News – CESSDA Recognised for its contributions to Open Science best practices

“CESSDA [Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives] has been recognised in the new Horizon Europe Programme Guide and the Open Research Europe publishing platform for its contribution to Open Science practices. These recognitions highlight the importance of trusted repositories in Open Science practices, particularly in preserving and making research data accessible….”


Library unveils revamped digital repository | Georgia Tech Library

“Today the Library is proud to unveil its revamped digital repository to the Georgia Tech community. Visit to explore the site. 

The Georgia Tech Digital Repository collects, preserves, and expands access to the unique digital collections of immediate and long-term value to Georgia Tech and the global community. The site brings together scholarship, archives, and special collections and features persistent landing pages for Georgia Tech publications, authors, advisors, and units.

In addition, the revamped repository offers enhancements to support the Library’s open scholarship and digital archives offerings and functionality for integration with campus systems and data initiatives, including persistent identifiers….”

Library associations across Europe joint call for action on eBooks – Knowledge Rights 21

“National and other library associations from across Europe have signed a letter underlining the urgency to find ways to ensure that library users continue to be able to benefit from services in a digital world.

The letter highlights the traditional and essential support that libraries play in supporting education, research and access to culture while highlighting that current eBook models and licensing are undermining this….

It is essential to ensure that eBook markets work in ways that allow libraries to do their job and to fulfil their public interest responsibilities, within a clear legal framework. Working alternatives that currently exist rely on voluntary action by publishers, and do not provide full access.Government action is therefore necessary on all three of the following fronts:

Guarantees in law that libraries shall be able to acquire, preserve and electronically lend digitised analogue and born-digital works, such as eBooks, on the same basis as they lend physical works. This will enable more constructive negotiations between libraries and rightholders.

Work to ensure that eLending platforms operate in ways that work best for libraries, their users and authors. 

Aside from copyright reform and market regulation, support further investigation into the dynamics of eBook markets and their impacts on the achievement of public interest goals. This will also serve to inform wider cultural, education and research policies….”

David Roskies’ Yiddish literature archive now online – The Forward

“This week marked the official unveiling of a new, freely accessible Yiddish archive composed of previously unpublished teaching materials, scholarship, literature, notes and ephemera from the collections of Yiddish literature scholar David G. Roskies.

All Things Yiddish: The Lerer Roskes Archive is named after the affectionate Yiddish title given to Roskies by his students, Lerer Roskes, or “Teacher” Roskies. Sponsored by the Naomi Foundation, the online launch event was a chance for Roskies, alongside a panel of his peers, to introduce the archive and offer a digital tour of some of its contents. The event was moderated by the executive director of the Naomi Foundation, Lindsey Bodner….”

A thriving international community of digital preservation services built around LOCKSS open-source software – Digital Preservation Coalition

“LOCKSS stands for “Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe”. Many people in the international digital preservation community will recognize this as the name of the open source preservation software developed at Stanford University Library.

But did you know that LOCKSS is also shorthand for a community of varied distributed preservation services all operating on LOCKSS software? Sometimes called Private LOCKSS Networks or PLNs, these preservation services are: the Alabama Digital Preservation Network (ADPNet), Cariniana in Brazil, CLOCKSS, the MetaArchive Cooperative, the Michigan Digital Preservation Network (MDPN), the SAFE Archive Federation serving 7 universities in Europe and Canada, the US Digital Federal Depository Library Program which preserves government documents published on the US govinfo site (USDOCS), the CGI Preservation Network in Canada,, the Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network (PKP PN), and COPPUL’s WestVault. And just to make things a bit more confusing, it is also shorthand for the Global LOCKSS network which provides digital preservation services and a mechanism for building local collections of web-based scholarly open access publications in a wide array of academic libraries.

The general model is the same for each service in this community of preservation: multiple geographically distributed preservation nodes run the LOCKSS software, each uses a crawler to obtain a copy of the target content for preservation, then these are stored on servers participating in the LOCKSS polling and voting protocol to establish consensus on the authenticity and integrity of that content. When one of these servers detects damage to its preserved copy, it fetches repairs from the original source or from a proven peer.  

What varies greatly from one PLN to another are governance and policy matters: the users of the preservation network, the content that is in scope, who operates the service, who has access to the preserved content and under what circumstances, who provides financial backing for various kinds of costs, what services beyond preservation are provided (e.g. bibliographic metadata, usage reports, etc.)…”

Why journal papers are like cemetery plots | Scientist Sees Squirrel

“A few weeks ago I annoyed a lot of people by explaining how I think for-profit journals are like salmon. That post had a line suggesting that there are ways to make publishing cheaper – but not free (or close to it) because “publishing well costs money”. Today I’m going to pick up on that thought a little bit, and annoy a bunch more people by suggesting that journal papers are like cemetery plots.*


You see, there’s a subgenre of outraged objections to the cost of publishing that involves claims that publishing papers should be very close to free, because it costs almost nothing to take a manuscript, typeset it nicely, and post it on the web for all to read. And that’s true, but (I claim) irrelevant, and that’s where cemetery plots come in.

Cemetery plots are shockingly expensive. Per square metre, they’re one of the most expensive kinds of real estate one can buy. That’s because you aren’t just buying a very small piece of land (with a hole in it): you’re buying a small piece of a system that ensures the land is maintained and accessible in perpetuity. That involves property upkeep, not just this year and next but forever; it involves staff to arrange that; and staff to keep records; and much more….”

News article: For democracy, libraries and the right to knowledge* – Knowledge Rights 21

“In 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an important ruling, Judgment C-174/15, in response to a question from the Court of First Instance of The Hague on the use of e-books by libraries. The judgment, among other things, states: “There is no decisive reason to exclude, in any event, the lending of digital copies and intangible objects from the scope of Directive 2006/115 [the Rental and Lending Directive].“

Especially in the proposals of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, we find an excellent rationale: “Without the privileges which flow from a derogation from the exclusive lending right, libraries are therefore in danger of no longer being able to perpetuate, in the digital environment, the role which was always theirs in the era of printed books.“

As this shows, in the legal world, researchers, educators, and citizens recognize that the models for publishing and making knowledge and culture available in the new digital environment are problematic and systematically hinder people’s access to knowledge. Ultimately we are heading toward an luxury model of access to knowledge, which only those who can pay will access. For many, the only way out risks being either to give up, or less legitimate means. 

This should be a political priority. There’s a great debate about fake news, misinformation, and manipulation and how these issues can be addressed. But at the same time, the sources that can be used by public institutions (such as libraries) come with prohibitive cost and technological limitations. And herein lie crucial issues of democracy that politicians often overlook. During the pandemic, the need for scientists to immediately access data and information, studies, and research, to better address the situation and ultimately save more lives became apparent. The need for democratic participation in knowledge and culture becomes imperative.

Policymakers must move immediately towards adopting rules and practices that ensure that libraries can purchase, preserve and lend electronic and digital books while respecting authors’ rights, as they do for print publications. We need to create a democratic model of access to knowledge that serves people and societies.”

We need a plan D | Nature Methods

“Ensuring data are archived and open thus seems a no-brainer. Several funders and journals now require authors to make their data public, and a recent White House mandate that data from federally funded research must be made available immediately on publication is a welcome stimulus. Various data repositories exist to support these requirements, and journals and preprint servers also provide storage options. Consequently, publications now often include various accession numbers, stand-alone data citations and/or supplementary files.

But as the director of the National Library of Medicine, Patti Brennan, once noted, “data are like pictures of children: the people who created them think they’re beautiful, but they’re not always useful”. So, although the above trends are to be applauded, we should think carefully about that word ‘useful’ and ask what exactly we mean by ‘the data’, how and where they should be archived, and whether some data should be kept at all….

Researchers, institutions and funders should collaborate to develop an overarching strategy for data preservation — a plan D. There will doubtless be calls for a ‘PubMed Central for data’. But what we really need is a federated system of repositories with functionality tailored to the information that they archive. This will require domain experts to agree standards for different types of data from different fields: what should be archived and when, which format, where, and for how long. We can learn from the genomics, structural biology and astronomy communities, and funding agencies should cooperate to define subdisciplines and establish surveys of them to ensure comprehensive coverage of the data landscape, from astronomy to zoology….”

Press conference statement: Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive – Internet Archive Blogs

“The Internet Archive is a library I founded 26 years ago. This library has brought hundreds of years of books to the wikipedia generation, and now 4 massive publishers are suing to stop us….

Here’s what’s at stake in this case: hundreds of libraries contributed millions of books to the Internet Archive for preservation in addition to those books we have purchased. Thousands of donors provided the funds to digitize them.   

The publishers are now demanding that those millions of digitized books, not only be made inaccessible, but be destroyed.

This is horrendous.   Let me say it again– the publishers are demanding that millions of digitized books be destroyed.

And if they succeed in destroying our books or even making many of them inaccessible, there will be a chilling effect on the hundreds of other libraries that lend digitized books as we do….”