Transcript Slide 1
Supporting a network of repositories - experience from SHERPA in the UK Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham Routes to Open Access Δ Open Access Journals Δ Open Access Repositories Δ Two routes to Open Access - but not equivalent! Publication and deposition Author writes paper pre-print Submits to journal Deposit in e-print repository Paper refereed Revised by author post-print Author submits final version Published in journal published version Repositories Δ Repositories work alongside traditional and OA publication models Δ Offer Open Access benefits plus more . . . Δ Offer additional benefits for – – – – – authors researchers institutions research funders and research process Repository Use Repositories Δ Institutions have repositories – open to institution’s academics Δ Networks of repositories – SHERPA, DARENet, ARROW - country networks – DRIVER - European network Δ Some subjects have specific repositories – arXiv - 482,478 items – UKPMC - 948,500 full-text articles – AgentLink Publications Clearinghouse - 1403 items Why institutional repositories? Δ Practical reasons – – – – use institutional infrastructure integration into work-flows and systems support is close to academic users and contributors repository managers can oversee processes, check compliance with funders and with best-practice standards, etc Δ The OAI-PMH allows a single gateway to search and access many repositories – subject-based portals or views – institutional storage and support Rise of Repositories Δ Directory of Open Access Repositories OpenDOAR – www.opendoar.org – over 1300 open access repositories – started registration in 2006 . . . Δ 200 added in 2007 Δ . . . and over 300 added in 2008 Δ 80% are institutional Repositories by Continent Δ Figures from OpenDOAR www.opendoar.org Repositories in Russell &1994 Groups (UK) Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ University of Bath Birkbeck University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge Cardiff University University of Durham University of East Anglia University of Edinburgh University of Essex University of Exeter University of Glasgow Goldsmiths Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Imperial College King's College London Lancaster University University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Liverpool Loughborough University LSE University of Manchester University of Newcastle University of Nottingham University of Oxford Queen Mary Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Effectively, the UK HE research base . . . Queen’s University University of Reading Royal Holloway University of St Andrews University of Sheffield SOAS University of Southampton University of Surrey University of Sussex University of Warwick UCL University of York How to create a network Δ Δ Δ Δ Example from the UK . . . Initial experiments JISC Programmes and strategic vision One example - SHERPA – – – – – Self-help group Collaborative partnership Peer network Advocacy activities Policy development and lobbying Other examples Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ IRIScotland DARE-NET ARROWs project DRIVER DART-Europe Ireland Repositories in the USA What successful lessons can be drawn? Building repository networks Δ Not primarily a technical challenge – free software or commercial hosting – (relatively) simple set-up Δ Not primarily a copyright problem Δ Not primarily author-persuasion about Open Access Δ Challenges are in effective support for cultural, policy and procedural change management within institutions and research communities For a repository network . . . Δ Practical – Repositories – Content – Repository Managers Δ “Buy-in” from three key stakeholders: – Academics – Funders – Institutions Δ Support . . . Top-down support - Institutional Δ Shared vision with stakeholders Δ Encouragement – Statements, policies, funding Δ Embedding in research process and work-flows – Prestige measures to match Δ Δ Δ Δ Representation to powerful lobbies Ensure legal framework is supportive Support for centralised support services Recognition of value of bottom-up work Top-down support - Funding Bodies Δ Recognition of value of Open Access to mission of funders Δ Policies/ mandates to ensure Open Access and/or deposition Δ Recognition/reward of compliance from authors – and sanctions for non-compliance from authors – work with repository managers Δ Promotion of open access work to their stakeholders (government, general public, researchers, institutions, learned societies) Side-to-side support Δ Networking amongst peers – email, events, wikis, blogs Δ Professional training – advocacy, technical issues, legal issues Δ Share best practice, standards Δ Self-help - create: – mentoring arrangements – peer-networks – professional support groups - eg, UKCoRR Bottom-up support - Repository Managers Δ Establish repositories Δ Create effective policies for/about repository use Δ Advocacy to researchers and authors - and library staff Δ Tackle practical problems Δ Identifying work-flows and structures within institutions to support Open Access deposit Δ Act as institutional focus to drive repository agenda Assistance - examples Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ SHERPA - www.sherpa.ac.uk RoMEO - www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo JULIET - www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet OpenDOAR - www.opendoar.org and ~/search RSP - www.rsp.ac.uk The Depot - depot.edina.ac.uk Intute Repository Search - irs.ukoln.ac.uk BASE - digital.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/index.php DRIVER - www.driver-support.eu UKCoRR - www.ukcorr.org SHERPA Page RSP Page Depot Page Intute RS Page DRIVER Page 1 DRIVER Page 2 DRIVER Page 3 DART Page Drawing conclusions . . . Δ For repository network Δ Practical – Repositories, Content, Repository Managers Δ “Buy-in” from three key stakeholders: – Academics, Funders, Institutions Δ Support – Top-down, Bottom-up, Side-to-side Δ Shared vision and enthusiasm www.sherpa.ac.uk [email protected] Comparison of “investment” - blank Investment comparison Comparison of “investment” - public investment compared to publishers’ service 12 10 money - £ thousands 8 6 4 2 time - months Blue box - Public investment Red box - Publisher’s investment e.g. 2 year project, £300,000 e.g. charge of £1,800 £12,500 per month £600 per month £300,000 over 24 months £1,800 over about 3 months (and public access to results may be unavailable) (and expenses recouped through advance payment of subscriptions) SHERPA Partners – – – – – – – – – – – – – University of Nottingham London LEAP University of Birmingham – Birkbeck College University of Bristol – Goldsmiths College University of Cambridge – Imperial College University of Durham – Institute of Cancer Research University of Edinburgh – Kings College University of Glasgow London LEAP Consortium – LSE University of Newcastle – Royal Holloway – Queen Mary University of Oxford White Rose Partnership – SOAS – School of Pharmacy The British Library (SoP) AHDS – UCL White Rose Partnership – University of Leeds – University of Sheffield – University of York Affiliates – Trinity College Dublin – Cranfield University – University of Exeter – University of Leicester – University of Liverpool – Sheffield Hallam University – University of St Andrews – CCLRC DART-Europe Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ BICfB (Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de la Communauté française de Belgique), Belgium CBUC (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya), Spain Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany DiVA (Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet), Sweden and Norway Dublin City University, Ireland Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland EThOS (Electronic Theses Online System), UK Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lund University, Sweden Oxford University, UK Tartu University, Estonia Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain UCL (University College London), UK University of Debrecen University and National Library, Hungary University of Miskolc, Hungary University of Nottingham, UK Research Process Funders Institutions Public Researchers with subscriptions Other Researchers Publishers Principal Researchers Research Teams