SHERPA & the Nottingham experience

Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham

Background

    SHERPA Nottingham Current state of play Where we are going 

High principals to practicalities

SHERPA Partners

– University of Nottingham – University of Birmingham – University of Bristol – University of Cambridge – University of Durham – University of Edinburgh – University of Glasgow – London LEAP Consortium – University of Newcastle – University of Oxford – White Rose Partnership – The British Library – Arts & Humanities Data Service

London LEAP Consortium

– Birkbeck College – Goldsmiths College – Imperial College – Institute of Cancer Research – Kings College – London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) – Royal Holloway – Queen Mary – School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) – School of Pharmacy (SoP) – University College, London (UCL)    

Affiliate Partners

    Trinity College Dublin Cranfield University University of Exeter University of Leicester University of Liverpool Sheffield Hallam University University of St Andrews CCLRC

White Rose Partnership

– University of Leeds – University of Sheffield – University of York

Russell & 1994 Groups

             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               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 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

Repositories by Continent

European Repositories

Practical Issues

      Who does the work Who pays for it Academic engagement Institutional engagement Who else is out there Putting stuff in - ok -

getting it out

?

  

First

Proving the benefit Proving the case

Rationale -

beyond Declarations

 Has to serve academics – cultural change to see underlying structure of publication process     

Prima Facie

case for research dissemination Not so clear for Learning & Teaching objects eTheses are prime area for development Academics support concept, but . . . Perspectives and Policies

Ingest -

who does the work?

 Self-archiving – scalable – maintains status-quo  Mediated – metadata – processes are difficult – not scalable  Mixed economy – scalable – close to users – costs dispersed – needs management

Costs -

who pays for it?

 DIY – What functions do you want?

– What criteria for success do you have?

– How secure is your ground?

 Turn-key – Longer-term concerns

Advocacy -

engagement

 Identify stakeholders – academics as researchers – academics as authors – funding bodies – institutional managers – repository managers – librarians – publishers – public    Identify needs Specifically target those needs in advocacy Evangelism, temperance and compromise

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  Threat to journals?

– evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future . . . ?

Issues for academic use

 Copyright restrictions – approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors to archive  Embargoes – defines relationship of publisher to research  Cultural change – like email  Deposition policies from funders

Networking -

who else is out there?

     With repository administrators With national networks With service providers With support service providers With stakeholder groups – academics as researchers – academics as authors – funding bodies – institutional managers – repository managers – librarians – publishers – public

External relations

    SHERPA and bottom-up groups DRIVER, RSP and top-down networks UKCORR and national self-help groups Services – OpenDOAR – RoMEO – JULIET – BASE – OAIster

Support for repositories

          SHERPA SHERPA Plus RSP RoMEO JULIET OpenDOAR Prospero Intute Repository Search DRIVER EThOS, DART-Europe     RRT IRIScotland PERX BASE, Oaister   DRProg RPProg  UKPMC

Development arc

- ingest

       Research papers - published Conference papers Book chapters eTheses Research data Learning and teaching materials Grey literature

Development arc

- use

 Access – exposure – publication lists – integration with library provision – research management – shop-windows – research audit – integration with information environment     Open Access Re-use support – data-mining – evidence-based work Overlay journals Citation services

Practicalities

 Getting stuff in – authors – ingest mechanisms and protocols – resourcing  Getting stuff out – basic discovery – re-use – promotion

Repositories' Metadata Policies

Repositories' Full-text Policies

Repositories' Preservation Policies

OpenDOAR front page

OpenDOAR Tools page 1

OpenDOAR Tools page 2

Support

 DRIVER – Mary Robinson – Sophia Jones  SHERPA – SHERPA Core Team

www.sherpa.ac.uk

www.opendoar.org

www.driver-support.eu

[email protected]