Institutional Repositories and Research Support Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham Libraries and research support  what support do academics want ?  what.

Download Report

Transcript Institutional Repositories and Research Support Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham Libraries and research support  what support do academics want ?  what.

Institutional Repositories and
Research Support
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
Libraries and research support
 what support do academics want ?
 what role can information services play ?
 what role does a repository play?
Users wanted . . .




access to financial information
access to funding and research opportunities
support in working practices
access to library services on-line
A virtual research environment






offers personalised services
syntheses access to information and services
provides a supported working environment
used for finding information
used for disseminating information
facilitates collaboration in new ways
and across old boundaries
Institutional repositories
 “Digital collections that preserve and provide access
the the intellectual output of an institution.”*
 encouraging wider use of open access information
assets
 may contain a variety of digital objects
–
–
–
–
e-prints,
theses,
e-learning objects,
datasets
* Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002
.
Not just storage






provides core of an information management system
opportunities for integration of research and teaching
record of institutional output
access to institutional authors’ work
search services give access to other repositories
a service to authors
Open Access 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
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
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Deposits in e-print
repository
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Published in journal
Repository basis
 institutional repositories combined with locationspecific 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
– subject-based classification and search
Other benefits
 for the institution
–
–
–
–
facilitates use and re-use of the information assets
raises profile and prestige of institution
manages institutional information assets - RAE
long-term cost savings
 for the research community
–
–
–
–
‘frees up’ the communication process
avoids unnecessary duplication or overlap of work
facilitates new user-groups for research/ collaboration
levels the playing field for global research dissemination
Benefits for society in general




publicly-funded research publicly available
public understanding of science
knowledge transfer: commercial; cultural
research is a product of, and part of, our culture: if its
possible for it to be free to all, then it should be.
Publisher reactions





fear of “reconstructing the journal”
prohibit use of publisher pdf
impose new embargoes
some cautious experimentation
- but some “author-charge” models where the
author still cannot use the article!
Problems with the current system








limited access to research
limited impact of research
rising journal prices
competition issues
‘Big Deal’
threat to Learned Society publishers
disengagement of academics
. . . this is from an overview . . .
SHERPA  Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research
Preservation and Access
 Partner institutions
– Birkbeck College, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge,
Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College,
Kings College, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham,
Oxford, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African
Studies, Sheffield, University College London,York;
the British Library and AHDS
 www.sherpa.ac.uk
SHERPA aims and outcomes
 Establish institutionally-based eprint repositories
 Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation
 Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change
Repositories at Nottingham
 Nottingham ePrints
 Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive
 Nottingham eTheses
Nottingham ePrints Home Page
Department Listing
Critical Theory Listing
Tormey Metadata
Tormey pdf
Department page
Departmental publications page
Google - Millington
114th Result - Millington
Nottingham ePrints - May 2005
 1,868 requests
 Average requests per day: 60
 Average download per day: 6.8Mb
Most requested eprints - May 2005
 Dornyei - 156 requests
 Pinfield - 88 requests
SHERPA - practical issues








establishing an archive
populating an archive
copyright
advocacy & changing working habits
mounting material
maintenance
preservation
concerns . . .
Academic concerns
 subject base more natural ?
– institutional infrastructure, view by subject
 quality control ?
– peer-review clearly labelled
 plagiarism
– old problem - and easier to detect
 “I already have my papers on my website . . . “
– unstructured for RAE, access, search, preservation
 conflict with traditional journal publication
– two separate things
– repositories are supplementary
Administrator concerns
 setting up the repository
– technical solutions




populating the repository and advocacy
maintenance costs
preservation
service models and costs
– author-deposition
– mediated-deposition
– mixed economies
Barriers to adoption
 copyright restrictions
– approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors to
archive
 cultural barriers to adoption
 authors are willing to use repositories
– 81% would deposit willingly if required to do so
 deposition policies are key
Policy development




House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay
. . . delay does not equal embargo, but . . .
Wellcome Trust - a requirement, but a 6 month delay
 RCUK Position Statement - draft requires deposition
but does not specify any time for deposition
 RAE may contribute to the debate . . .
Futures
 policies for deposition will help establish repositories
and their use
 advocacy, search and value-added services will
embed repositories into the research process
 the organisation of research will embed repositories
into institutional services and administration
 repositories, and their use, will grow
Progress . . .
SHERPA - progress






repositories set up in each partner institution
papers being added
negotiations with publishers
discussions on preservation of eprints
work on IPR and deposit licences
advocacy campaigns
SHERPA DP
 2 year project to December 2006
 use OAIS model to develop a persistent preservation
environment for SHERPA
 explore use of METS as metadata framework
 protocols for a working preservation service
 extend the storage layer of repository software with
open Source extensions
 “Digital Preservation User Guide”
SHERPA/RoMEO
 continuing project & under development . . .
 www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
OpenDOAR





18 month project to August 2006
survey of Open Access Repositories
registry of Open Access Repositories
for third party service providers . . .
for end users . . .
SHERPA Plus
 2 year project to July 2007
 advocacy strategies and material for the further
population of existing repositories advocacy,
 resources, information and advice for institutions
wanting to establish repositories
 support for repository-level, institutional and national
policy development
 review and analysis of extending repository holdings
with datasets, multimedia, grey literature, learning
objects and other content types
SHERPA repositories







Birkbeck
Birmingham
Bristol
British Library
Cambridge
Durham
Edinburgh







Glasgow
Imperial
Leeds
LSE
Kings College
Newcastle
Nottingham







Oxford
Royal Holloway
Sheffield
SOAS
UCL
York
AHDS
National progress
 all of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live:
– Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Kings, Imperial, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham,
Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL,York and the
British Library
 other institutions are also live:
– Bath, CCLRC, Cranfield, Open University, Portsmouth,
Southampton, St Andrews, Surrey
 other institutions are planning and installing IBERs
1994 Group








University of Bath *
University of Durham *
University of East Anglia
University of Essex
University of Surrey *
University of Exeter
Lancaster University
Birkbeck University of London *








Goldsmiths
LSE *
Royal Holloway *
University of Reading
University of St Andrews *
University of Sussex
University of Warwick *
University of York *
 over 50% operational
repositories
 . . . more on the way . . .
Russell Group










University of Birmingham *
University of Bristol *
University of Cambridge *
Cardiff University
University of Edinburgh *
University of Glasgow *
Imperial College *
King's College London *
University of Leeds *
University of Liverpool









LSE *
University of Manchester
University of Newcastle *
University of Nottingham *
University of Oxford *
University of Sheffield *
University of Southampton *
University of Warwick *
University College London *
 16 out of 19 operational
 . . . 100% on the way . . .
A selection of recent progress







Scottish Declaration of Open Access
32 Italian Rectors and the Messina Declaration
Austrian Rectors sign the Berlin Declaration
Russian Libraries launch the St Petersburg Declaration
Wellcome Trust’s repository
Widespread publicity and support
. . .and India, Africa, Australia . . .
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
[email protected]