We had the pleasure of spending time with Claudia Russo, STM's Director for Public Affairs in the EU and Deputy Director of Global Public Affairs and interviewing her about her perspectives on the growth of scholarly publishing and the place of preservation within these processes and the industry as a whole.
The first topic we discussed focused on whether digital preservation is keeping up with the rapid growth in the number of journals and books published every year around the world? According to Claudia, digital preservation is a central topic of discussion and action for scholarly publishers. Evidence for this is the Rosenblum Award for Scholarly Publishing Impact, which recognises impactful innovations that advance our industry, awarded this year to the digital preservation of the scholarly record. This marks a significant achievement since it is only the second time the award has been given and, early in the process, digital preservation was recognized.
The Rosenblum Award for Scholarly Publishing Impact was conceived through a collaborative effort among five organizations in the scholarly publishing community: ALPSP, the Association of University Presses, NISO, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and STM. The award is given to game-changing advancements that have stood the test of time, recognizing the ideas and technologies behind them.
As scholarly publishing continues to grow, the question of preservation becomes increasingly important and complex because the research outputs connected to the scholarly record are increasingly diverse. In addition to traditional journal articles or books which are relatively very well preserved, we now have datasets, databases, software, code, and other digital objects that are essential to understanding and reproducing research. The question of what parts of the scholarly record to preserve is crucial because we can’t preserve everything. Digital preservation takes skill, time, servers, and money.
To add to this complexity, we now have AI generated objects produced in mass at lightning speed. As more scholarly content is produced, the question of what should be preserved, how it should be preserved, and how the relationships between different research objects should be maintained becomes increasingly important.
Another important aspect of the conversation was the fact that not all publishers have the same awareness levels and resources when it comes to digital preservation. Established publishers tend to have clear digital archiving policies and workflows in place, and multiple preservation initiatives they work with. However, newer publishers and publishers operating with fewer, unstable resources may face greater challenges. This is where services such as CLOCKSS come in, playing a crucial support role.
The conversation also touched on regional and disciplinary differences. Claudia noted that Global North institutions are probably further ahead in their journey and that she is aware that publishers and other institutions in the Global South raise concerns about preparedness and infrastructure and lack of appropriate funding, policy and skills needed for preservation efforts. Claudia also mentioned that there are studies that show that journals in the social sciences and humanities may be more likely to disappear over time, highlighting the connection between preservation and the availability of funding across different disciplines and regions.
One of the clearest themes throughout the conversation was the importance of collaboration. Digital preservation is an area in which publishers, libraries, preservation services, universities, and other stakeholders share a common responsibility. Although each organization may approach preservation from a different mission or perspective, they share a common goal: ensuring that the scholarly record remains available and accessible over time. Claudia explained that partnership is very much at the core of STM's work. This includes efforts focused on standards and best practices, as well as broader initiatives aimed at ensuring the quality, integrity, and traceability of published content.
As more scholarly content becomes dependent on digital infrastructure, the resilience and security of that infrastructure become increasingly important. Part of a forward-looking and robust digital preservation approach is in protecting systems from external attack and ensuring that they remain resilient during emergencies. This demonstrates that digital preservation cannot be viewed as an isolated, time-bound technical responsibility, but rather as a long-term collective effort that depends on collaboration across the wider scholarly communication ecosystem.
One of the challenges of digital preservation is that it is often invisible. Researchers access content when they need it, publishers continue to publish, libraries continue to provide access and when everything works as expected, the infrastructure underpinning long-term preservation is invisible.
The risk is that digital preservation efforts can be easy to overlook until it is too late. The systems and infrastructure that support long-term access need to be in place before they are needed. Especially now when we see increased geopolitical instability, cyberattacks, and other emergencies. Crises remind us that access to digital content cannot simply be taken for granted.
An interesting point raised during the conversation was the growing public awareness of the infrastructure required to support artificial intelligence and the broader implications of such awareness for other digital endeavours. People are beginning to understand is the resources needed to make AI systems work which includes electricity, data centers, large volumes of data, technical infrastructure, and people to manage and filter that data. This understanding makes it easier to visualize the work that happens behind the scenes. The same principle can apply to digital preservation. If we can demonstrate to policy makers and decision makers that digital preservation, much like AI, also depends on infrastructure, expertise, planning, resources, and ongoing investment it might bring what we do into focus.
One of the questions we explored was whether preservation should become more deeply integrated into the everyday workflows of scholarly publishing. The answer is increasingly clear: preservation needs to be considered as part of the publishing process from the beginning, yet this does not necessarily mean that preservation needs to become visible in every interaction a researcher has with scholarly content since much of the infrastructure will continue to work quietly in the background. However, the systems, policies, and partnerships that support long-term preservation need to be considered as content is created, published, distributed, and connected to other research outputs and not something that is considered only after a problem occurs. Preservation must be a part of the planning from the get-go.
For Claudia, one of the most important steps is intentionality. Simply having conversations about preservation can help move the issue forward on a global level since these discussions create awareness, identify gaps, and help organizations understand where collaboration may be needed. STM is always open to considering areas for potential collaborations, both from a policy and technical perspective, to identify where organizations can work together to address shared challenges in the rapidly changing world of publishing. As new formats emerge, as research outputs become more interconnected, and as publishing continues to change, the responsibility to preserve the scholarly record remains. The future of scholarly publishing will not only be about how much research we produce or how quickly it can be distributed but it will be also about whether that knowledge remains accessible, verifiable, connected, and usable over time.
You can re-watch the webinar, below: