The OBF National Libraries Network: a summary of our first year

Beginning in September 2023, near the start of the Open Book Futures Project, we have held quarterly meetings with National Libraries who were interested in being part of the OBF’s National Libraries Network. The initial agenda was to introduce the National Libraries to the work of the COPIM Project and the new initiatives within Open Book Futures of which they could be part. We also enquired as to what potential bottlenecks there were within their institutions in archiving open access books, how open access books are ingested into the National Library systems, and what legal permissions or challenges exist when handling OA books within their Legal Deposit systems. We also began discussions around metadata and file ingestion policies and complications.

The first meeting saw the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, and the German National Library attend. The OBF National Libraries Network has now grown to include three additional libraries: the National Library of the Netherlands (KB), the Qatar National Library (QNL), and the Library and Archives Canada (LAC), leading to a total of six participating National Libraries as we close 2024. The Library of Congress (LOC, USA) has also participated in discussions about workflows for open access books. Our goal is to increase the number of participating libraries and include more diverse geographical regions/nations. At present, we have held four meetings and aim to continue quarterly so far as the participating national libraries have availability. We also are preparing to hold focus groups within the participating national libraries beginning in early 2025.

 Some of the points that arose within the meetings were potentially duplicate entries for the same books (physical copy, limited-access copy, and open access digital copy), varying content policies that differed between nations, metadata and workflow limitations, consistency in defining open access, and concerns around metadata and licencing.

Not everything is automated: the human element

There were discussions around the hidden administrative and human involvement necessary when processing the ingestion of digital monographs, among other digital works, particularly where additional effort is required to retrieve or ingest an open access digital copy into library systems. This is the case even where much of the process is automated. For instance, not all national library systems ingest digital books following the same workflows. The organisational structures can differ, which means there may be limitations on providing broader access to a work that is ingested via a copyright or acquisitions workflow, even if the work is licensed open access. This can mean a potential work-around, where library staff could go to the publisher and obtain an additional, freely-available copy by download and add this to a new catalogue record. However, such a process will impact staff workload and could add an additional responsibility outside the required tasks, so there are issues of scale to consider. Concerns around metadata were also mentioned when it came to human involvement. Metadata records are often in need of improvement, or are sometimes incomplete.

 Metadata is key

 Metadata  was prominent in most of the meetings, and continues to be a key concern, particularly with no single widely-adopted standard indicating open access, including CC-BY licence, within metadata fields (and the knock-on effects around access rights). Questions were posed around how more automated processing and permissions could be made possible in the future, circumventing challenges presently in place concerning metadata and licencing inconsistencies. We discovered that some national libraries have strict requirements concerning the metadata sent to them by publishers, while others must accept what they are provided and don’t feel able to dictate. More often than not, there is a human checkpoint before metadata goes live in a library catalogue, and if the metadata received is incomplete, a library staff member may need to go back to the publisher, and if sparse, other sources are enlisted to complete it. Another concern expressed was around using solely commercial metadata, which could and often does exclude scholarship outside the Colonial West, because the scholarship of the Colonial West is what is identified and archived by this metadata. There is also a risk of excluding the small publishers not packaged within these larger tranches of commercial metadata. Relying on existing systems only reinforces the existing players, which is not good for global scholarship.

 Another challenge around open access and consistency in metadata, relating to licensing, is the challenge for national libraries when publishers purposefully apply incorrect licence information to a work, or subsequently close down access to a work after a temporary period of open access. Additionally, publishers may close down access to everyone else but their own site, including the national libraries. This causes problems for national libraries, who do not want to have incorrect information about a publication on their systems or catalogues. Consistency of practice around access and metadata among publishers is necessary, as well as a clear, agreed upon definition of open access, which isn’t as clear as some might imagine, particularly across national borders.  

 Access vs Preservation

An interesting point was raised around preservation and access related to Legal Deposit. Legal Deposit is often viewed solely as a preservation activity by publishers, especially those who published closed-access works. Conversely, national libraries see Legal Deposit just as significantly as an access activity, providing members of the public access to the work within the confines of the law (which often requires on-site restricted access only). However, the two are not mutually exclusive, and thinking about access makes you better at preservation.

Non-Print Legal Deposit legislation within the United Kingdom, for example, is based on the existing laws for physical publications, and as such requires access to all Legal Deposit materials to be restricted to library premises. Current practice is such that even a digital copy of an open access monograph, which is freely available online and licensed with no dissemination restrictions, will be restricted to access on Library premises only. Access is provided on a terminal within the British Library’s reading rooms at physical locations or at another Legal Deposit library within the UK & Ireland. Non-Print Legal Deposit was introduced in the UK in 2013 and recently celebrated 10 years of implementation. This legislation has been transformative, significant and incredibly positive, meaning that publications that only exist in a non-print digital form could finally be collected under Legal Deposit and preserved within library systems. Its importance cannot be overstated. But the British Library acknowledges that there is “more work to do in improving the experience of using digital legal deposit, including our support for Open Access and for accessibility.”

 Collection policies, legislation, and international borders

 In terms of collection policies, some of the national libraries had broader remits than others, and if there is a publication or artefact relevant to the country in some way, whether subject matter or topic, author, or other association), the national library would take this in voluntarily (that is, beyond legal obligation). For others, the only content accepted would be that published within the borders of the country as required by law. Legal Deposit legislation also differs substantially between countries, with some legislation granting full permissions to the deposit library, including on issues of access, and others markedly limiting what powers a Legal Deposit library may have in handling a published work.

 The issue with some open access monographs and other works is that they may or may not be included within any national library’s legal deposit collections, or a work may only be linked to elsewhere, if freely available online. If the actual file is not present within the library’s systems, the file is not preserved by the library, and in certain cases may mean the work is not preserved at all. While content published within a national library’s jurisdiction that aligns with their content collection policies will be collected, not all nations have legal deposit, or a national library that preserves all works published within their countries. Some countries with a national library do not have mandatory legal deposit. What needs to be determined is where open access monographs are at risk and may be falling through the cracks in terms of legal deposit and preservation within the national libraries.

 We discussed how there may be potential for coordination in the future between national libraries to comprehend risk tolerance, understand what standards the libraries rely on, and how they could choose what additional content they might ingest outside of their legal remit, in order to ensure these works are preserved. Additionally, there are opportunities to share practice and determine how best to link to content being made openly accessible in the rest of the world, where the content is not at risk and may not need to be ingested. What multiple libraries expressed in these conversations is the need for a way to have confidence in their choices around connecting versus collecting, balancing individual national library priorities, concerns around climate impact, and mitigation of risk of loss for the works in question. There is acknowledged potential within the network to assure persistence of the work within the national libraries, where possible, and to share policies between the libraries as way to determine a path forward. Additionally, the network was seen as an opportunity for discussion around what a Legal Deposit community of practice might look like.

 Looking forward

Many of the national libraries we have spoken to are actively reviewing their processes and, in some cases, altering or restructuring them or moving to a new model altogether. While recognised bottlenecks include human and system resource capacity, metadata issues, lack of consistency in practice, workflow limitations and the need to revise these for better efficiency, the national libraries are proactive and engaged, diligently considering future need and ways to improve how they work, and how they might work together. The understanding gained from bringing both established national libraries and newer, more flexible institutions, as well as different perspectives around the globe, is already proving useful and we look forward to sharing more insights in the future. 

Header photo: by Drahomír Hugo Posteby-Mach on Unsplash