newer storage device of the same type (e.g. one hard drive to a newer hard drive). Last, emulation refers to the process of ensuring that outdated software can be run virtually on a different system. Although these techniques vary, libraries that opt to provide e-publishing services must consider how they apply in their local context, as well as to the fragile digital content provided by authors if they hope to effectively preserve material in the long-run. The mechanisms to preserve are complex, yet a robust community of researchers and practitioners has studied the technical, managerial and collection-based needs to support the long-term digital preservation of electronic content such as e-books. A wealth of national and international organizations promoting digital preservation exists


and can be used as authoritative resources for implementing digital preservation. Examples of organizations that support librarians and information professionals with their work in digital preservation include the US Library of Congress’ Digital Preservation portal (www.digitalpreservation.gov/), the UK’s Digital Curation Centre (www.dcc.ac.uk/) and the UK-based Digital Preservation Coalition (www.dpconline.org/). Moreover, the emergence of digital curation as an umbrella discipline “that includes digital preservation, data curation, electronic records management, and digital asset management” (Yakel, 2007, p. 335) highlights the interconnected nature of digital lifecycles with potential ramifications for e-publishing libraries. As mentioned, digital preservation requires a fair amount of advanced consideration. The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)’s OAIS Reference Model (2012, p. 31) requires as a mandatory responsibility that institutions obtain “sufficient control for preservation”. The three categories identified for sufficient control are: (1) control over legal restrictions on use (e.g. copyright); (2) authority to modify resources for technical aspects of preservation like migration; and (3) agreements with external organizations such as other libraries with e-publishing platforms. If digital preservation is not considered as a need up-front, e-books written by community-based authors and published by libraries cannot be assumed to remain accessible over the long term because these three criteria for sufficient control will not have been planned or met. Additional concerns for sustainability, including long-term funding and support, will also be concerns that libraries will need to consider but for which no turn-key solution exists. Self-publishing author motives and expectations Would community-based self-publishing authors be willing to hand over sufficient control to the library for preservation? One recent study has surveyed the motivations of self-publishing authors (Baverstock and Steinitz, 2013). Baverstock and Steinitz (2013, p. 215) find that when it comes to motivation to self-publish a work, “By far the most common reason was the desire for control. Respondents wanted to have the final say on the timeframe editing, design, production, distribution, and marketing”; although this research was not specific to library e-publishing, it is a good foundation for exploring motivations for embracing self-publishing models. At present, the question of author motivations in terms of control over rights necessary for long-term digital preservation remains unanswered. Additional research studies of library users should also be carried out as libraries work to understand if copyright, formats or interoperability concerns on the part of community-based authors might adversely affect their ability to preserve content over the long term. Other work assessing self-publishing author motivations has been largely anecdotal in nature. Patrick (2012) interviewed two users of the self-publishing model who wanted the control that self-publishing initially offered, then subsequently re-published their books successfully with the Amazon Encore imprint. Dilevko and Dali (2006) feel that established authors may find author services publishing models appealing if they wish to try writing new genres. Anderson (2006) notes that self-publishing authors are not generally professional authors responsible for blockbuster sales; instead, he surmises


91

OCLC 31,2


92

they keep their day jobs and write because they want to write, not for the money. Librarian Tennant (2011), disillusioned with aspects of the traditional publishing industry, has also advocated self-publishing. When authors publish, they participate in the marketplace of ideas. Due to the size of the publishing industry and to restrictions on the kinds of writers that will be published, local voices may not be heard if they opt to rely on large national publishers. Author motivations in the library e-publishing environment, however, remain understudied, as does knowledge about public library users’ understanding about implications for the long-term preservation of e-books. Public library users, when surveyed by Copeland (2011, p. 1295) on their personal information management practices concerning digital preservation, “lacked specific knowledge regarding which storage devices/locations or file formats were considered best for providing long-term access to digital content”. How best can public libraries position themselves to serve the immediate needs of patrons wishing to self-publish while also supporting the need for digital preservation that their work represents? Library support of access E-publishing libraries have an obligation to take responsibility for the digital preservation of the content they assist in producing as a way of supporting their communities and promoting democratic access to locally created content. Scott (2011, p. 191) outlines five ways that libraries build communities by arguing: (1) libraries serve as a conduit to access information and to learn; (2) libraries encourage social inclusion and equity; (3) libraries foster civic engagement; (4) libraries create a bridge to resources and community involvement; and (5) libraries promote economic vitality within the community. Mass-market publications have historically dominated national markets inundating readers with content from major publishers. While this content may be of high quality and, while small-market publishers also exist, this approach is not entirely in keeping with democratic values because it crowds out or excludes local voices. Vanity presses and author services also tend to be for-profit companies which present another barrier to publication. Library publishing offers a means by which to overcome these challenges by democratizing the publishing process in a way that caters to the needs of local communities. Moreover, doing so also neatly aligns with the ideals already embraced by many libraries as well as the American Library Association (ALA, 2004). Mass-market publishing also has a tendency to alienate communities and authors from their own work. Because of the difficulty of being accepted by a major publisher, few, if any, publications are picked up regarding topics of regional interest. When they are, the process necessarily removes the author from production, thanks to its large scale. And, of course, most vanity publishers instead charge a fee presenting yet another barrier to publish. In either case, however, an author’s desire to write for writing’s sake, to control the publication process, guarantee publication and to experiment will not be met. Those wishing to publish are forced to accept these conditions and in return will find themselves alienated from their labor or simply not able to find their work in print. Libraries, it seems, can fill a void in the publishing market by offering self-publishing


services to individuals who are disillusioned with the publishing industry but still want to publish their work in some form. Ultimately, more research will need to be done in this area, but based on this article’s analysis, a series of recommendations, both theoretical and practical, can be made in support of public libraries wishing to explore an e-publishing service while also preserving content. Libraries are not alone in considering unpublished works for inclusion in their collections. Archives have been addressing related notions for centuries in their work with unique manuscripts. Although libraries are well-schooled in collection development, library-published e-books may not be as readily evaluated for selection as traditionally published materials. Accordingly, the archival notion of appraisal, a notion associated with managing records (Craig, 2004), is a useful and relevant concept to explore in the library e-publishing context. Appraisal is the: […] process of establishing the value of documents made or received in the course of the conduct of affairs, qualifying that value, and determining its duration. The primary objective of appraisal is to identify the documents to be continuously preserved for an unlimited period of time (Duranti, 1994, p. 329).

The question of appraisal ties in to the assessment of content for digital preservation since not everything can or should be saved (Harvey, 2007). Selection, a related idea necessary for assessment, is “the process of deciding what items or resources will be added to a library’s collection” (Harvey, 2007, p. 31). Combined, appraisal and selection work will determine which content should be preserved for use by the repository’s end-user and for how long that content should be made available. Discussion: the preservation imperative This article contends that digital preservation needs to be planned up-front as library e-publishing initiatives are being explored. Digital preservation is an ongoing effort, not a one-time concern. For it to be effective into the future, there needs to be advance considerations for sustainability. Based on the review of the literature, two primary sustainability-related concerns are the following: (1) the required infrastructure in the library to manage the technology in terms of human resources and technological resources; and (2) the rights of community-based authors. We explore each below in turn, and then situate the importance of digital preservation of e-publications within the mission of the library. Digital preservation is complex, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not available due to the uniqueness of each organization, community of users, staff and technology. Although best practices have been developed around some of the routine aspects of digital preservation, including the selection of file formats, other elements remain unexplored or understudied. As library e-publishers move forward, they will need to consider issues of sustainability that will drive both human resources and technological resources. Libraries will have to consider whether, for example, they will charge a fee for e-publishing initiatives. Fees could defray future preservation costs if the digital objects are selected to be maintained on-site, or could support outsourcing the digital preservation to a third-party vendor.


93

OCLC 31,2


94

For long-term access to be ensured, community-based author rights need to be secured. Best practices must be developed in the library e-publishing community that will permit authors to understand their rights and libraries to protect and, if applicable, share these works indefinitely. Rights permitting libraries to be stewards of the content into the future need to be secured at present. Not only the ability to migrate file formats depends on it but also the ability to use the content. Metadata about the author and the content need to be collected from the author as part of the publication process as a way of ensuring retrieval at a later point in time. All of this, of course, needs to be done with respect for the community-based author and for the good of the community of users in mind. As a call to arms, this article entreats upon librarians to take seriously the preservation imperative throughout the life cycle of the digital object but also as a basic component of the e-publishing initiative they are building in support of their mission. It challenges librarians to assess and appraise content for long-term inclusion in their collections. Digital preservation is a parallel initiative, not an afterthought, and it requires resources, infrastructure and policy to support its sustainability (Corrado and Moulaison, 2014); it is therefore necessary to plan for it from the very beginning. Recommendations All libraries should resolve to preserve locally created digital content, including e-books, as part of their mission, and should make digital preservation a priority when undertaking any e-publishing initiative. Due to their work with community-based authors, public libraries have a particular obligation to preserve fragile digital heritage content they help in creating and in preserving content, according to policies, for future use. By promoting e-publishing, libraries enable their communities to preserve their heritage in unique and authentic ways. Both in theory and in practice, libraries should work to provide preservation and access to unique content based on community and user expectations. Practically speaking, libraries need to plan to assume to make arrangements for sufficient control of the digital preservation of content they wish to preserve. First, librarians will need to develop methods for appraising and selecting materials with intrinsic and long-term value. The preservation responsibilities they take on will require them to think ahead and to work with not only their authors but also with like-minded institutions serving as e-publishing outlets for their communities or for other user groups. Libraries should also determine activities that will allow them to adopt the three preservation strategies mentioned earlier (Jisc, 2014). If public libraries lack the in-house expertise in or financial support for digital preservation initiatives, they should be prepared to outsource their materials for long-term digital preservation. Reinhardt et al. (2014) have show that it is also possible for small to mid-sized libraries to carry out digital preservation given collaboration and administrative buy-in. Author contracts are not a new concept in library publishing (Field, 1979). By including this option up-front in the fee-structure and making digital preservation an essential element of the contractual agreements presented to community-based authors, libraries can pave the way to assuring perpetual access to the content they are helping to create. If choosing to outsource the digital preservation, Portico (www.portico.org) is a particularly promising service. Although its reputation is for preserving electronic journal content, Portico, in fact, is currently also preserving archival material, e-books, images, video files and


audio files (Facts and Figures, 2014, §Content Facts & Figures). The Internet Archive (https://archive.org/) provides access to texts, videos and audios. Public libraries should be prepared to make a case for inclusion of their materials in these repositories as part of their policies in support of their mission. Additionally, although the present analysis has focused primarily on textual resources, public libraries may envision e-publication of audio or audio/visual files that also tell stories. In these instances, librarians should seek to apply the mandatory responsibilities as they would with print, being careful to follow archival best practices and standards. Future study Future study in the area of library e-publishing must focus on two areas: (1) the needs of community-based authors who e-publish; and (2) the library as a digital preservation unit supporting author creations. It is a mistake to consider only the technical aspects of library e-publishing without considering the long-term potential, both in terms of the content being created and the wishes of the authors. Libraries should therefore continue to discover the motivations of community-based authors to ensure that providing author and publishing services fits their needs. What are the goals of e-publishing community members? Do they publish for themselves, their family or to have their story be shared on a national and potentially even international scale? Differing motivations will color approaches libraries take to preservation. With an understanding of the needs of users in mind, libraries will need to study the best mechanisms for retaining, preserving and potentially making available the publications they have supported. Strategies were mentioned earlier; however, specific means to ensure content migration, refreshment and emulation need to be identified in the context of author needs. Additional study might also focus on ancillary topics not explored in this article. One question to be answered might be how these e-publications are used and by whom. Are community members consulting them? Are researchers? Also, with community-based authors approaching libraries with content, there is a question of how this inversion of the acquisitions process might affect collections, acquisitions and budgeting. Technical questions concerning best practices for the e-books can also be explored, as the materials need to be accessible by both authors and library patrons. Is there an easy way to port bibliographic data from these files into the library’s online catalog? Finally, costing models need to be explored in conjunction with fee structures – both for the initial creation of the e-book but also for use by other libraries or potentially even for its sale in online e-book marketplace environments like Amazon. Is there an optimal fee structure that will provide enough money for the library to preserve the material indefinitely while being reasonable and enticing for community-based authors? Conclusion Libraries are rising to the challenge of publishing, but when publishing electronic content, care must be taken to act responsibly. Libraries must consider not only the immediate issues at hand, including technological and personnel-related, but they must also consider the gravity of their obligation to their authors and to their communities to contribute, in a lasting way, to the cultural record and the preservation of memory.


95

OCLC 31,2


96

Digital preservation must be considered from the very beginning in any e-publishing initiative developed by libraries, and careful and systematic planning based on that work must follow. References American Library Association (2004), “Core values of librarianship”, available at: www.ala.org/ advocacy/intfreedom/statementspols/corevalues (accessed 15 January 2014). Anderson, C. (2006), The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, Hyperion, New York, NY. APARSEN: Alliance Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe Network (2013), D36.1 Business Preparedness Report, APARSEN-REP-D36_1-01-1_0, 28 February, available at: www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/03/ APARSEN-REP-D36_1-01-1_0.pdf Bakker, C. (2013), “Embarking on e-books: establishing an e-publishing pilot project”, in Brown, A. (Ed.), Library Publishing Toolkit, IDS Project Press, pp. 133-142, available at: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/19528/1/LPT_Web.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Baverstock, A. and Steinitz, J. (2013), “Who are the self-publishers?”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 211-223. Bradley, J., Fulton, B. and Helm, M. (2012), “Self-published books: an empirical snapshot”, The Library Quarterly, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 107-140. Bradley, J., Fulton, B., Helm, M. and Pittner, K.A. (2011), “Non-traditional book publishing”, First Monday, Vol. 16 No. 8, available at: http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/ 3353/3030 (accessed 1 February 2014). Breeding, M. (2012), “From disaster recovery to digital preservation”, Computers in Libraries, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 22-25. Brown, A. (Ed.) (2013), Library Publishing Toolkit, IDS Project Press, available at: http:// d-scholarship.pitt.edu/19528/1/LPT_Web.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2012), Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS): Recommended Practice CCSDS 650.0-M-2; Recommendation for Space Data System Practices, Magenta Book, Recommended Practice, No. 2 CCSDS Secretariat, Washington, DC, June, available at: http://public.ccsds.org/ publications/archive/650x0m2.pdf (accessed 30 January 2014). Copeland, A. (2011), “Analysis of public library users’ digital preservation practices”, Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 1288-1300. Corrado, E.M. and Moulaison, H.L. (2014), Digital Preservation for Libraries, Archives, and Museums, Scarecrow Press, Lantham, MD. Craig, B. (2004), Archival Appraisal: Theory and Practice, KG Saur, München. Dawson, L. (2008), “The role of self-publishing in libraries”, Library Trends, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 43-51. Dilevko, J. and Dali, K. (2006), “The self-publishing phenomenon and libraries”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 208-234. Duranti, L. (1994), “The concept of appraisal and archival theory”, The American Archivist, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 328-344. Facts and Figures (2014), “Portico”, available at: www.portico.org/digital-preservation/thearchive-content-access/archive-facts-figures#page-1554 (accessed 30 January 2014).


Fenton, E.G. (2008), “Responding to the preservation challenge: portico, an electronic archiving service”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 31-40. Field, R. (1979), “The library as publisher”, Library Association Record, Vol. 81 No. 8, pp. 383-385. Glantz, S. (2013), “Do self-published books have a place in your library?”, Library Media Connection, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 20-21. Granger, S. (2000), “Emulation as digital preservation strategy”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 10, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/granger/10granger.html Harvey, R. (2007), “Instalment on ‘appraisal and selection’”, Curation Reference Manual, DCC, available at: www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-reference-manual/completed-chapters/ appraisal-and-selection Huffman, B.R. (2013), “Self-publishing digital books: options, considerations, and insights”, AALL Spectrum, Vol. 17 No. 6, available at: www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Publications/spectrum/ Spectrum-Online/self-publishing.html (accessed 1 February 2014). Jimerson, R.C. (2003), “Archives and manuscripts: deciding what to save”, OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 135-140. Jisc (2014), An Introduction to Digital Preservation, available at: www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/ guide/an-introduction-to-digital-preservation (accessed 5 March 2014). Jobson, E. (2003), “Digital printing: current and future applications”, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 20-30. LaRue, J. (2012), “All hat, no cattle”, Library Journal, Vol. 137 No. 13, pp. 32-33. Li, Y. and Banach, M. (2011), “Institutional repositories and digital preservation: assessing current practices at research libraries”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 17 Nos 5/6, available at: www.dlib. org/dlib/may11/yuanli/05yuanli.html (accessed 14 January 2014). McGlone, J. (2013), “Preserving and publishing digital content using XML workflows”, in Brown, A. (Ed.), Library Publishing Toolkit, IDS Project Press, pp. 97-108, available at: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/19528/1/LPT_Web.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Missingham, R. and Kanellopoulos, L. (2013), “A decade of change: running a university e-press”, in Brown, A. (Ed.), Library Publishing Toolkit, IDS Project Press, pp. 121-126, available at: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/19528/1/LPT_Web.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Patrick, D. (2012), “When Amazon calls: two self-published authors reflect”, Publishers Weekly, Vol. 259 No. 1, pp. 24-25. Perkins, J.W. (1978), “The public library as publisher”, Library Journal, May, pp. 1031-1032. Potter, S. (2013), “The woodneath library”, presentation to University of Missouri Library and Information Science Graduate Student Association, 3 August. Pressley, K. (2013), “Client-driven workflows and publishing models”, in Brown, A. (Ed.), Library Publishing Toolkit, IDS Project Press, pp. 127-132, available at: http://d-scholarship.pitt. edu/19528/1/LPT_Web.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Reinhardt, A., Prud’homme, P. and Huot, A. (2014), “Overwhelmed to action: digital preservation challenges at the under-resourced institution”, OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 28-42. Savage, W. (2008), “The transom vanity fare”, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 428-434. Scott, R. (2011), “The role of public libraries in community building”, Public Library Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 191-227.


97

OCLC 31,2


98

Tennant, R. (2011), “The scam of edited collections”, The Digital Shift, 19 December, available at: www.thedigitalshift.com/2011/12/roy-tennant-digital-libraries/the-scam-of-editedcollections/ (accessed 14 January 2014). Westney, L.C. (2007), “Intrinsic value and the permanent record: the preservation conundrum”, OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5-12. Yakel, E. (2007), “Digital curation”, OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-340. Further reading Lefevre, J. and Huwe, T. (2013), “Digital publishing from the library: a new core competency”, Journal of Web Librarianship, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 190-214. Mid-Continent Public Library (2012), Mid-Continent Library Woodneath Campus: Campus Master Plan, available at: www.mymcpl.org/_uploaded_resources/Woodneath_Master_ Plan_-_Finala.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014). Corresponding author Heather Lea Moulaison can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]