Transcript No Slide Title

Creating an institutional
e-print repository
Stephen Pinfield
University of Nottingham
Key questions
 What are ‘institutional e-print
repositories’?
 Why create them?
 How should they be created?
 Where do we go from here?
What…?
Terminology
 ‘E-print archives’
 ‘Open archives’
 ‘Self archiving’
 ‘Institutional repositories’
‘E-print archives’
 ‘E-print’ = “a digital duplicate of an academic
research paper that is made available online as a
way of improving access to the paper”*
 ‘E-print archives’ = online repositories of this material
 Might contain:
–
–
–
–
–
–
‘pre-prints’ (pre-referred papers)
‘post-prints’ (post-refereed papers)
conference papers
book chapters
reports
etc.
* Alma Swan et al., JISC report, 2004
‘Open archives’
 ‘Open’ = freely accessible, ‘open access’ – as
Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and/or
 ‘Open’ = interoperable – Open Archives Initiative
(OAI):
– “develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim
to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content.”
– OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting – allows metadata
from different archives to be harvested and collected
together in searchable databases
– creates the potential for a global virtual research archive
OAI Protocol: key concepts
Service
Provider
End User
Data
Providers
‘Self archiving’
 ‘Author self-archiving’:
“…an umbrella term often applied to the
electronic posting, without publisher mediation, of
author-supplied research.”*
 ‘Institution self-archiving’ (or ‘self archiving by
proxy’):
Institutions may post articles on behalf of
authors, where authors are members of the
institution
* Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002.
Successful archives
 arXiv
–
–
–
–
–
http://www.arxiv.org/
Set up: 1991 at Los Alamos
Now based at: Cornell University
Covers: Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science
Contents: 300,000 papers (pre-prints and post-prints)
 Other archives:
– CogPrints - Cognitive Science
– RePec - Economics working papers
 Centralised subject-based archives
‘Institutional repositories’
 “Digital collections that preserve and provide access the
the intellectual output of an institution.”*
 Aim: encouraging wider use of open access information
assets
 May contain a variety of digital objects e.g. e-prints,
theses, e-learning objects, datasets
 Institutions have:
– resources to subsidise archive start up
– technical / organisational infrastructures to support archives
– an interest in managing and disseminating content
 ‘Repository’ avoids the ‘a’ word
* Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002.
So, what am I talking about?
Open-access
OAI-compliant
institutional
e-print
repositories
Nottingham eprints
Nottingham eprints - record
Arc
Google search
Citebase
Citebase - citation analysis
Publication & self-archiving
Author writes paper
Deposits in e-print
repository
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Published in journal
Why…?
Why institutional e-print repositories?
 Context
– structural problems in scholarly publishing
– e-print repositories a possible solution
 Benefits
–
–
–
–
for the researcher
for the institution
for the research community
for society in general
Context
Structural problems with scholarly publishing
 ‘Impact barriers’
– authors give away their content and want to achieve impact not
income
– want to disseminate research widely
– but commercial publishers want to restrict circulation based on
subscriptions
 ‘Access barriers’
– researchers want easy access to the literature
– but most researchers do not have easy access to most of the
literature
Benefits for the researcher
 Wide dissemination




– papers more visible
– cited more
Rapid dissemination
Ease of access
Cross-searchable
Value added author services
– hit counts on papers
– personalised publications lists
 Literature analysis
– text mining
– citation analysis
 Automated plagiarism detection
lowering impact barriers
lowering access barriers
Other benefits
 For the institution
–
–
–
–
raising profile and prestige of institution
managing institutional information assets
accreditation / performance management
long-term cost savings
 For the research community
– ‘frees up’ the communication process
– avoids unnecessary duplication
Other benefits
 For society in general
–
–
–
–
–
publicly-funded research publicly available
public understanding of science
knowledge transfer
health and social services
culture
Common concerns
 Concerns:
–
–
–
–
Quality control - particularly peer review
IPR - particularly copyright
Undermining the tried and tested status quo
Work load
 Responses:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Institutional repositories complementary to the publishing status quo
Authors can publish in peer-reviewed journals and deposit papers in repositories
Many publishers already allow self-archiving
Help and advice on IPR essential
Open-access does not mean plagiarism
Help with administration
How…?
Installation
 Initial installation relatively straightforward
 Free OAI-compliant software:
–
–
–
–
eprints.org software (http://www.eprints.org)
DSpace (http://www.dspace.org)
CERN CDS (http://cdsware.cern.ch)
etc
 Support networks
 Commercial software and services
Collection management
 Document type
–
–
pre-prints v. post-prints
authors: staff, students, others?
 Document format
–
HTML, PDF, Postscript, RTF, ASCII, etc.
 Digital preservation policy
 Submission procedures
–
–
mediated / DIY?
file format conversion, depositing e-prints, creation of metadata
 Author permission and licensing terms
–
–
copyright statement
compliance with publisher copyright terms
 Metadata quality standards
–
–
self-created metadata
metadata quality and visibility
Costs
 Start-up costs low
–
–
–
–
hardware
software (eprints.org free)
installation
policies and procedures
 Medium-term costs higher
– advocacy – getting content
– support
– mediated submission / metadata
 Ongoing costs significant
– metadata creation / enhancement
– preservation
staff time
JISC FAIR programme
 JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee
 FAIR: Focus on Access to Institutional Resources
 Background: “inspired by the vision of the Open
Archives Initiative (OAI)”
 Aim: “to support the disclosure of institutional assets”
 Projects: 14 in ‘Clusters’: Museums and images; Eprints; E-theses; IPR; Institutional portals
 Duration: Summer 2002 onwards (1-3 year projects)
 Total funding: £3 million
 New programme: 2005
SHERPA
 Acronym: Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research
Preservation and Access
 Initiator: CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries)
 Development Partners: Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield, British Library, York, AHDS
 Associate Partners: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham,
Newcastle, London: Birkbeck, Imperial, Kings, LSE, Royal
Holloway, SOAS, UCL
 Duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005
 Funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
SHERPA aims
 To construct a series of institutional OAI-compliant
repositories
 To investigate key issues in populating and
maintaining e-print collections
 To work with service providers to achieve acceptable
standards and the dissemination of the content
 To investigate standards-based digital preservation
 To disseminate learning outcomes and advocacy
materials
Where…?
Latest developments
 Select Committee report and Government
response
 Wellcome Trust policy
 RCUK policy development
 Italian and Austrian rectors sign Berlin
Declaration
 Scottish Declaration
 US NIH policy
Harnad’s scenario
 Universities install and register OAI-compliant e-print archives.
 Authors self-archive their pre-refereeing pre-prints and post-refereeing
post-prints in their own university's e-print archives.
 Universities subsidize a first start-up wave of self-archiving by proxy
where needed.
 The ‘give-away’ corpus is freed from all access/impact barriers on-line.
Then….
 Users will prefer the free version?
 Publisher subscription revenues shrink, Library savings grow?
 Publishers downsize to be providers of quality control service+ optional
add-on products?
 Quality control service costs funded by author-institution out of readerinstitution subscription savings?
Source: Stevan Harnad For Whom the Gate Tolls?
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm
The role of publishers
Adding value:
 Managing quality control
 Copy editing / formatting
 Enhancing full text
 Metadata services
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
[email protected]