The need for ‘Diamond Engagement’ around open access to high quality research output

This paper advocates for a co-ordinated cultural shift in their engagement with access to resources in order to make peer-reviewed articles available to a wider audience. This Paper addresses two audiences: scientists, especially those who have been traditionally more resistant to the OA approach, and policy makers. The Scientific Committee is well aware of the difficulties that some research communities face in engaging with the OA approach and would like to offer a way forward to address the current status quo. Social scientists in particular have been struggling with the discussion on OA, given the length of time that the current quality standards and good practice for publication took to set up. The community of researchers perceives that these standards are now guarded by the peer-reviewed ranked journals which do not offer OA for either articles or books, a situation that is certain to persist for some time.   The other important aspect is that payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) to journals for OA publication is often unaffordable given the limited resources available to the social sciences disciplines. In this context, this paper illustrates how the deposition of articles in public repositories can be beneficial to the research community. At the same time, this Paper encourages policy makers to better invest in the harmonisation of research information metadata standards across Europe using existing public infrastructures, and to ensure good quality of records, interoperability and discoverability. It also links the discussion of OA with an issue that is crucial in both research and policy agendas: demonstration of the impact of publicly-funded research

Implementing Open Access Policy: First case studies

When implementing open access, policy pioneers and flagship institutions alike have faced considerable challenges in meeting their own aims and achieving a recognized success. Legitimate authority, sufficient resources and the right timing are crucial, but the professionals charged with implementing policy still need several years to accomplish significant progress. This study defines a methodological standard for evaluating the first generation of open access policies. Evaluating implementation establishes evidence, enables reflection, and may foster the emergence of a second generation of open access policies. While the study is based on a small number of cases, these case studies cover most of the pioneer institutions, present the most significant issues and offer an international overview. Each case is reconstructed individually on the basis of public documents and background information, and supported by interviews with professionals responsible for open access implementation. This article presents the highlights from each case study. The results are utilized to indicate how a second generation of policies might define open access as a key component of digital research infrastructures that provide inputs and outputs for research, teaching and learning in real time.</p

Individuation through infrastructure :Get Full Text Research, data extraction and the academic publishing oligopoly

This article explores the recent turn within academic publishing towards ‘seamless access’, an approach to content provision that ensures users do not have to continually authenticate in order to access journal content. Through a critical exploration of Get Full Text Research, a service developed collaboratively by five of the world's largest academic publishers to provide such seamless access to academic research, the article shows how publishers are seeking to control the ways in which readers access publications in order to trace, control and ultimately monetise user interactions on their platforms. Theorised as a process of individuation through infrastructure, the article reveals how publishers are attempting an ontological shift to position the individual, quantifiable researcher, rather than the published content, at the centre of the scholarly communication universe. The implications of the shift towards individuation are revealed as part of a broader trend in scholarly communication infrastructure towards data extraction, mirroring a trend within digital capitalism more generally

The Economists Online subject repository: using institutional repositories as the foundation for international Open Access growth

A new subject repository, Economists Online (EO), has recently been launched. The pioneering model upon which it is built, aggregating the subject specific content of a consortium of participating institutions and their repositories, is examined in this article. An overview of existing subject repositories is given, along with an analysis of the scholarly communications landscape in economics and how the new EO subject repository fits into this environment. This paper makes a case for collaboration between institutional repositories as a way of increasing Open Access (OA) access to research

Estudio de los repositorios y plataformas de patrimonio digital en 3D

[EN] Despite the increasing number of three-dimensional (3D) model portals and online repositories catering for digital heritage scholars, students and interested members of the general public, there are very few recent academic publications that offer a critical analysis when reviewing the relative potential of these portals and online repositories. Solid reviews of the features and functions they offer are insufficient; there is also a lack of explanations as to how these assets and their related functionality can further the digital heritage (and virtual heritage) field, and help in the preservation, maintenance, and promotion of real-world 3D heritage sites and assets. What features do they offer? How could their feature list better cater for the needs of the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) sector? This article’s priority is to examine the useful features of 8 institutional and 11 commercial repositories designed specifically to host 3D digital models. The available features of their associated 3D viewers, where applicable, are also analysed, connecting recommendations for future-proofing with the need to address current gaps and weaknesses in the scholarly field of 3D digital heritage. Many projects do not address the requirements stipulated by charters, such as access, reusability, and preservation. The lack of preservation strategies and examples highlights the oxymoronic nature of virtual heritage (oxymoronic in the sense that the virtual heritage projects themselves are seldom preserved). To study these concerns, six criteria for gauging the usefulness of the 3D repositories to host 3D digital models and related digital assets are suggested. The authors also provide 13 features that would be useful additions for their 3D viewers.[ES] A pesar del creciente número de portales de modelos tridimensionales (3D) y repositorios en línea que atienden a los estudiosos del patrimonio digital, a los estudiantes y al público en general, hay muy pocas publicaciones académicas recientes que analizan de forma crítica el potencial relativo de esos portales y repositorios en línea. Tampoco hay suficientes revisiones críticas de las características y funciones que ofrecen, ni muchas explicaciones sobre la forma en que estos activos y su funcionalidad pueden impulsar en el campo del patrimonio digital (y el patrimonio virtual), y ayudar a preservar, mantener y promocionar los sitios y activos del patrimonio 3D del mundo real. ¿Qué características ofrecen? ¿Cómo podría su lista de características satisfacer mejor las necesidades del sector GLAM (galerías, bibliotecas, archivos y museos)? La prioridad de este artículo es examinar las características útiles de 8 depósitos institucionales y 11 comerciales diseñados específicamente para albergar modelos digitales en 3D. También son examinadas las características disponibles de su visores 3D asociados, cuando sea aplicable, y ello conecta con lo recomendado sobre las necesidades futuras y mejoradas para abordar las lagunas y debilidades en el campo académico del patrimonio digital 3D. Muchos proyectos no estudian los requisitos estipulados en las cartas, como son los factores de acceso, la reutilización y la preservación. La escasez de estrategias y ejemplos de preservación pone de relieve el carácter oximorónico del patrimonio virtual (oximorónico en el sentido de que los propios proyectos de patrimonio virtual se preservan con muy poca frecuencia). Para hacer frente a estas preocupaciones, se sugieren seis criterios para calibrar la utilidad de los repositorios 3D para albergar modelos digitales 3D y activos digitales relacionados. Los autores también proporcionan 13 características adicionales que serían útiles en los visores 3D.Champion, E.; Rahaman, H. (2020). Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms. Virtual Archaeology Review. 11(23):1-15. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2020.13226OJS1151123Aalbersberg, I. J., Cos Alvarez, P., Jomier, J., Marion, C., & Zudilova-Seinstra, E. (2014). Bringing 3D visualization into the online research article. Information Services & Use, 34(1-2), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140721Addison, A. C. (2000). Emerging trends in virtual heritage. IEEE Multimedia, 7(2), 22-25. https://doi.org/10.1109/93.848421Alliez, P., Bergerot, L., Bernard, J.-F., Boust, C., Bruseker, G., Carboni, N., Chayani, M., Dellepiane, M., Dell'unto, N., & Dutailly, B. (2017). Digital 3D objects in art and humanities: Challenges of creation, interoperability and preservation. In White paper: A result of the PARTHENOS Workshop held in Bordeaux at Maison des Sciences de l'Homme d'Aquitaine and at Archeovision Lab. (France) (pp. 71). France.Beacham, R., Hugh, D., & Niccolucci, F. (2009). The London Charter. In For computer-based visualization of cultural heritage (Vol. Draft 2.1).Bernard, Y., Barreau, J.-B., Bizien-Jaglin, C., Quesnel, L., Langouët, L., & Daire, M.-Y. (2017). 3D model as a dynamic compilation of knowledge: Interim results on the city of Alet. Virtual Archaeology Review, 8(16). https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2017.5862Boutsi, A.-M., Ioannidis, C., & Soile, S. (2019). An integrated approach to 3D web visualization of cultural heritage heterogeneous datasets. Remote Sensing, 11(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11212508Calin, M., Damian, G., Popescu, T., Manea, R., Erghelegiu, B., & Salagean, T. (2015). 3D modeling for digital preservation of Romanian heritage monuments. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 6, 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.111Champion, E. (2018). The role of 3D models in virtual heritage intrastructures. In A. Benardou, E. Champion, C. Dallas, & L. M. Hughes (Eds.), Cultural Heritage Infrastructures in Digital Humanities (pp. 172). Abingdon, Oxon New York: NY Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315575278Champion, E. (2019). From historical models to virtual heritage simulations. In P. Kuroczyński, M. Pfarr-Harfst, & S. Münster (Eds.), Der Modelle Tugend 2.0 Digitale 3d-Rekonstruktion Als Virtueller Raum Der Architekturhistorischen Forschung Computing in Art and Architecture (Vol. 2, pp. 338-351). Heidelberg, Germany: arthistoricum.net. https://doi.org/10.11588/arthistoricum.515Champion, E., & Rahaman, H. (2019). 3D digital heritage models as sustainable scholarly resources. Sustainability, 11(8), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082425Clarke, M. (2015). The digital dilemma: preservation and the digital archaeological record. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 3(4), 313-330. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.3.4.313Cots, I., Vilà, J., Diloli, J., Ferré, R., & Bricio, L. (2018). La arqueología virtual: de la excavación arqueológica a la gestión y socialización del patrimonio. Les cases de la Catedral (Tortosa) y el yacimiento protohistórico de La Cella(Salou), Tarragona. Virtual Archaeology Review, 9(19). https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2018.9754Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P. , Galeazzi, F., & Vassallo, V. (Eds.). (2018). Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. http://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27029Doyle, J., Viktor, H., & Paquet, E. (2009). Long-term digital preservation: preserving authenticity and usability of 3-D data. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 10(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-009-0051-7Flynn, T. (2019). What happens when you share 3D models online (In 3D)? In J. Grayburn, Z. Lischer-Katz, K. Golubiewski-Davis, & V. Ikeshoji-Orlati (Eds.), 3D/VR in the Academic Library: Emerging Practices and Trends (pp. 73-86). Arlington, USA: Council on Library and Information Resources.Galeazzi, F., Baker, F., Champion, E., Gartski, K., Jeffrey, S., & Kuzminsky, S. (2018). Commentary on 3-D virtual replicas and simulations of the past : "real" or "fake" representations? Current Anthropology, 59(3), 268-286. http://doi.org/10.1086/697489Galeazzi, F., & Franco, P. D. G. D. (2017). Theorising 3D visualisation systems in archaeology: Towards more effective design, evaluations and life cycles. Internet Archaeology(44). http://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.5Greenop, K., & Barton, J. (2014). Scan, save, and archive: how to protect our digital cultural heritage. The Conversation, 1. https://theconversation.com/scan-save-and-archive-how-to-protect-our-digital-cultural-heritage-22160.Guidazzoli, A., Liguori, M. C., Chiavarini, B., Verri, L., Imboden, S., De Luca, D., & Ponti, F. D. (2017, 31 Oct-4 Nov). From 3D Web to VR historical scenarios: A cross-media digital heritage application for audience development. In 2017 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), (pp. 1-8) Dublin, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346273Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? the case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 392-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00180.xIoannides, M., & Quak, E. (Eds.). (2014). 3D research challenges in cultural heritage : A roadmap in digital heritage preservation. NewYork, Dordrecht, London: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0Khronos, G. (2009). OpenGL ES for the web. WebGL Overview. Retrieved 4 March, 2020, from https://www.khronos.org/webgl/Kiourt, C., Koutsoudis, A., Markantonatou, S., & Pavlidis, G. (2016). The 'synthesis' virtual museum. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 16(5), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.204961Koller, D., Frischer, B., & Humphreys, G. (2009). Research challenges for digital archives of 3D cultural heritage models. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 2(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/1658346.1658347Koutsabasis, P. (2017). Empirical evaluations of interactive systems in cultural heritage: A review. International Journal of Computational Methods in Heritage Science, 1(1), 100-122. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCMHS.2017010107Kuroczynski, P. (2017). Virtual research environment for digital 3D reconstructions : Standards, thresholds and prospects. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 456-476. https://doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23330Lloyd, J. (2016). Contextualizing 3D cultural heritage. In M. Ioannides, E. Fink, R. Brumana, P. Patias, A. Doulamis, J. Martins, & M. Wallace (Eds.), Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection (Vol. 1, pp. 859-868). Nicosia, Cyprus: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_69Maiwald, F., Bruschke, J., Lehmann, C., & Niebling, F. (2019). A 4D information system for the exploration of multitemporal images and maps using photogrammetry, web technologies and VR/AR. Virtual Archaeology Review, 10(21). https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.11867McHenry, K., & Bajcsy, P. (2008). An overview of 3d data content, file formats and viewers. Retrieved from Urbana, IL: https://www.archives.gov/files/applied-research/ncsa/8-an-overview-of-3d-data-content-file-formats-and-viewers.pdf.Muñoz Morcillo, J., Schaaf, F., Schneider, R. H., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2017). Authenticity through VR-based documentation of cultural heritage. A theoretical approach based on conservation and documentation practices. Virtual Archaeology Review, 8(16). https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2017.5932Munster, S. (2018, 26-29 June). Digital 3D modelling in the humanities. In Digital Heritage 2018, (pp. 627-629) Mexico.Münster, S., Pfarr-Harfst, M., Kuroczyński, P., & Ioannides, M. (Eds.). (2016). 3D research challenges in cultural heritage II : How to manage data and knowledge related to interpretative digital 3D reconstructions of cultural heritage. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47647-6Newe, A., Brandner, J., Aichinger, W., & Becker, L. (2018). An open source tool for creating model files for virtual volume rendering in PDF documents. In Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2018, (pp. 133-138) Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56537-7_97Niven, K., & Richards, J. D. (2017). The storage and long-term preservation of 3D data. In D. Errickson & T. Thompson (Eds.), Human Remains: Another Dimension (pp. 175-184): Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804602-9.00013-8Pauwels, P., Verstraeten, R., De Meyer, R., & Van Campenhout, J. (2008). Architectural Information Modelling for Virtual Heritage Application. In Digital Heritage-Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, (pp. 18-23).Pavlidis, G., Koutsoudis, A., Arnaoutoglou, F., Tsioukas, V., & Chamzas, C. (2007). Methods for 3D digitization of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 8(1), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2006.10.007Pletinckx, D., & Nolle, D. (2015). 3D-ICONS: D5.1-Report on 3D publication formats suitable for Europeana. Retrieved from https://zenodo.org/record/1311590#.Xt34Zy97G50. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1311589Potenziani, M., Callieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Corsini, M., Ponchio, F., & Scopigno, R. (2015). 3DHOP: 3D heritage online presenter. Computers & Graphics, 52, 129-141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2015.07.001Rabinowitz, A., Esteva, M., & Trelogan, J. (2013, 26-28 September). Ensuring a future for the past. In Proceedings of The Memory of the World in the Digital Age: Digitization and Preservation, (pp. 940-954) Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Rahaman, H., & Champion, E. (2019, 15-18 April). The scholarly rewards and tragic irony of 3D models in virtual heritage discourse. In 24th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2019), (pp. 695-704) Wellington, New Zealand.Roussou, M. (2002, 24-25 November). Virtual heritage : From the research lab to the broad public. In VAST Euroconference, (pp. 93-100) Arezzo, Italy.Scopigno, R., Callieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Ponchio, F., & Potenziani, M. (2017). Delivering and using 3D models on the web: are we ready? Virtual Archaeology Review, 8(17), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2017.6405Snyder, L. M. (2014). VSim : Scholarly annotations in real-time 3D environments. Paper presented at the DH-CASE II: Collaborative Annotations on Shared Environments: metadata, tools and techniques in the Digital Humanities - DH-CASE '14, (pp. 1-8.) Fort Collins, CA, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2657480.2657483Statham, N. (2019). Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3D visualisation of heritage. Virtual Archaeology Review, 10(20), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.9715Sullivan, E. (2016). Potential pasts: Taking a humanistic approach to computer visualization of ancient landscapes. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 59(2), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2016.12039.xSullivan, E., Nieves, A. D., & Snyder, L. M. (2017). Making the model: Scholarship and rhetoric in 3-D historical reconstructions. In J. Sayers (Ed.), Making Things and Drawing Boundaries : Experiments in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt6wq.38Sullivan, E. A., & Snyder, L. M. (2017). Digital Karnak. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 76(4), 464-482. https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2017.76.4.464Thwaites, H. (2013). Digital heritage : What happens when we digitize everything? In E. Ch'ng, V. Gaffney, & H. Chapman (Eds.), Visual heritage in the digital age (pp. 327-348). London, UK: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5535-5Tsiafaki, D., & Michailidou, N. (2015). Benefits and problems through the application of 3D technologies in archaeology: Recording, visualisation, representation and reconstruction. Scientific Culture, 1(3), 37-45. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18448Tucci, G., Bonora, V., Conti, A., & Fiorini, L. (2017). High-quality 3d models and their use in a cultural heritage conservation project. In The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences : 26th International CIPA Symposium 2017, (pp. 687) Ottawa, Canada. http://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-687-2017Übel, M. V. (2019). Free 3D models - Best download sites & 3D archives of 2019. Get the Best for Free. Retrieved 12 February, 2019, from https://all3dp.com/1/free-3d-models-download-best-sites-3d-archive-3dUNESCO. (2003, 29 Sept-15Oct 2003). Charter on the preservation of the digital heritage. In 32nd Session: The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (pp. 74-76) Paris.Zhang, N., Li, Q., Jia, H., Zhang, M., & Liu, J. (2017). U3D file format analyzing and 3DPDF generating method. In IGTA: Chinese Conference on Image and Graphics Technologies : Advances in Image and Graphics Technologies, (pp. 136-146) Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7389-2_1

The commercial model of academic publishing underscoring Plan S weakens the existing open access ecosystem in Latin America

Health emergencies such as those we face today reveal the importance of opening scientific knowledge; something that not-for-profit open access publishing has permanently and organically allowed for a long time. The expansion of Plan S, a research funder led initiative to promote a global transition to open access to scholarly research, to Latin America has led to significant debate about how the policy will impact the existing system of non-commercial open access publication in Latin America. Responding to earlier posts on this subject, Eduardo Aguado López and Arianna Becerril García argue that introducing Article Processing Charges, whereby academics or their funders pay to publish open access, will inherently degrade existing non-profit forms of open access publishing that have existed in Latin America for over three decad

Digital technology and governance in transition: The case of the British Library

Comment on the organizational consequences of the new information and communications technologies (ICTs) is pervaded by a powerful imagery of disaggregation and a tendency for ?virtual? forms of production to be seen as synonymous with the ?end? of bureaucracy. This paper questions the underlying assumptions of the ?virtual organization?, highlighting the historically enduring, diversified character of the bureaucratic form. The paper then presents case study findings on the web-based access to information resources now being provided by the British Library (BL). The case study evidence produces two main findings. First, radically decentralised virtual forms of service delivery are heavily dependent on new forms of capacity-building and information aggregation. Second, digital technology is embedded in an inherently contested and contradictory context of institutional change. Current developments in the management and control of digital rights are consistent with the commodification of the public sphere. However, the evidence also suggests that scholarly access to information resources is being significantly influenced by the ?information society? objectives of the BL and other institutional players within the network of UK research libraries

Digital publishing and the knowledge process

The digital information environment has ensured that the twenty first century will be a global watershed, like that of the fifteenth century in the Western world, for changes in the creation, distribution and access of knowledge and information. Changes however are not being reflected in the formal frameworks of scholarly publishing. In the digital information environment, the challenges will be significant ranging from information overload to a multimedia non-linear access to information. Developments in the public and private web reflect the tensions of initiatives and consequent challenges, such as currently being experienced between the increasing aggregation of multinational publishers on the one hand and Open Access Initiatives on the other. Globally publish or perish pressures have increased on researchers with the need for publication becoming the pathway to success in research assessment exercises, leading to tenure and promotion. The book and the article are no longer intrinsically a means of distributing knowledge. Depending on ones viewpoint of the Faustianbargain between authors and publishers, the scholarly publishing environment has been in crisis for a number of years. While this has been particularly reflected in the debates on serials, many humanities scholars have experienced declining sales of their monographs and a lack of appropriate outlets for their research publications. While many traditional university presses have been closing down or losing money for a number of years, new models are emerging with different philosophies and capitalizing on new electronic settings. User studies have indicated that Print on Demand (POD) is universally seen as an essential requirement of output. in those contexts Open Archives Initiatives have seen the creation of a number of E-Print repositories which in turn have organically led to the establishment of E-Presses. Future scholarly publishing patterns will be much influenced by author attitudes at the creation level. Major programs of scholarly advocacy in the context of scholarly communication processes will, however, need to be implemented if scholarly authors, their institutions and their research output are to benefit from the new digital frameworks

Re-integrating scholarly infrastructure: the ambiguous role of data sharing platforms

Web-based platforms play an increasingly important role in managing and sharing research data of all types and sizes. This article presents a case study of the data storage, sharing, and management platform Figshare. We argue that such platforms are displacing and reconfiguring the infrastructure of norms, technologies, and institutions that underlies traditional scholarly communication. Using a theoretical framework that combines infrastructure studies with platform studies, we show that Figshare leverages the platform logic of core and complementary components to re-integrate a presently splintered scholarly infrastructure. By means of this logic, platforms may provide the path to bring data inside a scholarly communication system still optimized mainly for text publications. Yet the platform strategy also risks turning over critical scientific functions to private firms whose longevity, openness, and corporate goals remain uncertain. It may amplify the existing trend of splintering infrastructures, with attendant effects on equity of servic

Managing a portal of digital web resources by content syndication

As users become more accustomed to continuous Internet access, they will have less patience with the offering of disparate resources. A new generation of portals is being designed that aids users in navigating resource space and in processing the data they retrieved. Such portals offer added value by means of content syndication: the effort to have multiple, federated? resources co-operate in order to profit optimally from their synergy. A portal that offers these advantages, however, can only be of lasting value if it is sustainable. We sketch a way to set up and run an organisation that can manage a content syndication portal in a sustainable way.\ud \u