Open Access Repositories where we are now Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham.

Open Access Repositories where we are now

Bill Hubbard

SHERPA Manager

University of Nottingham

Institutional repositories

“Digital collections that preserve and provide access to 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.

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

pre-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Deposits in e-print repository

pre-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author


pre-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version


pre-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author



pre-print

post-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author


Published in journal


pre-print

post-print


Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author


Published in journal


pre-print

post-print

published version

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

Benefits for society in general

Publicly-funded research publicly available Public understanding of science Knowledge transfer Health and social services Culture

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

Repository content

Preprints Postprints Datasets Learning objects Videos Sound files

linkage between these objects

Theses Dissertations Royalty publications Conference papers Conference organisation Grey literature

Repository use

Access to material Citation analysis Overlay journals Review projects Evidence based work Data-mining Cross-institutional research

group virtual research environments

. . . Services built on top

RAE-like submissions, activities and management

Archival storage “Shop-windows” Facilitate industrial links Career-long personalised

work spaces

Repositories are spreading because . . .

Give easy access Give rapid access Give long-term access Increase readership and use of material They offer advantages to academics They offer advantages to institutions They offer advantages to research funders They offer new ways for information to be linked and

used

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

18 out of 19

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

68% operational repositories or active repository programmes

UK Institutional Repositories

AHDS S Bath Birkbeck S Birmingham S Bristol S British Library S Cambridge S

CCLRC Cranfield Durham S

Edinburgh S Glasgow S Imperial S Lancaster Leeds S LSE S Kings College S Newcastle S Nottingham S

Open University Oxford S

Royal Holloway S Sheffield S St Andrews SOAS S

Southampton Stirling Surrey UCL S York S Warwick

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

Threat to journals?– evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future . . . ?

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

Embargoes– defines relationship of publisher to research

Cultural barriers to adoption Authors are willing to use repositories

– 79% would deposit willingly if required to do so

Deposition policies are key

Developments & schisms

Open Access– but not OAI-PMH– but not scholarly material– is scholarly, but innovative content

Repositories gaining connections - & loosing clarity?– Modified to accept publishers’ embargoes– Relating or merging with research assessment needs

Spin and confusions - “open” “access”– but hedged with restrictive rights-limitations – but not free - subscription or fee required – but not immediate access– but not full-text

SHERPA

SHERPA - an outcome of JISC's strategy & support

Facilitated establishment and development of repositories in partner institutions

Examined issues for repository growth

SHERPA Partners

– University of Nottingham – University of Birmingham – University of Bristol – University of Cambridge – University of Durham – University of Edinburgh – University of Glasgow – London LEAP Consortium – University of Newcastle – University of Oxford – White Rose Partnership – The British Library– Arts & Humanities Data Service

London LEAP Consortium – Birkbeck College – Goldsmiths College – Imperial College – Institute of Cancer

Research – Kings College – London School of

Economics and Political Science (LSE)

– Royal Holloway – Queen Mary

– School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

– School of Pharmacy (SoP)

– University College, London (UCL)

White Rose Partnership – University of Leeds – University of Sheffield – University of York

SHERPA - current projects

SHERPA Plus OpenDOAR SHERPA/RoMEO SHERPA DP PROSPERO RDN IR Search Service DRIVER EThOS MIDESS, IRIS, VERSIONS, SPECTRa and StORe

SHERPA - practical outcomes

Establishing an archive, individual or consortium Basic technical needs Basic costs Populating an archive Copyright Advocacy & changing working habits Mounting material Maintenance Preservation Concerns

http://www.sherpa.ac.ukhttp://www.opendoar.org

[email protected]

Demonstrations

SHERPA Nottingham Repository Google SHERPA/RoMEO OpenDOAR OpenDOAR developments

SHERPA is . . . opening access to research

PartnersBirkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, British Library, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Goldsmiths, ICR, Imperial, Kings, Leeds, LSE, King’s, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Queen Mary, Royal Holloway, Sheffield, SOAS, SoP, UCL, York, AHDS

SHERPA PlusA two year project to encourage the development of the national repository infrastructure in the UK

SHERPA DPWorking towards a practical model for a national digital preservation service foropen access repositories

SHERPA/RoMEOAn online reference service listing the different open access rights authors retain with different publishers

OpenDOARAn global directory of open access repositories,Working in partnership with Lund University.

PROSPEROA national repository for UK academics whoseInstitutions do not yet have a repository.

RDN Search ServiceA UK HE-focussed service to search open access repositories around the world.

DRIVERAn EU project to establish and promote aeuropean network of academic repositories.

For more details of SHERPA’s work seehttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk

Supporting Institutional ePrint Repositories in the UKePrints are . . . • electronic versions of research papers• full-text journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, reports etc• ‘pre-prints’ (pre-refereed papers) if these are used by the subject discipline• ‘post-prints’ (post peer-review papers) that are duplicates of the published text

Institutional Repositories are . . . • a complement - not a replacement - for existing publishing processes• archives of an institution’s research output• open access - which means the contents can be viewed for free by anyone online

Benefits of Repositories . . . • allow academics to disseminate and re-use their own work• papers are more visible: evidence shows they are cited more • allow wide and rapid dissemination• access barriers for researchers are removed• all repositories are cross-searchable as one virtual repository • structured environment allows targeted searches• IRs are indexed by general search engines• provide a showcase for an author’s, department's or institution’s output

Why Institutional?• can support academics in every discipline• centralised resources for start up, support and preservation• can help in research management & RAE• eprints in institutional repositories can be found through subject gateways• store locally – find globally

Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation & Access

Future Themes - discussion

Futures

10 years - what changes are coming down the track and what responses are needed?

What is inside your control and what is outside? Irrespective of repositories, author-side charges,

open access - what will develop? Developments in the web and ICT alone will produce

substantial change . . . Some themes . . .

Future themes

Journals - what is happening now and what will develop in the future?– subscriptions, commercial pressures, staffing . . .

Academics & IT - what will people expect from IT?– access, speed, integration . . .

Research funding and processes - how is research changing?– what stakeholders are involved and what do they want? . . .

How will this effect current publishing models? How will this effect open access and repositories?

Journals

Governments will not loosen the purse strings Subscriptions per journal will continue to decline Continued agglomeration of publishing concerns Smaller publishers will continue to be squeezed and

have to react The big and the nimble will survive Editorial and peer-review process will be

technologically mediated Unbundling of products, processes and services - with

a global marketplace for service provision

Academics and IT

Increasing connectivity Increasing demand for rapid, permanent access,

everywhere Increasing demand for more information Increasing demand for free access Information per se will be more freely available and

the links between information will become the valued commodity

Research

Full Economic Costing and Value For Money Public awareness and availability Raised awareness of IPR issues Institutions being pressured to capitalise on their

assets Cross-disciplinary research Synthesis - evidence based research - data mining Emergence of global standards - quality control? -

with a global marketplace for service provision

What will happen?

Who knows? But whatever happens - If definitive versions are of value to research work (and they are)

– then they will be used

If journals are of value to research work (and they are) – then they will be used

If publishers are of value to research work (and they are) – then they will be used

If learned societies are of value to research work (and they are) – then they will be used

If repositories of work are of value to research work (and they are) – then they will be used

Future Themes - discussion

Which themes are independant of OA Which themes relate to OA Which will be solved through OA The fit of current business models within the

business environment of 2016 The fit of OA within business environment of 2016

Open Access Repositories where we are now Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham.

Documents

paper slide

author author

journal slide

publication deposition

search slide

author deposits

publication deposition

unnecessary duplication