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
Problems
 Access to research limited
 Impact of research limited
 Rising journal prices
01-02/02
00-01
99-00
98-99
97-98
96-97
95-96
94-95
93-94
92-93
91-92
Rising journal prices
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Rising journal prices
250%
177%
200%
Journal price index
150%
Retail Price index
100%
30%
50%
01-02/02
00-01
99-00
98-99
97-98
96-97
95-96
94-95
93-94
92-93
91-92
0%
Problems (cont’d)




Access to research limited
Impact of research limited
Rising journal prices
Competition issues
Competition issues
 “Price competition does not occur in the STM journal
market” (Select Committee report, 2004)
 Lack of substitutability
 Journals: ‘mini monopolies’
 Relative inelasticity of demand
 Publisher can increase market share by raising prices
– if high-impact journal price rises
– libraries (with fixed budgets) cancel other titles
 Concentration in the market
 Big Deal: emphasises the problems
Problems (cont’d)









Access to research limited
Impact of research limited
Rising journal prices
Competition issues
‘Big Deal’
VAT
Lack of library purchasing power
“Disconnect” purchasers/consumers
Digital preservation
Summary
 Universities generate research output
 Give it free of charge to publishers
 Buy it back from publishers
 Give services to publishers free of
charge as:
– authors
– referees
– editorial board members
IRs: 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
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
– automated plagiarism detection
Other benefits
 For society in general
–
–
–
–
–
publicly-funded research publicly available
public understanding of science
knowledge transfer
health and social services
culture
Barriers
 Lack of awareness
 Concerns:
– Quality control - particularly peer review
– IPR - particularly copyright
– Undermining the tried and tested status quo
– Work load
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 v. DIY?
file format conversion, depositing e-prints, creation of metadata
 Author permission and licensing terms
–
–
copyright statement
compliance with publisher copyright terms
 Metadata
–
–
self-created v. third party 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
SHERPA
 Acronym: Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research
Preservation and Access
 Initiator: CURL (Consortium of 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
Key questions
 What are ‘institutional e-print
repositories’?
 Why create them?
 How should they be created?
 Where do we go from here?
Where…?
Recent developments
 Select Committee Report (July 2004) and Government
responses (November 2004 and February 2005)
 Scottish Declaration on Open Access (October 2004)
 Wellcome Trust policy on open access (November 2004)
 Italian and Austrian universities sign open access declaration
(November 2004)
 US National Institutes of Health policy on open access
(February 2005)
 RCUK policy (expected out for consultation April 2005)
 UUK policy statement (expected June 2005)
 New JISC Digital Repositories Programme (July 2005-)
Unresolved issues
 Discipline differences
 Definitions of ‘publication’
 Versioning
 Digital preservation
 Costing and funding models
 Metadata
The future: 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
Other possible futures
 Deconstructing the journal
– content distribution
– quality control
 ‘Overlay journals’
 Quality
–
–
–
–
pre-publication screening
pre-publication peer review
post-publication metrics
post-publication dialogue
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
[email protected]