Institutional Repositories and Research Support Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.
Post on 28-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Institutional Repositories and Research Support
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
Libraries and research support
what support do academics want ? what role can information services play ? what role does a repository play?
Users wanted . . .
access to financial information access to funding and research opportunities support in working practices access to library services on-line
A virtual research environment
offers personalised services syntheses access to information and services provides a supported working environment used for finding information used for disseminating information facilitates collaboration in new ways
and across old boundaries
Institutional repositories
“Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.”*
encouraging wider use of open access information assets
may contain a variety of digital objects – e-prints, – theses, – e-learning objects, – datasets
* Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002.
Not just storage
provides core of an information management system opportunities for integration of research and teaching record of institutional output access to institutional authors’ work search services give access to other repositories a service to authors
Open Access for the researcher
wide dissemination – papers more visible– cited more
rapid dissemination ease of access cross-searchable value added services
– hit counts on papers– personalised publications lists– citation analyses
publication & deposition
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Deposits in e-print repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Deposits in e-print repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Deposits in e-print repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Deposits in e-print repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Published in journal
Deposits in e-print repository
Repository basis
institutional repositories combined with location-specific or subject-based search services
practical reasons– use institutional infrastructure– integration into work-flows and systems – support is close to academic users and contributors
OAI-PMH allows a single gateway to search and access many repositories– subject-based portals or views– subject-based classification and search
Other benefits
for the institution– facilitates use and re-use of the information assets– raises profile and prestige of institution– manages institutional information assets - RAE– long-term cost savings
for the research community– ‘frees up’ the communication process– avoids unnecessary duplication or overlap of work– facilitates new user-groups for research/ collaboration– levels the playing field for global research dissemination
Benefits for society in general
publicly-funded research publicly available public understanding of science knowledge transfer: commercial; cultural research is a product of, and part of, our culture: if its
possible for it to be free to all, then it should be.
Publisher reactions
fear of “reconstructing the journal” prohibit use of publisher pdf impose new embargoes some cautious experimentation - but some “author-charge” models where the
author still cannot use the article!
Problems with the current system
limited access to research limited impact of research rising journal prices competition issues ‘Big Deal’ threat to Learned Society publishers disengagement of academics . . . this is from an overview . . .
SHERPA -
Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access
Partner institutions– Birkbeck College, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge,
Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College, Kings College, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African Studies, Sheffield, University College London,York; the British Library and AHDS
www.sherpa.ac.uk
SHERPA aims and outcomes
Establish institutionally-based eprint repositories Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change
Repositories at Nottingham
Nottingham ePrints Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive Nottingham eTheses
Nottingham ePrints Home Page
Department Listing
Critical Theory Listing
Tormey Metadata
Tormey pdf
Department page
Departmental publications page
Google - Millington
114th Result - Millington
Nottingham ePrints - May 2005
1,868 requests Average requests per day: 60 Average download per day: 6.8Mb
Most requested eprints - May 2005
Dornyei - 156 requests Pinfield - 88 requests
SHERPA - practical issues
establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns . . .
Academic concerns
subject base more natural ? – institutional infrastructure, view by subject
quality control ?– peer-review clearly labelled
plagiarism– old problem - and easier to detect
“I already have my papers on my website . . . “– unstructured for RAE, access, search, preservation
conflict with traditional journal publication– two separate things
– repositories are supplementary
Administrator concerns
setting up the repository– technical solutions
populating the repository and advocacy maintenance costs preservation service models and costs
– author-deposition– mediated-deposition– mixed economies
Barriers to adoption
copyright restrictions– approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors to
archive
cultural barriers to adoption authors are willing to use repositories
– 81% would deposit willingly if required to do so
deposition policies are key
Policy development
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay . . . delay does not equal embargo, but . . . Wellcome Trust - a requirement, but a 6 month delay RCUK Position Statement - draft requires deposition
but does not specify any time for deposition RAE may contribute to the debate . . .
Futures
policies for deposition will help establish repositories and their use
advocacy, search and value-added services will embed repositories into the research process
the organisation of research will embed repositories into institutional services and administration
repositories, and their use, will grow
Progress . . .
repositories set up in each partner institution papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns
SHERPA - progress
SHERPA DP
2 year project to December 2006 use OAIS model to develop a persistent preservation
environment for SHERPA explore use of METS as metadata framework protocols for a working preservation service extend the storage layer of repository software with
open Source extensions “Digital Preservation User Guide”
SHERPA/RoMEO
continuing project & under development . . . www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
OpenDOAR
18 month project to August 2006 survey of Open Access Repositories registry of Open Access Repositories for third party service providers . . . for end users . . .
SHERPA Plus
2 year project to July 2007 advocacy strategies and material for the further
population of existing repositories advocacy, resources, information and advice for institutions
wanting to establish repositories support for repository-level, institutional and national
policy development review and analysis of extending repository holdings
with datasets, multimedia, grey literature, learning objects and other content types
SHERPA repositories
Birkbeck Birmingham Bristol British Library Cambridge Durham Edinburgh
Glasgow Imperial Leeds LSE Kings College Newcastle Nottingham
Oxford Royal Holloway Sheffield SOAS UCL York AHDS
National progress
all of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live:– Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Kings, Imperial, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL,York and the British Library
other institutions are also live:– Bath, CCLRC, Cranfield, Open University, Portsmouth,
Southampton, St Andrews, Surrey
other institutions are planning and installing IBERs
1994 Group
University of Bath * University of Durham * University of East Anglia University of Essex University of Surrey * University of Exeter Lancaster University Birkbeck University of London *
Goldsmiths LSE * Royal Holloway * University of Reading University of St Andrews * University of Sussex University of Warwick * University of York *
over 50% operational repositories
. . . more on the way . . .
Russell Group
University of Birmingham * University of Bristol * University of Cambridge * Cardiff University University of Edinburgh * University of Glasgow * Imperial College * King's College London * University of Leeds * University of Liverpool
LSE * University of Manchester University of Newcastle * University of Nottingham * University of Oxford * University of Sheffield * University of Southampton * University of Warwick * University College London *
16 out of 19 operational . . . 100% on the way . . .
A selection of recent progress
Scottish Declaration of Open Access 32 Italian Rectors and the Messina Declaration Austrian Rectors sign the Berlin Declaration Russian Libraries launch the St Petersburg Declaration Wellcome Trust’s repository Widespread publicity and support . . .and India, Africa, Australia . . .
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk
top related