Transcript No Slide Title

SHERPA’s work on
Institutional Repositories
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
SHERPA Project
 Partner Institutions
– Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge,
Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds,
Newcastle, Oxford, Sheffield, York,
University of London - Birkbeck, Imperial,
Kings, LSE, Royal Holloway, SOAS, UCL
– British Library, AHDS
 Funding from JISC and CURL
 Nov 02 - Oct 05
SHERPA aims and outcomes
 Establish institutionally-based eprint repositories
 Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation
 Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change
Eprint archiving




Increased dissemination, access, impact
Cultural barriers to adoption
Authors are willing to use repositories
Requiring deposition is key
Copyright




Many publishers - most journals - are “Green”
SHERPA/RoMEO list gives summaries
Need clarity and consistency
Copyright retention
Repository basis
 Institutional repositories combined with national 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
Setting up institutional repositories




Technically straightforward
Low cost
Advocacy & population addressed in-house
Many institutional repositories are already in place
Supporting eprint repositories
 Deposition as a condition of grant
 Copyright retention by authors
 Institutional repositories with subject-based search
services
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
[email protected]