NoWAL Board Meeting 8 th November

Institutional Repositories: The Emerging Picture

Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

Institutional repositories

 “Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.”   Encourage wider use of information assets May contain a variety of digital objects – e-prints, – e-theses, – e-learning objects, – datasets – multimedia

Repositories are spreading because . . .

         Supplementary to traditional publication Do not affect current research publication processes Give easy access Give rapid access Give long-term access Increase readership and use of material They offer advantages to institutions They offer advantages to research funders They offer new ways for information to be linked and used

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, managers and funders

Repository basis

 Institutional repositories combined with location specific 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

UK Institutional Repositories

          AHDS

S

Bath Birkbeck

S

Birmingham

S

Bristol

S

British Library

S

Cambridge

S

CCLRC Cranfield Durham

S

           Edinburgh

S

Glasgow

S

Imperial

S

Lancaster Leeds

S

LSE

S

Kings College

S

Newcastle

S

Nottingham

S

Open University Oxford

S

          Royal Holloway

S

Sheffield

S

St Andrews SOAS

S

Southampton Stirling Surrey UCL

S

York

S

Warwick

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  68% operational repositories or active repository programmes

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 . . . 2 more 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 UK HE policy development - Russell Group, UUK, RCUK   Widespread publicity and support . . .and India, Africa, China, USA, Australia . . .

Barriers to adoption

 Copyright restrictions – No - approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors to archive  Cultural barriers to adoption – Awareness? Working habits?

 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)  UUK Statement and Russell Group Statement in support of Open Access and Institutional Repositories  RAE may contribute to the debate . . .

Discussion

      What are members plans with repositories?

EPrints? eTheses? Data-sets? Learning Objects?

What resource level?

What do members want to get from their investment?

What level of stakeholder support exists?

What personal/ structural/ policy support would be useful?

 In what way can NoWAL support IR growth?

Emerging Topics of Importance

          Deposition policies – Funders, Institutions, Departments Scalability of service provision – author buy-in Controlling type-growth RAE – research assessment and asset management Publishers – embargoes, relations to authors, Open XXXX Learned Societies – mission, futures, income, members Copyright – authors’ attitudes, institutional IPR, funders’ IPR Preservation – what strategies, services Services – citation analysis, search, new forms of publishing?

Integration with existing services and information sources

Project Review

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 - practical outcomes

        establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns

SHERPA Plus

  2 year project to July 2007 for national support advocacy strategies and material for the further population of existing repositories  resources, information and advice for all 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

Extension Repository Development Population Establishment

SHERPA

Plus

Advocacy Policies Strategies Support Representation Information Resources Analysis

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 . . .

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

[email protected]