Transcript Technology Strategic Planning: mission impossible or

Institutional Digital Repositories:
in our dreams? in our lifetimes?
Wallace McLendon, Associate Director
Library Services
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Health Sciences Library
FITAC
January 15, 2003
Libraries

Current journal system for distributing scholarly
research is unsustainable

Trends in Molecular Science


Human Molecular Genetics


$140 in 2000, $1015 in 2002 (625% increase)
$1030 in 2000, $1450 in 2002 (41% increase)
J ournal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences

$105 in 2000, $240 in 2002 (129% increase)
Present journal system

Those who bear direct/indirect cost
also bear cost of journal subscription




Faculty produce research
Academic editors + peer reviewers
select/validate
Libraries purchase, process, house, &
distribute journals to end users
Libraries preserve
Institutional Repositories



digital collections – not links to or referrals
capture & preserve intellectual output of
universities
Pre-prints, works-in-progress, peer-reviewed
articles, monographs, research, book
chapters, enduring teaching materials, data
sets, conference papers, theses,
dissertations, gray literature
Why now? Convergence






Distribution capabilities of internet
Growth in the volume of research
Loss of scholarly research
Growing library frustration with monopolistic
effects of traditional publishing system
Availability of digital networks & publishing
technologies
Uncertainty of research preservation
Potentials






Expand access to research
Reduce monopoly through alternatives
University regain control of scholarship
Reflect quality of university, demonstrate
relevance of university’s research, increase
institutions visibility and value
Build on grassroots faculty self-posting online
Promote institution rather than
journal/publisher
Elements of scholarly communication



Certifying research quality
Ensuring dissemination and accessibility
Preserving research for future use
Certifying research quality




User communities would control input
Academic departments, departmental peers
Sponsoring community
Pre-prints have begun (e.g., http://arxiv.org for
physics/math)

May evolve to overlay journals


Digital aggregators with greater review
Eminent editors, qualified reviewers, rigorous standards
Ensuring Access



Institutions deposit research in content
repositories
IR systems interoperable to accommodate
multiple search engines
Maintain access & rights management systems
IR Initiatives
DSPace – MIT & Hewlett-Packard
<www.dspace.org>







preserves intellectual output of MIT
distributes institution's digital works over web
through search & retrieval system
accommodates variety of digital formats
first digital repository to address issues in multidisciplinary archive
customized user portal for each community
reflecting community’s practices, terminology
designed to support federation of IRs
preserve digital works over the long term
California Digital Library e-Scholarship
Repository
<http://escholarship.cdlib.org>






distributes research & working papers U of Cal faculty
web-based dissemination of digitally reformatted
publications
repository for research, scholarly output including prepublication scholarship, peer-reviewed content
support for presentation and dissemination of
interactive publications & teaching materials
suite of digital services to store/distribute research
supports topical alert service
Biomed Central
<www.biomedcentral.com>








First commercial publisher (Current Science Group)
Launched May 2000
80+ biomed journals (Journal of Biology, Genome Biology,
Arthritis Research & Therapy, etc.)
“Start a new journal” program
24 editorial groups, 26 more to launch 2002
Online submission, peered reviewed, indexed in PubMed,
BIOSIS
Average time of publication is 11 weeks
Costs – author charged $500 per article – charge waived
if institution is member, author retains copyright
PLoS - Public Library of Science (PLoS)
<www.publiclibraryofscience.org>



$9 million Moore Foundation grant
300,000 signatures from leading scientists –
publish in, edit, review only those journals
agreeing to grant unrestricted free distribution
rights through online public resources within 6
months of initial publication date
Authors to pay $1,500 per article (Hughes Med
Institute $11 billion endowment cover author’s
costs)
BOAI - Budapest Open Access Initiative
www.soros.org/openaccess/

$3 million grant from Open Society Institute
www.soros.org/osi.html


Funds institutions in selected countries to
publish in open-access journals
Content from 2000 biomedical journals but
limited to 100 developing countries
Additional IR Projects

Ohio State University Knowledge Bank
http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/Lib_Info/scholarcom/KBproposal.html


Caltech Library Systems Digital Collection




Coordinated by Distance Learning, Continuing Education
Committee, University Library, CIO’s office, OCLC & Chemical
Chemical Abstracts
http://library.caltech.edu/digital
PubMed Central

www.pubmedcentral.gov

Sponsored by National Institutes, hosted by NLM
ARNO – Academic Research, Netherlands Online
Los Alamos e-print archive

http://arxiv.Cornell.edu (physics & math pre-prints)
Impact on libraries

Libraries services will shift to support faculty
in open access publishing activities




Facilitate self-publishing – forms, templates, selfindexing, self key wording, no intermediary
Metadata tagging, authority controls, increase
usability of data
Increase visibility of library
Library will work more closely with faculty
Impact on faculty



Changing patterns of professional recognition,
career advancement
Faculty perceptions may vary depending on
discipline
Pre-print disciplines will be early adopters
Impact on publishers



Revenue threatened?
Deconstructs that each article & journal is a
monopoly
A probable co-existence, a better balance
Costs – more procedural and managerial
than technical (Crow p. 28)







Content access policies
Metadata storage & presentation
Digital document identifiers (DOIs)
Author permission & licensing agreements
Long-term archiving guidelines
Content submission training for staff and authors
Marketing the IR to prospective authors
Software


Eprints <www.eprints.org>– free software from U of
Southhampton, to help create archives of online
research papers
Open archives <www.openarchives.org> metadata
codes to attach to research papers so that search
engines can access desired information
SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition
<www.arl.org/sparc>



Duke, NC State, NC Central, and UNC-CH
(TRLN) major sponsor
International alliance 200+ college & research
libraries
constructive response to market dysfunctions
in scholarly communication system…[which
has] reduced dissemination of scholarship &
crippled libraries… serves as a catalyst for
action
Best white paper on
institutional repositories wm
Observations





IR seems to work best when discipline specific
We are losing scholarly information that doesn’t fit into books
and peer-reviewed print containers
Librarians have been interested in books and journals because
those are the containers that researchers and scholars have
placed content in -- this “interest” among librarians is changing
If data sets are as valuable a record of scholarly research as a
printed, peer-reviewed journal article, libraries & universities
need to rethink what is saved, accessible, & preserved
Concerns : sustainability – who will pay for storage, staff, &
technology; inertia of publishing system + inertia of tenure
system
First readings





Crow, Raym. “The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position
Paper.” Washington, DC: The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources
Coalition. http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=f60
Fletcher, Gordon. Averting the Crisis in Medical Publishing – Open Access
Journals. He@lth Information on the Internet, December 2002.
Gibbons, Susan, “Seeking a System for Community-driven Digital
Collections at the University of Rochester,” SPARC E-News (FebruaryMarch, 2002). http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=g23#5
Harmon, Amy. “New Premise in Science: Get the Word out Quickly,
Online.” New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/science/17JOUR.html?ei=1&en=1d
9bd31d8e720395&ex=1041079105&pagewanted=print&position=top
National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
(NDIIPP) http://ww.digitalpreservation.gov/ndiipp/
First readings





(continued)
OSU Knowledge Bank Planning Committee, “A Proposal for Development of an
OSU Knowledge Bank: Final Report Submitted to the OSU Distance
Learning/Continuing Education Committee, June 21, 2002,” by OSU Knowledge
Bank Planning Committee, Joseph J. Branin, Director of Libraries, Chair.
http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/Lib_Info/scholarcom/Kbproposal.html
Peters, Thomas. “Digital Repositories: Individual, Discipline-based, Institutional,
Consortial, or National?” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, v.28, no. 6
pages 414-417.
Pinfield, Stephen, Mike Gardner, & John MacColl, “Setting up an Institutional
Eprint Archive,” Ariadne 31 (2002). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/epringarchives/
Schulenburger, David. “Moving with Dispatch to Resolve the Scholarly
Communication Crisis: from here to NEAR.” ARL 202 (February 199: pp. 2-3.
Van Bentum, Maarten, Renze Brandsma, Thomas Place, & Hans Roes,
“Reclaiming Academic Output through University Archive Servers.” New Review
of Information Networking (August 2001).
http://cwis.kupnl/1P5dbi/users/roes/articles/arno_art.htm