preservation

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

We, at BioMed Central, would fully agree with Steve. Additionally, we
ourselves have taken steps to secure archiving of whatever we publish with
open access, in various public open access repositories from where the
articles can also be freely accessed at no cost. Currently these
repositories/archives are PubMed Central, Potsdam University, INIST
France, and the Dutch National Royal Library. The latter is not just a
repository, but is taking an important leading role in committing publicly
to the active preservation of the material, including its future
transposition to new formats when and if necessary.

In order to facilitate any such future transposition, as part of our
publishing efforts we code the material in XML, which is seen by experts
as a most 'future-proof' electronic format.

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Hitchcock [mailto:sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 October 2003 16:18
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: a preservation experience 
> 
> 
> The lesson of this example is that authors should always additionally
> deposit a copy of their published papers in an institutional archive. 
> This is also known as author *self*-archiving, in other words, under the
> author's and institution's control. I would not expect any properly
> conceived, properly managed institutional archive, with full 
> institutional backing, to delete or lose any paper once accepted into 
> the archive. By doing this the author gets all the benefits of OAI 
> search as well as Google and the Wayback Machine, etc., and is 
> effectively participating in a mini-LOCKSS scheme (multiple copies).
> 
> Steve Hitchcock
> Email: sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk