[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: EPA Set to Close Library Network and Electronic Catalog [PMC and digital preservation thread]

I don't think anyone can say NLM isn't serious about digital 
preservation. An article on PMC in the ARL Bimonthly Report,

http://www.arl.org/newsltr/228/pubmed.html, shows that PMC began 
archiving journal source files in 2000. NLM was probably the 
first to do this effectively in practice.

Further, NLM's journal archiving DTD has been adopted by Portico 
as well as by Blackwell, Wiley and NPG as the interchange medium 
for their journal archives.

NLM is now making sure it isn't an exclusive archive by actively 
helping to create other international archives that will use 
PMC's technology. The UKPMC project (being led by the Wellcome 
Trust, but developed in partnership with a number of 
UK-biomedical research funding bodies) is an example of this, and 
I understand that there are several others in the works.

Robert Kiley
Head of e-strategy
Wellcome Library
Wellcome Trust

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Peter Banks
Sent: 24 February 2006 00:51
To: matt@biomedcentral.com; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: EPA Set to Close Library Network and Electronic Catalog

No, one should not boycott PMC--simply don't trust it as the
*only* or even primary repository of biomedical literature.

Leave aside the considerable problem of NLM funding being subject 
to the whims of an administration that has accumulated a massive 
deficit and keeps huge war expenditures off budget.

Even if funding could be counted on in the face of skyrocketing 
federal debt, PMC is not a preservation initiative in any real 
sense. It exists to make the current literature (or at least a 
bastard stepchild version of it) freely available. It is designed 
for the wide presentation of literature, not for its long-term 
preservation. Preservation requires either a system like LOCKSS, 
which enables libraries to store a local copy of authorized 
content, or Portico, which stores true source files.

PMC does not begin to tackle the critical issue of digital
preservation, and it should not be counted on to do so.

Peter Banks
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> matt@biomedcentral.com 02/22/06 3:41 PM >>>

By that logic, should publishers not also boycott the Library of 
Congress - another 'potentially unstable' federal institution?

The fact is, no organization (federal, corporate, or 
not-for-profit) can offer a perfect guarantee of preservation. 
That is all the more reason why a belt-and-braces approach is a 
good idea, and why accusations that PubMed Central constitutes 
'wasteful duplication' are misplaced. PubMed Central has an 
important role to play in digital preservation, but it is 
certainly not an obstacle to other preservation initiatives - in 
fact it facilitates them.

Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
BioMed Central ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/ )
London UK
Email: matt@biomedcentral.com