Report of the Task Force on Collaborative Strategies for Archiving of Print in the Digital Environment (PAG)

Developing a “Copy of Record”: ARCHIVING PILOT PROJECT FOR


Report of the
Task Force on Collaborative Strategies
for Archiving of Print in the Digital Environment

February 2, 2000
Revised by SOPAG, 2/25/00
This Report was discussed and accepted with revisions by SOPAG. Although
specific recommendations were not approved, they, as well as the considerable
information contained within the report, will be used in subsequent planning .


Table of Contents



The Concept of Archiving Print Copies


Principles for Archiving Print Copies

Copy of Record

Campus Retention & Withdrawal Decisions

Implementation Issues

Future Directions




Appendix A: Archiving Responsibilities Assumed by the National Libraries
Appendix B: Test of JSTOR Pilot Project and Survey of JSTOR Holdings in the RLFs



In June of 1999, the Task Force on Collaborative Strategies for Archiving of Print in the Digital Environment was constituted by SOPAG and given the following charge:

Given the present characteristics of the collections and anticipated patterns of acquisitions in both print and digital formats, how should our strategies for archiving print material change in order to sustain the archival function of the UC Libraries in the most cost-effective fashion?

The charge to the Task Force is to address this question by:

  • Identifying and analyzing a limited number of alternative strategies for archiving print material;
  • Recommending a range of specific actions that the University Libraries could consider and adopt over the next year or two to assess the viability of the preferred alternatives identified by the group.
  • In preparing recommendations for action, the Task Force should consider, as appropriate:

The Task Force submits the following report in response to this charge.

    • cost issues
    • logistical issues
    • staffing issues



Technological advances in the area of electronic publishing and textual scanning have given the Libraries of the University of California the opportunity to take advantage of new forms of access to collections. This opportunity is created by the increasing number of journals and books available on the Web and other electronic means and allows us to reexamine the use of print collections in research libraries. The increasing availability of serial runs in electronic format will mean access to the text is readily available without using the paper copy.

Concurrent with the increase in electronic materials, the University’s valuable print collections are facing a serious two-pronged problem: lack of shelf space to accommodate them and deterioration due to heavy use and embrittlement. This proposal suggests a means of dealing with both problems.

Fortunately, the presence in electronic format of the text of many journals suggests a solution to both of these problems by providing access to the text and giving libraries the option to de-accession some of their print collection materials from their stacks. In order for this scenario to work, two factors must be assured. 1) The electronic version must be verified as a valid substitute for the print version, especially in the Science/Technology/Engineering/Medicine fields.
2) The UC Libraries need to ensure that one or two archived print runs are available as a backup for the electronic version and for use when access to the print original is indispensable. These “Copies of Record” (CoRs) would be available as a systemwide resource of benefit to all.

The key question for many libraries becomes one of whether they can trust that the RLF copy is in good condition and complete so they may safely withdraw their copies. The challenge is to ensure that the UC System has archived a print publication in good condition.

In considering the recommendations in this report, it is important to focus on the long-range benefits to the University of California system as a whole, rather than just on the individual component campuses of that system.

The Concept of Archiving Print Copies

It is important to retain print copies of library materials for many reasons. Among such reasons are:

  • scholars may need to work with the print rather than the virtual copy;
  • virtual copies may not display completely or properly to everyone;
  • “digital archives are more vulnerable than their paper counterparts. Not only do both computer hardware and software quickly become obsolete, but the durability of magnetic storage media, like tapes and disks, is limited” (Books to Bytes: The Electronic Age – Article NT Times 9 April 1999);
  • if the publisher or company that is providing the digital information goes out of business, or if their servers crash for an extended period, we need to have a print back-up available;
  • frequently, the University leases, rather than owns, the digital versions it uses – it can, thus, be vulnerable to a variety of disputes or complications that may cause an interruption or cessation to our access to the digital material;
  • print copies are immediately readable to human beings.

However, paper copies are vulnerable to such problems as embrittlement, physical damage, marking, theft, etc. It is therefore important to make a distinction between use copies and archival copies. Use copies are, ultimately, expendable because unless they are given preservation treatment and/or held in a Special Collections like environment, they will become ruined or heavily damaged. An “archival” copy, on the other hand, is intended for indefinite retention and availability. In order for a print copy to be considered “archival” certain specific requirements must be met. These requirements are designed to keep the volumes in usable condition for as long as possible. These requirements are described in the “Principles for archiving print copies” section below.




The Task Force recommends that the University Libraries develop a pilot project for archiving Copies of Record for print materials based on the principles and points listed below. This pilot project will test the viability of the recommended policies and procedures and provide information for the future expansion of the program. The initial focus of the project will be on archiving the print materials for which an electronic version already exists. However, we believe that the principles delineated here are appropriate for all print materials collected by the University and deemed worthy of retention for the research and scholarly purposes of the University.

Principles for Archiving Print Copies:

There are several important features of a program to ensure that the UC system has archived print copies in good condition. We will refer initially to serial runs, but many of the same principles can be applied to monographs.

The basic requirements of an archival program should include the following elements.

  • The serial run must be as complete as possible.
  • The issues in the run must be as complete as possible.
  • The paper in the in the run must be in good condition.
  • The volumes must be stored in proper environmental conditions.
  • Primary access to the text of the materials is through the electronic version.
  • Ideally, there should be two copies of each serial run archived in geographically separate regions of the state.

The Serial Run must be as Complete as Possible

In a cooperative mode and within the concept of “one university, one library”, the individual campus libraries need to work together to assemble complete runs of serial backfiles in good condition that will serve as the archival copy of record for all UC campuses. This goal may be achieved in a number of ways:

  • Campus libraries may contribute to the building of the complete journal runs, so that the greater good of the University, its patrons, and its researchers can be served.
  • A preservation microfilm copy of the title may be made or, a commercially available microfilm copy may be acquired. The production of a preservation microfilm copy entails making a master negative, a print negative and a positive use copy under preservation microfilming guidelines. The money for this effort should come from a University wide source.
  • Complete runs of the Copy of Record may include preservation-photocopied pages or issues.
  • Reprints and/or preservation photocopies of volumes are acceptable, often preferable, alternatives to originals.

The Issues in the Run Should be as Complete as Possible

Individual issues and volumes must be complete – i.e., no missing pages or issues. The pages of the volumes must be intact and not damaged. It is desirable that the binding of the volumes is in good condition, but this feature is not essential. Missing pages should be replaced and damaged pages mended in order to be considered complete.

The Paper in the Run must be in Good Condition

The oldest issues of some serials will have paper that has become brittle. Brittle paper is not able to withstand handling. Therefore, steps may need to be taken to stabilize the material (perhaps through deacidification) or microfilming the volumes if they are so brittle that they are in danger of disintegrating.

The Volumes Must be Stored in the Best Environmental Conditions Possible

The Northern and Southern Regional Library Facilities have been specifically constructed for storing library materials under environmentally controlled conditions. They suggest themselves as the most logical location for the majority of the CoRs. However, it is not out of the question to consider individual campus libraries as the storage locations for the CoRs under special circumstances.

Primary Access through the Electronic Version

Once the copies have been assembled, cared for, and stored, primary access to their text should be through available electronic versions. By relying on the electronic versions of the archived journals, the University will be better able to preserve the print copies by limiting use and handling. Naturally, the print versions will be available to scholars for whom electronic access is not sufficient for their work.

Ideally, There should be two Copies of Each Serial Run Archived in the University

Whenever possible, two complete copies in good condition need to be assembled, one in the NRLF and the other in the SRLF. This tactic provides for the concept of redundancy for these important materials and contributes to ensuring their availability for future generations by minimizing their vulnerability to disasters and to heavy wear and tear.

Copy of Record

Once these conditions (principles) are met, the title shall be designated the “Copy of Record” (CoR) and stored at an RLF. The CoRs will be available as a systemwide resource for the benefit of all.

These Copies of Record ensure that print copies are available as a backup for the electronic version, for use when the electronic version is incomplete, and when access to the print original is indispensable.

Campus Retention and Withdrawal Decisions

Individual campuses will rely voluntarily on the archived copy in making their own collection management decisions

Once the Copies of Record have been established, whether or not individual campuses withdraw some or all of their own volumes from their local collections is entirely a matter of local choice based on local conditions and needs. The mission of the Program will be to create a situation in which the local campus can, with confidence, withdraw volumes from their own stacks. They will know that there will be readily accessible electronic versions of the text available and there will be archived copies of record available as backups to the electronic versions. The CoR will thus be a shared resource of benefit to the entire UC system.

Implementation Issues:

In order for the Copy of Record program to work, there are several implementation features that must take place. They are:

  • Adequate new funding
  • Appropriate organizational structure
  • Hiring new staff
  • Identification of the titles to be included in the program
  • Expanding the role of the RLFs
  • Ensuring the good physical condition of the volumes
  • Record keeping
  • Training programs in the use of electronic versions

Adequate New Funding

In order for a program of this magnitude to function, it cannot simply be absorbed as part of the workload of existing staff. It needs to be seen as an important University priority and funded as such. As the program begins and grows, it needs to be able to rely on sufficient resources to perform its mission. The types of tasks performed by the staff over the years will change, but initially, there will be a great need for staff to identify and evaluate existing serial runs in the RLFs that are candidates for the program. Then the staff will have to evaluate the condition of these runs and identify possible sources to complete them. They will also have to be able to perform whatever care and maintenance tasks may be necessary to care for the archived copy and, under certain circumstances, undertake preservation microfilming or deacidification procedures. All this effort requires steady, secure, and on-going programmatic funding both for staff and for the repair, microfilming, deacidification and other functions as well.

Appropriate Organizational Structure

The Task Force recommends that CoR Project Offices be established at each of the Regional Library Facilities. These offices will have primary responsibility for identifying the titles to be considered for the program, for coordinating gathering them, for supervising preparing them for storage, and for storing them. Additionally, each individual campus needs to designate one or more contact persons to work with the CoR Project Office personnel to put together the serial runs identified for the program.

CoR project personnel will identify the existing holdings in the RLFs for the materials selected for archiving. They will examine them to assure that they are in good condition and undertake any necessary preservation measures such as repair or deacidification. They will also identify individual campus holdings that could be used to fill in and make a complete backfile run. Donations would be voluntary. In some cases the missing volumes could be borrowed and filmed or photocopied.

Hiring New Staff

Given the scope of the task at hand, it is impossible to undertake the work without dedicated staff working on a regular basis. We recommend that a minimum of two additional FTE be hired per RLF to carry out the work of the CoR Project. These individuals could be under the supervision of RLF managers, but dedicated to Project work.

Identification of the Titles to be Included in the Program

The collection development officers and librarians on each campus, working together with faculty members, need to be involved on an on-going basis with the identification and selection of titles appropriate for inclusion in the program.

The Task Force recommends that initially candidates for systemwide CoRs should correspond to titles in databases of electronically accessible journals such as JSTOR. (JSTOR is a national project that is identifying core titles in particular disciplines and digitizing the entire run of the journal. Well over 100 journal runs have been digitized to date.) This initial effort can also include any additional titles that CDC or others might suggest. For example, the publisher Chadwyick-Healy has digitized an extensive library of literature and bell-lettres. These monographic titles could also be candidates for storage. The JSTOR and other database lists of titles can first be compared to existing holdings in the regional facilities. These holdings will need to undergo a condition evaluation. Then, calls can go out for the additional volumes needed to complete the run.

Once the run has been completed at each of the regional facilities, this information will become part of the record for the title enabling the individual campuses to identify the material and thus giving them the option of removing their paper copy holdings if they want.

Recalling Copy of Record Items Back to a Campus

Many campus libraries may contribute to the building of the complete journal run for a Copy of Record. For the Copies of Record, the past practice of being able to recall the items back to the owning library must be relinquished so that the greater good of the University, its patrons, and its researchers can be served. As a systemwide project, this effort requires systemwide thinking. However, this does not mean that a campus cannot count the pieces as part of their statistical record, if they choose to do so.

In order to ensure that the best copy, not just the first copy becomes the CoR, the staff responsible for implementing this program must have the discretion to put together the best quality set available and have it become a systemwide resource. This resource must not depend upon the demands of any library that might, otherwise, recall the volumes back to the campus. The staff must have the discretion to reject volumes for, or add volumes to the CoR, according to the criteria of best condition independent of which campus provides the volumes.

Expanding the Role of the RLFs

Heretofore, the RLFs have been seen primarily as repositories for less-used, generally older, materials. The CoR program envisions the need to revise this concept and have the facilities become holding libraries for the archived print copies of what were often high-use materials. In the new environment, the high use will be absorbed by the electronic versions.

Ensuring the Good Physical Condition of the Volumes

The University is fortunate in having a high quality microfilming facility at the SRLF. Should it become necessary to microfilm brittle volumes, it can be done properly and efficiently in-house. Should deacidification be deemed necessary, program staff must be able to send the materials for this treatment. A book repair operation must be established at each facility so that repairs to the CoRs can be adequately done on site.

Record Keeping

Once a title has been designated as a CoR title, that fact needs to be noted in the record that displays on MELVYL®. Since the goal of the program is to have complete runs in good condition, condition codes must be used for each item. The records of each CoR title must clearly show these details so that the task of getting the best condition, most complete set is easier.

The RLF instructions provide for the addition of condition codes to each record for a stored volume but they have not been consistently used. These codes are intended to describe whether a volume is brittle, damaged, has issues missing, or pages missing. The Task Force recommends that, instead, libraries and the RLFs adopt the national standards now in use to note the condition of materials deposited at the RLFs. This requires the use of the MARC 583 field. The 583 terminology is defined in the Standard Terminology for USMARC Field 583. (For further information on Marc 583 see “Appendix A” under Library of Congress.) This use of a national standard would be key in receiving grants to fund this project.

It would be highly desirable if hot links could be established to lead patrons to the electronic versions of the titles included in the CoR project.

Training Programs in the Use of Electronic Versions

Not all UC Library patrons are familiar or comfortable with the advantages of using electronic versions of print materials. The University needs to be sensitive to this fact and to establish training and education programs to familiarize users with the electronic resources, how to access them, and how to use them.

Future Directions

The CoR Pilot Project would concentrate on archiving non-current journals of the University’s paper copy holdings of serial runs available in digitized form. This section covers the types of materials that don’t fall under the parameters of the pilot project.

  • After JSTOR – other electronic serial packages
  • Monographs
  • Serial runs not available in electronic format
  • Archiving runs on local campuses
  • Lack of space at the RLFs
  • Cooperative archiving projects with national libraries such as Library of Congress, National Agriculture Library, National Library of Medicine and even CRL.
  • CDL’s Role

After JSTOR – Other Electronic Serial Packages

JSTOR titles – journals with long backfiles of digitized material – make an excellent pilot project. However not all e-journals are this complete or clear-cut. Instead, they offer a variety of challenges, which must be dealt with in the not too distant future.

Acquisition of electronic versions of current serials through package deals is becoming common. Those packages acquired so far by the CDL have tended to be heavily science oriented and the electronic versions seem to be well accepted by their users. The relationships of electronic subscriptions to the paper ones are extremely variable. The paper and electronic versions are often not identical. Parts of the print versions such as editorials and advertisements may be absent from the electronic versions. Some issues may be missing. There may be quality problems with illustrations, charts, and graphs in the electronic versions. Currently color is often lost and high quality printers are required to print articles – making the need to maintain print copies all the more vital.

Decisions on how to archive these journals in print will need to be made soon because there are already good reasons to consider cancellation of paper copy subscriptions. Among them are:

  • Severe space problems in many campus libraries
  • Costs of print subscriptions and costs of maintenance of periodical print subscriptions, including accounting, check-in and bindery services
  • Publisher financial incentives (These are currently not very advantageous but they may become so in the near future.)

It would be desirable for paper copy cancellation decisions to be made in a consistent manner, not simply on a case-by-case, campus-by-campus basis.

Possibly one or more libraries would take on the responsibility for acquiring and maintaining an archivable subscription copy. Other libraries would be free to cancel paper subscriptions. It would be necessary to make sure that campus archive subscriptions cannot be cut in journal cancellation projects.

Alternatively, the RLF model is possible. Paper copies would reside in one or both of the RLFs. Acquiring current serials would require great changes in the activities of RLFs because the RLFs have generally not dealt with serials billing, check-in and binding activities. In both the campus library model and the RLF model, agreements would have to be reached about how the paper subscriptions would be paid for. In the campus model


Some Examples of Electronic Subscription Packages:


Elsevier: Current issues are available in electronic format and at present are still being received in print. A premium is charged to get both print and electronic versions. In the future, some UC libraries may want to suspend their print subscriptions to save money and space. Also the contract allows to a small extent for the substitution of unsubscribed electronic journals for paper subscriptions. The UC system as a whole may want to coordinate the cancellation of paper copies and possibly to develop guidelines for when it is acceptable to rely on electronic only (such as when the subject is marginal to research interests or is not of long-term scholarly interest).

Kluwer: Similar to Elsevier but Kluwer is offering electronic subscriptions to previously unsubscribed journals at an 80% discount. It is tempting to subscribe to these without the paper versions, as they were not considered important enough in the past to justify the costs of a paper subscription.

Association for Computing Machinery: Electronic subscriptions currently come with paper copies. ACM eventually plans to cease publishing the paper versions. Meanwhile decisions will need to be made about archiving paper copies.

Because the UC libraries must soon be making decisions about maintaining, and in some cases obtaining, paper copies of journals, criteria will need to be established to determine whether to archive multiple or single paper copies or to actively choose not to archive in paper at all. Some criteria for decision-making could include:

  • Number of paper copies currently or recently received by UC libraries (as an indicator of the general importance of the journal to the UC System and as indicator of whether the paper version is in danger of being eliminated)
  • Quality of the journal
  • How well does the online version replicate the paper version, including illustrative materials such as maps?
  • How important is the journal’s subject for the University of California’s teaching and research needs?
  • How reliable is the online version? Are issues added to the website promptly or do they often appear after the paper version arrives?
  • How stable is the publisher of the journal: do we trust them to ensure it is archived safely?
  • Is another library institution archiving it?
  • Can we afford paper subscription/s?

Weighing these criteria will need to be done by UC librarians, probably groups of subject specialists in appropriate fields. Also the decisions will probably need revision over time since we are dealing with active serials whose contents, titles, and forms will change. To ensure that decisions to drop paper subscriptions of journals received in electronic packages are made deliberately, mechanisms must be put in place soon if we are committed to maintaining archival paper copies in most cases. Once gaps in holdings occur they may be difficult to fill. If archive copies are maintained on individual campuses, the libraries must find ways to indicate on their records that archive subscriptions cannot be canceled without consulting the other libraries.


While the emphasis of this report has been on serial runs, monographs deserve similar treatment, especially with respect to the condition care provisions of these recommendations. Many of the monographs currently stored in the regional facilities are in poor, deteriorating, or brittle condition. The Task Force recommends that, as these volumes circulate, individual campuses and the circulation staff at the facilities bring damaged volumes to the attention of the Project Staff. The Project staff will either do the repair or contact other campuses for a possible substitution of a better copy, particularly when an adequate electronic substitute exists.

Serial Runs not in Electronic Format

While the emphasis of our recommended program is on archiving print copies of journal runs available electronically, we recognize that there will be a large body of literature which may never be converted to electronic format. This body of literature will probably include runs of older journals that have ceased and runs of little-used journals. If the University determines that despite age or low use, these runs are important scholarly resources, then efforts should also be undertaken to ensure the existence and preservation of archival copies of them. These journals may already exist in microform, or they may have to be microfilmed by the University. In any case, if it is determined that an archival copy of the run should be preserved, the same mechanism and organization in place for archiving of paper copies of journals in electronic format can be applied to these other categories so that a CoR can be assembled and preserved.

Naturally, access rules for these journals would have to be somewhat different than for those available in electronic format. However, it is now possible for libraries to scan journal articles, mount them on a web site, and make the content selectively available to specific users working in the library, office, or home. When integrated with electronic requesting (e.g., CDL Request), such a service would provide users with direct access to remotely held print materials without mediation by a campus library. The Regional Library Facilities (NRLF and SRLF) are experimenting with this technology as an alternative to photocopying articles or sending the hard copy itself to users. We recommend that the RLFs move quickly toward implementing web-based document delivery services. As those services come on-line, use of the original copies of record will diminish.

There is another application of digitization that promises to improve access to archived print materials. Tables of contents and indexes of older serial runs can be scanned, linked to the appropriate catalog records, and viewed (and possibly searched) on the web. By combining online tables of contents and indexes with desktop document delivery and electronic requesting, libraries can provide users with new tools for discovering useful information in remotely held volumes, requesting it, and receiving it at any location. We recommend that the Archiving Project Offices and the Regional Library Facilities study the feasibility of creating digital table of contents and digital index services to make available more complete information about the contents of CoR serial runs unlikely to be converted to electronic format.

Lack of Space at the RLFs

Lack of space for print materials will eventually also affect the Regional Library Facilities so future planning must take into consideration expansion of these facilities as well as the possibility of weeding the collections held there.

Cooperative Archiving Projects with National Libraries

The UC system has a wealth of scholarly material in its collections. It would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive to archive all of this material. As UC progresses in its archiving efforts, it would be useful to consult with the Library of Congress, the National Agriculture Library, the National Library of Medicine, and the Center for Research Libraries regarding their archiving responsibilities. With this information, the UC system can focus on those subject areas of greatest importance to us that are also not adequately covered by specific archiving/preservation mandates to the national libraries. (See Appendix A)

CDL’s Role

There are several actions the California Digital Library can do to assist UC’s efforts to archive print.

  • Negotiate with electronic database vendors/publishers to acquire complete electronic backfiles;
  • Negotiate with vendors/publishers to receive a print copy of every journal we subscribe to electronically (ACM);
  • Lobby ARL to allow ARL members to count access to electronic journals as subscriptions – even if acquired jointly and mounted centrally.
  • Lobby ARL to permit ARL members to count Copies of Record to which they have contributed.
  • Assess the viability of CD-ROMS as a satisfactory backup of electronic files (Chadwyick-Healy)




While the basic concepts for archiving print materials and relying on the electronic versions for the majority of use are the same, there are several alternative strategies for accomplishing this basic goal. Since the goal is to create and maintain an archival print copy, the basic requirements for an archived copy must be met under all circumstances or the copy cannot be considered an archival copy. Some of the alternatives that the Task Force has identified include:

  1. Archive two print copies in the system, one in each of the regional facilities.


    1. Pros


      1. The best ways to make sure that print copies survive and are available if needed. It is the best way to provide back up.
      2. Because of the back up feature, this might be the most easily supportable alternative for those people who might be uncomfortable with reliance on electronic versions.
      3. This alternative fits in with current practice that allows for duplicate copies of stored materials between facilities.
      4. The hard copy materials will be available and accessible to users systemwide should they really need to see and use them.
      5. Faculty and patrons will find it more reassuring to know that a copy is in their region rather than at “the other end of the state.” This should make acceptance of the program easier.
    2. Con
    3. This alternative can be expensive and will take up more space.
  2. Archive one print copy and one microfilm copy, one in each of the regional facilities. The microfilm copy can be either original filming done by the UC system, or purchased commercial film.


    1. Pros


      1. As with alternative (1), this provides redundancy and back up.
      2. It provides better long-term archiving of the materials since microfilm can be a more stable medium than print, especially if the print is brittle and has not been deacidified.
    2. Cons


      1. This gets away from the strict definition of archiving a “print” copy.
      2. If a commercial film is purchased, then we will be archiving a positive copy rather than a master negative copy (a master negative copy is preferred by preservation specialists
      3. It can be expensive to do original microfilming of print materials.
  3. Archive one print copy in the System, in either the Northern or the Southern Regional Facility.


    1. Pro
    2. Uses less space than alternative (1) or (2).
    3. Con
    4. Looses the beneficial redundancy / back up feature of alternatives (1) and (2).
  4. Archive copies on the local campuses – in this case, they must go into Special Collections.


    1. Pro
    2. Allows the material to remain on the original holding campus.
    3. Con


      1. It will not be a good cooperative strategy for the entire System since access rules for special collections materials are often quite restrictive.
      2. This would greatly increase the workload in special collections.
  5. The local campus microfilms its copy following RLG standards, sends the three generations of the film to a regional facility, and retains the hard copy in their stacks. In this case, the negative film becomes the archival copy leaving the hard copy as a general stacks use copy. This alternative would require cooperation from other campuses to ensure that a complete run is filmed.


    1. Pros


      1. Allows the holding campus to retain the material in its own stacks.
      2. Currently copies of preservation microfilm are already exchanged between the RLFs. Keeping to this policy will ensure the goal of two copies in the system.
    2. Cons


      1. Does not fit with the concept of archiving a print copy.
      2. Retain the copy in the stacks on the original holding campus.
      3. This is not an archiving strategy. It is simply the existing status quo in which the print materials are available to all users and hence subject to the same damage and deterioration problems faced by all stacks materials. It does not provide any confidence factor for other campuses desiring to withdraw their own holdings since there is no guarantee that the other campus’ holding will be complete and in good condition.




As with the initiative that resulted in the accumulation of the Northern and Southern Regional Library Facility collections, there will be some growing pains for the proposed CoR archiving project. However, just as storing volumes from our collections is now a routine matter, we hope that archiving print copies of record of our important journal and monographic holdings will become routine and desirable throughout the system as well.

We believe that the proposed pilot project should be seen both as a way to preserve important print materials and as a test for future larger scale programs. In the future, there will undoubtedly be an ever-growing and increasingly sophisticated collection of electronically available journals and monographs. Additionally, the University itself can undertake the digitization of unique library resources to extend the scope of the program.

Respectfully submitted,

Task Force Members:
Sheryl Davis (UCR), Chair
Katie Frohmberg (UCB)
Carol La Russa (UCD)
Eric MacDonald (UCI)
Scott Miller (NRLF)
Catherine Nelson (UCSB)
Barbara Schader (UCLA)

Go to SOPAG home page