Transcript Preserving Intellectual Resources: Institutional

Institutional Repositories and
Open Access
Βιβλιοθήκη Αλεξάνδρειου Τεχνολογικού
Εκπαιδευτικού Ιδρύματος
Thessaloniki, Greece
September 13 – 14, 2006
http://www.utk.edu/~peilingw/ATEI
Peiling Wang, PhD
Associate Professor
[email protected]
Timeline: Access to Information
1980s
library
automation
online
library
1990s
2000s
electronic
library
digital
digital
libraries repositories
virtual
&
libraries open access
e-journals
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
•Cost
•Open-access new jn
•Price
•Individual subscription
•Continued access
•permanent access
Institutional Repositories (IR)








Digital archives
Open archives
Digital preservation
Digital academic repository
E-archiving
Self archiving
Knowledge repository
Dark archives
Defining IR



university-based (organization, national)
services (committed) to its community
management/stewardship of digital
materials:
 long-term preservation
 organization
 access
 Distribution
"Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in
the Digital Age" ARL, no. 226 (February 2003): 1-7.
Defining Open Access (OA)


e-science movement for sharing scholarly
information and research data/outputs
Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

Berlin Declaration (2003)
http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin



open and unrestricted access to published
research literature and databases
users are licensed to download, print, copy,
redistribute, and use
free or partial free
IR and OA: Twins

OA is the front-end for users:
maximizing accessibility to digital
content

IR is the back-end for intellectual assets:
content, preservation, metadata

together to increase access and to
reduce cost
OCLC adaptation of Liz Lyon, UKOLN
JISC/CNI 6th International Meeting
July 6-7m 2006
Growth of IR
IR—Needs Identified





Research outputs (pre- post-print)
Learning objects (re-use)
Primary data (re-analysis)
Scholarly communication (e-Science
movement!)
Personal digital collections
(preservation and access)
Author’s Concerns







Willingness to deposit—disciplinary diff
My intellectual property/copyrights
How are my works used (stats)?
Tenure/promotion
Where to deposit?
How much effort?
Working papers vs. peer-reviewed
publications
Institutional View
We see our IR as a key tool for the
stewardship of the University’s digital
research assets. It will provide greater
access to our research, as well as offering
a valuable mechanism for reporting and
recording it.
Paul Curran, Deputy Vice Chancellor
U. of Southampton Press Release 15 Dec 2004
End-user’s Expectations






Free of charge
Convenience in discovering
Easy access to digital objects
Google, Yahoo!
What is DL?
Managing personal digital space
Publisher’s Perspectives

Peer-review

New business model

library- or reader-pays (subscription)

author-pays

pay-per-download

Impact Factor (IF) quickly increases with OA

Longer economic break-even point (7 years or
more?)
Brody et al., 2004
Funder’s Perspectives

Measuring outcomes of funded research
outputs

Public access to funded research publications

New policy to require self-archiving in IR

UK Welcome Trust

CERN

NIH (PubMed Central)

SURF (DARE, Netherland)
Library’s Perspectives

New models

Change of roles

Cost

Collaboration

consortia

coalition

Managerial &

Technical challenges
Repository Services





PubMed Central (NIH, Welcome Trust)
OCLC Digital Archive
ProQuest Digital Commons
BioMed Central
DARE (Digital Academic Repositories)
Some figures from DARE





15 Institutions
207 authors (187 male, 20 female)
40479 records = 195/author (from 3 to
1224)
23853 full text = 58.7% (from 19% to 96%
per institute)
15% only metadata available at the moment
Research & Development
CNI completed the first international survey, 2005
CIBER international survey, 2005
EC Study on economic and technical evolution of
the scientific publication markets in Europe, 06
Numerous IR and OA initiatives and projects
OCLC Systems & Services: a special issue on IR,
2007
Conferences
International survey of IR
Countries
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Netherlands
UK
USA
No. of
IRs
37
8
31
6
1
23
103
17
7
25
16
31
n.r.
No. of Univ
39
15
n.r.
12
21
85
80
77
6
39
13
144
261
% Univ with Ave. no. of docs
IRs
per IR
95
n.r.
53
450
500
50
n.r.
5
n.r.
27
1000
100
300
22
300
100
n.r.
64
400
100
3,000 / 12,500
22
240
n.r.
Westrienen and Lynch. D-Lib Magazine. Table 1: Academic institutional Repositories;
state of the art in 13 countries - June 2005 (in DLIB September 2005)
IR Conferences







Open Scholarship 2006: New Challenges For Open Access Repositories,
an inaugural conference at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 1820 October 2006.
Moving towards open access: A JISC conference for research funders,
authors, publishers and librarians, Keble College, Oxford, 27 - 28
September 2006.
JISC/CNI 6th International Meeting on Envisioning future challenges in
networked information Park Inn York, 6-7 July 2006.
CNI/JISC/SURF Conference: Making the strategic case for institutional
repositories, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 10-11, 2005
ASIST DASER Summit (2003, 2005)
WebWise (IMLS & OCLC)
DL conferences
 JCDL; ICDL; ICADL; ECDL
Models






discipline based
 associations and learned societies
community based (land-grant universities)
 stakeholders
institution based
 university or organization
publisher based (BioMed Central)
national (DARE)
International/regional across nations
Successful Initiatives
ETD across disciplines:
 IR duplicate copies
 OAI-PMH union catalog in OCLC and others
OA across countries:
 SciELO (Brazil, Chili ...) http://www.scielo.org
 BioLine International http://www.bioline.org.br/
Challenges—Managerial


cost
policy at national level





NIH mandate deposit
UK mandate deposit (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/)
knowledge/information lifecycle
distributed vs. centralized model (overlapping
and gaps)
certified or trusted repository institutions for
communities
Challenges—Technical









data diversity
format obsolete
storage degrade
long term preservation
metadata
ephemeral
longevity
sustainability
scalability
Success factors



Infrastructure to ensure integration and
seamless management
Workflow—lifecycle of research, learning
Technical standards:




OAIS; METS; OAI-PMH
Tools
Terminology
Collaboration
Reference Model for an Open
Archival Information System (ISO)
METS: Metadata Encoding &
Transmission Standard
optional
METS
optional
optional
Descriptive
metadata
optional
Administrative
metadata
optional
File
Inventory
Header
Behavioral
metadata
required
Structure
map
Open Source Software





D-Space: somewhat limited to text-based
materials and still in early development.
FEDORA: more extensible, but still embryonic
ARROW: a robust, well architected underlying
platform, persistent identifier granularity
(VTLS as development partner)
Greenstone:
DAITSS: focusing on the preservation
repository function.
Selected Pioneer’s Sites




BioMed Central: http://www.biomedcentral.com/ (countries
involved: US, UK, Germany, Canada, India,
Italy,France, Australia, Japan, Sweden)
PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.org/
Health Education Assets Library www.healcentral.org
California Digital Library
http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship


ETD at Virginia Tech: www.vt.edu
DAITSS: FCLA Digital Archive:
www.fcla.edu/digitalArchive
 LOCKSS: Initiative (trusted dark archive)
 eBank UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/ebank-uk/
 DARE (http://www.creamofscience.org/)
Organizations








Coalition for Networked Information
Joint Information Systems Committee UK
Research Councils UK
SURF Netherlands
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations:
(http://www.ndltd.org)
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
Coalition (SPARC)
OCA (http://www.opencontentalliance.org)
Organizations








Coalition for Networked Information
Joint Information Systems Committee UK
Research Councils UK
SURF Netherlands
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations:
(http://www.ndltd.org)
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
Coalition (SPARC)
OCA (http://www.opencontentalliance.org)
BREAKOUT session
Scenario 1
You are writing a proposal for support to establish policy for
IR or to get fund for an IR initiative
 outline
 What do you want to do
 Justify
 Why is it important/significant for the institute
 Detail
 Who, How, Where, When (timeline)
[User studies as basis for what you proposal]
BREAKOUT session
Scenario 2
You are developing strategies for your role as a
change agent
 How would you advocate the idea of self-archiving
and deposit?
 What would you offer to ease scholars/faculty
stress & burden
 Plan for measuring outcomes of your IR and OA
BREAKOUT session
Scenario 3
You are designing or evaluating an IR
system
 Identify

Functionalities – needs
(usefulness to be measured)

Usability factors – interaction
(usable by the target users)
BREAKOUT session
Scenario 4


Designing a user interface for registering
users (subsystem)
Rationalize


The purposes of user registration
Elements of the subsystem


E.g., User ID handling
Diagram elements as in interaction flowchart