In our recent webinar, we had the pleasure of hosting Dr. José Manuel Barrueco from the University of Valencia, in conversation alongside Alicia Wise, Executive Director of CLOCKSS. What began as a discussion about digital preservation quickly evolved into a broader reflection on how the scholarly community thinks about responsibility, priorities, and the future of institutional repositories.
One thing became clear very early on. Repositories are now a standard part of academic infrastructure. Preservation, however, is not.
Institutional repositories have done an impressive job over the past two decades. They collect research outputs, make them accessible, and increase visibility across disciplines and regions. In many ways, they are fulfilling their core mission. But as José pointed out, there is surprisingly little research on how these repositories approach digital preservation. That alone raises an important question. Are we truly preserving content in institutional repositories, or are we collating it and making it available and discoverable?
José offered two possible interpretations. The optimistic view is that repositories are, in fact, carrying out preservation activities but are not documenting or publishing their practices. The more cautious view is that preservation is not yet a priority. From the discussion, it seems likely that reality sits closer to the latter. Repositories have understandably focused on collecting content, supporting researchers, and ensuring access. Preservation, meanwhile, has remained in the background.
There are several reasons for this. Limited funding and staffing constraints make it difficult to take on additional responsibilities. In many cases, there are no formal preservation policies in place. Perhaps most significantly, there is often a low perception of risk. If content is available today, it can be easy to assume it will remain available tomorrow. But as José emphasized, simply storing and backing up content does not guarantee its long-term availability or usability.
Not all content carries the same level of risk, and this distinction is important. The level of risk depends in part on how repositories are being used. In library publishing contexts, where repositories function as the primary publishing platform, they may hold the authoritative version of articles, which raises the preservation stakes. By contrast, for other types of publications, repositories often contain copies or draft versions that also exist elsewhere, reducing the risk of permanent loss. However, when repositories include unique materials such as theses, internal documents, or digitized collections, the stakes are much higher. If those materials are lost, they may be impossible to recover, shifting preservation from a purely technical concern to a strategic responsibility.
Alicia brought another critical perspective to the conversation by highlighting the challenge of shared responsibility. In many institutions, digital preservation is not owned by a single team. Instead, it is distributed across repository managers, IT departments, preservation librarians, conservation and digitization teams, and more. Each plays a role, but coordination is often limited. This fragmentation makes it difficult to develop a cohesive approach to digital preservation.
She also pointed to a deeper conceptual shift. In the print world, access and preservation were essentially the same thing. If you held the physical copy, you had to preserve it in order to keep it in circulation. In the digital world, that relationship no longer holds. Access and preservation are separate functions, and they require different strategies. This shift is not always fully recognized, which can lead to gaps in how institutions manage their digital content.
The discussion also touched on metadata and technology, both of which play a crucial role in preservation. Most repositories are strong in descriptive metadata, which supports discovery and access. However, preservation metadata is often underdeveloped or missing altogether. This is partly due to the platforms repositories use, which tend to prioritize access over long-term preservation needs. The key takeaway here is that preservation should not be treated as an add on. It needs to be embedded into systems and workflows from the outset.
Looking ahead, José reflected on how he would approach future research in this area. Rather than focusing solely on what repositories are doing, he would shift attention to why they are not doing more. He identified several underlying factors, including the lack of prioritization, funding constraints, limited human resources, and gaps in skills and training. These challenges are not new, but they continue to shape how institutions approach preservation.
Another strong theme that emerged was the importance of collaboration. No single institution can manage digital preservation alone. The scale and complexity of the task require shared infrastructure and collective effort. Organizations like CLOCKSS, along with libraries, publishers, and other partners, play an essential role in building resilient systems. Alicia emphasized that preserving content in multiple trusted services is not just good practice, it is critical. Whether facing technical failures, natural disasters, or geopolitical risks, distributed preservation ensures that knowledge remains accessible.
What makes this conversation particularly important is that it does not point to a single solution. Digital preservation is not a one size fits all challenge. It requires awareness, coordination, and a willingness to rethink existing approaches. This brings us back to a fundamental shift in perspective. Repositories are no longer just about access. They are also about stewardship. And stewardship requires intentional action, from developing policies and investing in infrastructure to building skills and fostering collaboration.
The discussion served as a reminder that preservation does not happen by accident. It requires planning, resources, and commitment. As the volume of digital content continues to grow, so does the responsibility to ensure that it remains accessible in the future.
This reminds us that we should continue the conversation. The questions raised around responsibility, policy, and collaboration are ones the entire scholarly community needs to engage with. If there is one takeaway, it is this. We cannot assume that today’s knowledge will automatically be available tomorrow. Ensuring that it is requires deliberate and collective effort.
You can re-watch the webinar, below: