Institutional Repositories and Virtual Research Environments Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.
Download
Report
Transcript Institutional Repositories and Virtual Research Environments Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.
Institutional Repositories and
Virtual Research Environments
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
A virtual research environment?
what is in this environment ?
what do academics want ?
what role does the library 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
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
Benefits for society in general
publicly-funded research publicly available
public understanding of science
knowledge transfer
health and social services
culture
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
threat to journals?
– evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future . . . ?
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
Context
Archiving
activity
Advocacy
Policies
Repositories
Barriers to adoption
copyright restrictions
– approx.. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors
to archive
embargoes
– defines relationship of publisher to research
cultural barriers to adoption
authors are willing to use repositories
– 81% would deposit willingly if required to do so
deposition policies are key
Select Committee Inquiry
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
– to examine expenditure, administration, and policy of OST
– to examine science and technology policy across government
inquiry into scientific publications - 10 December 2003
written evidence: 127 submissions (February 2004)
oral evidence (March – May 2004)
– Commercial publishers, Society publishers, Open access
publishers, Librarians, Authors, Government officials
report published, 20 July 2004
government response November 2004
Recent information
In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before
taxation of £927 million (€1,474 million) on turnover
of £5,020 million (€7,982 million).
“Journal costs soar by up to 94%”
(THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2)
Quoting Loughborough study of 2000-2004
–
–
–
–
–
price increases range from 27% (CUP) to 94% (Sage)
median journal prices range from £124 (CUP) to £781 (Elsevier)
Elsevier highest median price in every subject
price per page ranged from 31p (OUP) to 98p (Taylor and Francis)
little relationship between impact factor and price
Overall . . .
universities generate research output
give it free of charge to publishers
give services to publishers as referees
give services to publishers as editors
have to buy back the results
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
Report - Solutions
82 recommendations in three main areas:
improving the current system
‘Author-pays’ publishing model
institutional repositories
Improving the existing system
JISC to develop independent price monitoring
JISC to press for transparency on publishers’ costs
Office of Fair Trading to monitor market trends
Funding bodies to review library budgets
VAT problem to be addressed
JISC, NHS and HE purchasing consortia
JISC to improve licences negotiated with publishers
BL to be supported to provide digital preservation
Changing the system
Principle:
Publicly-funded research should be publicly available
IBERs - Recommendations
UK HEIs to set up IBERs
Research Councils to mandate self archiving
central body to oversee IBERs
IBER implementation government funded
– identified as good value for money
IBERs should clearly label peer-reviewed content
RCs should investigate and if feasible mandate
author-retention of copyright
High-level policies
NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay
Delay does not equal mandated 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
repositories can work in tandem with
–
–
–
–
traditional journals
OA journals
overlay journals
peer-review boards
possibilities to enhance research outputs
– multimedia outputs
– data sets
– developing papers
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 . . .
Institutional repositories worldwide
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
United States (57)
United Kingdom (29)
Canada (17)
Sweden (13)
France (12)
Netherlands (12)
Italy (11)
Germany (9)
Australia (8)
Hungary (4)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
China (4)
Brazil (3)
Denmark (3)
Portugal (2)
South Africa (2)
Austria (2)
India (2)
Japan (2)
Mexico (2)
Ireland (2)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Belgium (2)
Finland (1)
Slovenia (1)
Israel (1)
Norway (1)
Switzerland (1)
Croatia (1)
Peru (1)
Spain (1)
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]