Institutional Repositories and Research Support Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.

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


Author writes paper


Author writes paper

Submits to journal


Author writes paper

Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Deposits in e-print repository


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author



Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version



Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author




Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author


Published in journal


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

[email protected]

Institutional Repositories and Research Support Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.

Documents

paper slide

journal slide

search slide

author author

publication deposition

eprint repository slide

department page slide

department listing slide