The Culture, Care and Content (Feeding) of Institutional Repositories “Preserving our Institutional Intellectual Property” Panel discussion at IAMSLIC 2004, Hobart, Tasmania Pauline Simpson.
Download ReportTranscript The Culture, Care and Content (Feeding) of Institutional Repositories “Preserving our Institutional Intellectual Property” Panel discussion at IAMSLIC 2004, Hobart, Tasmania Pauline Simpson.
The Culture, Care and Content (Feeding) of Institutional Repositories “Preserving our Institutional Intellectual Property” Panel discussion at IAMSLIC 2004, Hobart, Tasmania Pauline Simpson Culture – changing paradigm in scholarly communication • Majority of current research appears as papers in published peer reviewed journals – On this are built bibliometrics used for personal advancement activities – Up to 2 years delay in publication – Spiralling journal subscriptions – Research accessible only to those who can afford it IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Culture – emerging paradigm? • Open access publishing – model – author pays = OA no payment = subscription • Open access repositories (open archives) – Author deposit of full text of articles, conference papers, reports, theses, learning objects, multimedia etc. Scoped by need – – Journal articles = post refereed pre-published version deposited in IRs or subject based repositories • Research - freely accessible, more visible, immediately, free at the point of use IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Culture – open archives (repositories) • 1991 – first author self archiving repository (e-Print archive) Los Alamos High Energy Physics now called arXiv located at Cornell University. Very successful • 1994 - Prof Stevan Harnad, advocating author self archiving • 1997 - more subject archives introduced (Chemistry, Economics etc) – limited success • 2000 onwards - complementary model - institutional repositories – many supported by project funding eg. UK, USA, Canada, Australia IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Culture – why INSTITUTIONAL Repositories? • Subject or project repositories often linked to individual or a group – transitory - collection at risk eg. Ginsparg • Institutions take responsibility for – – – – – – Centralising a distributed activity Framework and Infrastructure Permanence that can sustain changes Stewardship of Digital assets Preservation Provide central digital showcase for the research, teaching and scholarship of the institution • 2005 – IR project funding ceasing - exit strategies – sustainability models – identify costs for business plans IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Care (Maintenance) • Staff Support / Maintenance - Technical • Upgrades, interface, functionality – Administrative • Metadata, validation, workflows, documentation, quality assurance ( Institutional Repository implies guarantee of quality) – Information Managers • Advocacy, copyright advice, metadata guidance IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Care - costs • Start-up costs low – – – – hardware software (eprints.org, DSpace … are open source)) installation Annual costs policies and procedures MIT $285k • Medium-term costs higher Rochester $100k – advocacy – getting content – support – mediated submission Edinburgh £100k • Ongoing costs significant – metadata creation / enhancement – technology /server, backup, digitization – preservation Southampton £60k IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Content (feeding) The biggest ‘C’ “if you build it they will come” FALSE! Gaining sustained author deposited content for IRs is the most difficult aspect of implementing a repository IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Gaining Content – cultural issues – Organization culture • Distributed, centralised, size. – Discipline culture • • • • • Who is already depositing in SR, maintaining publication data arXiv – physists rely on Science and Medicine in general more receptive Humanities? Competition between IR, Subject Repository, Funding Agency Repository, Project Repository where author to deposit. – Researcher culture • personal traits, what is a pdf? Environmental audit – who is already putting full text on their personal or group website IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Gaining Content - Advocacy • Intensive, constant, : enthusiast with network and presentation and debating skills, sensitive to organization culture • Repository, robust with content, interface, branding • Leaflets, posters, newsletters • Institution wide presentations, seminars, committees, groups, individuals • Survey – create focus groups • Website • Identify stakeholders, policy makers - you need high level champions, make them members of your IR Steering Group • Benefits demonstrated IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Gaining Content - Advocacy • Benefits – researcher and institution – Research more visible, more impact and accessible in electronic form – Raises profile of both for funding agencies – Open access creates more citations (Lawrence: Nature paper) – Globally searchable – Part of national and global initiatives – other researchers doing it! – Preservation – Scholarly communication issues – Value added services • One record for many purposes Research reporting Research Funding proposals Personal website CV Export (Endnote for reformatting) IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Gaining Content – Researcher Concerns • Concerns: – – – – Quality control - particularly peer review IPR - particularly copyright Undermining the tried and tested status quo Work load • Responses: – institutional repositories complementary to the publishing status quo including peer review – help and advice on IPR – Publishers increasingly agreeing to postprint deposit – help with administration: ‘the library will do the work’ IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Content – gained but deposit problems • Text with figs and illus as separate files – zip? • Hybrid – electronic and paper (illus) – scan? • Only paper often do not have final version particularly if not first author - offer digitization? • Conversion service? • Workload – your own! IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Gaining Content - external factors that can help Sustained deposit is not yet part of researchers publication practices – one time deposit. All Publisher copyright transfer policies change to allow deposit of postprint (http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php) Open Access publishing increases IR deposit is mandated by the Organization or a Funding Agency or a National Policy Initial content in IRs is often Legacy literature or scanned copyright-free material. Whilst current research the target, means that historical (grey) literature is becoming accessible online. IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Content – success measured by amount • Desperate measures to increase deposits: – Download from personal websites – Download from subject repository – Identify authors and core journals and write to publisher for permission – Load open access journal articles – Work with high profile author and input all records as exemplar – Offer ‘Fast track deposit’ – just give the file to us IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Lessons learned • Choose optimum time to introduce • Open access for research visibility and profile not researcher priority • Peer review, impact factors, citations are paramount • Open access publishing diffuses the IR message • Build on current practices and link new concept to old problem (research admin reporting) • Must save researcher time • Sustained author self archiving –a culture change IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Conclusion • Range of strategies necessary – no single solution to getting content – research cultures vary across subjectdisciplines • Different short term and long term strategies IAMSLIC Sep 2004, Hobart Tasmania Pauline Simpson Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton England [email protected]