I know that this is not going to be a universally popular view across the sector, but stick with me.

The situation at the British Library is a real dagger to the heart for those of us who support open access. Many of the library¡¯s digital services have been offline for weeks following November¡¯s devastating cyber-attack. Particularly galling is the ongoing inaccessibility of the EThOS archive of 600,000 doctoral dissertations.

EThOS was a catalyst for change when it was launched in 2009, unlocking a significant part of the ¡°research journey¡± that had been hidden. This landmark service showcases the UK as a nation rich with exceptional thinkers and dedicated to opening knowledge to everyone.

It also demonstrates the importance of national leadership on big digital infrastructure projects. EThOS was the first central UK open initiative that caught the public imagination, and it made an amazing difference to scholars.

ÖйúAƬ

We don¡¯t know yet if the actual works have been stolen or ¡°just¡± the user data. Luckily, the material is electronically available in multiple locations, so the database could be reassembled. Still, what the attack underlines is that ÖйúAƬ and research libraries¡¯ technologies and policies place us at more risk than we can afford.

The ¡°bad guys¡± are, of course, after IP from universities in general, but what sells best is individual or financial information. Our requirement that people set up accounts before they can use services like EThOS or university repositories means we have tens/hundreds of thousands of ¡°people¡± records, with registered email addresses and passwords that customers are likely to have used elsewhere, too. So we find ourselves the accidental custodians of extremely valuable information ¨C but we have never really managed it (Shush! Don¡¯t tell anyone!).

ÖйúAƬ

Why do we ask for all this? Academics tell us they must know who is using their materials, yet very few look at the unaggregated data. With EThOS, registration is required to digitise and print a thesis, but, again, very few individual citizens request this service: it tends to be institutions who fund digitisations.

Will the sale of our user data on the dark web stop people accessing our open access materials because they have lost trust in us? Have we opened up our institutions to ¡°interest¡± from the Information Commissioner¡¯s Office? For me, those are the greatest potential impacts of this security breach.

As well as collecting information we don¡¯t need, the technologies used to deliver most UK open access repositories are still running on open source and community developed/supported tools. That is because they date from 15-25 years ago, when the government (via Jisc) put millions of pounds into establishing them. Subsequently, however, institutions have been left to develop, maintain and secure those tools alone. But the ¡°bright minds¡± who created them have long since moved on, and newly-minted developers are uninterested in learning out-of-date skills. Moreover, I can tell you, as someone who straddles both library and IT, that updating these tools is absent from institutional priority lists and investment strategies.

At the British Library itself, however, there has been investment and technology change, so such a devastating cyber-attack must be a wake-up call to the whole sector and our funders. We are now understood among cyber-criminals to be very soft targets with a lot of profitable information basically just lying around.

ÖйúAƬ

It is notable that Richard Poynder, who has advocated the ¡°idealist¡±, non-commercial view of open access, has recently said because it hasn¡¯t solved issues around affordability and equity. I have always been a pragmatist: I am fully committed to getting our material ¡°out there¡± but have questioned the way it has been approached technologically and the institutional risks being carried. I am not going to go into details here; I really don¡¯t want to be the one opening the already unlocked back door. But the risks of unsupported and obsolete operating systems and databases are manifold in this sector.

OA is not dead: we can¡¯t allow it to be! But we may need to accept that the golden age of open software, built around institutional cottage industries, is over. And that may prompt us to revisit the underpinning rationale.

UK Research and Innovation keeps talking about creating ¡°¡± to reshape the research journey, including making research open. Why not be brave? Why not move from institutional repositories to a UK knowledge store, developed ¨C Shock! Horror! ¨C with a commercial partner, using Software as a Service (SaaS) tools built to maximise the power of modern technologies and hosted in safe and secure data centres?

Jisc has tried in the past few years to? ¡°next-generation repositories, research data repositories and digital archiving¡±, but, unfortunately, it has failed. It is too hard and too expensive to deliver the existing vision and OA mindset.

ÖйúAƬ

If the cyber-attack on the British Library has inadvertently allowed the institution to perform its principal duty and lead the sector to a fundamental shift then something truly positive will have come out of this awful situation.

Fiona Greig is director of knowledge and digital services at the University of Winchester. She writes in a personal capacity.

ÖйúAƬ