Building Repositories of eprints in UK Research Universities Bill Hubbard

SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

repositories and e-prints . . .

     research material available on the web cross-searchable rapid dissemination institutionally based

‘e-prints’      ‘e-prints’ are electronic versions of research papers and other similar output ‘pre-prints’ (pre-referred papers) ‘post-prints’ (post-refereed papers) other material – conference papers, book chapters, reports, etc. key is subject’s quality control – particularly peer review

archives, repositories and OAJ    archives repositories open access journals

why use OAI repositories     dissemination of research impact of research access to research easy integration with current practice

publication & deposition

publication & deposition Author writes paper

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository Author submits final version

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository Author submits final version

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository Author submits final version Published in journal

benefits for the researcher  wide dissemination – papers more visible – cited more     rapid dissemination ease of access cross-searchable value added services – hit counts on papers – personalised publications lists – citation analyses

why “

institutional

”?

 institutions have centralised resources: – to subsidise repository start up – to support repositories with technical / organisational infrastructures – to deal effectively with preservation issues over the long term  institutions get benefits: – raising profile and prestige of institution – managing institutional information assets – encourages an institutional identity in intellectual output

SHERPA  Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access  development partners – Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, Sheffield, Leeds, York, British Library and AHDS   funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005

Nottingham eprints

Nottingham eprints - search

Nottingham eprints - record

Arc

Oaister

Google search

Citebase

Citebase - citation analysis

SHERPA - progress        repositories set up in each partner institution test papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns starting sharing experiences and formulating strategies

Summary      open access repositories are good for research institutional repositories offer one solution supplementary to current practice easy to adopt assistance is available

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

[email protected]

issues     collection policy preservation IPR cultural differences and changes

OAI, OAIS, BOAI  OAI - Open Archives Initiative – “Open” - interoperable archives with an open architecture  OAIS - Open Archival Information System reference model – “Open” - open for comments and contributions; the reference model for archives is developed in an open forum  BOAI - Budapest Open Access Initiative – “Open” - freely accessible, open access

successful archives  arXiv - http://www.arxiv.org/ – Set up 1991 at Los Alamos – Now based at: Cornell University – Covers: Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science – Contents: 250,000 papers (pre-prints and post-prints)  other archives: – CogPrints - Cognitive Science – RePec - Economics working papers  centralised subject-based archives

issues     collection policy preservation IPR cultural differences and changes

collection policy  document type – pre-prints v. post-prints; authors: staff, students, others?

 document format – HTML, PDF, Postscript, RTF, ASCII, etc.

 submission procedures – mediated / DIY; file formats  metadata quality standards – self-created metadata

research preservation issues       selection and retention criteria preservation metadata preferred formats life-cycle management cost models . . . one view is that it can all be set aside for now . . .

IPR    author permission and licensing terms copyright and copying compliance with publisher copyright terms

cultural differences and changes  different subject cultures – pre-print culture e.g. Physics – pre-print averse e.g. Medicine – Require: different policies or different archives?

 changing the status quo – advocacy and support

SHERPA - next stage    work on IPR, Deposit licences, Metadata, Preservation increased advocacy within partner institutions support services: document conversion, archiving, IPR advice, and metadata creation  adoption of Associate Partners

Citebase - references

Nottingham eprints - process

Nottingham eprints - about and menu

Citebase - abstract