Open Access Repositories where we are now Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham.

Download Report

Transcript Open Access Repositories where we are now Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham.

Open Access Repositories
where we are now
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Manager
University of Nottingham
Institutional repositories
 “Digital collections that preserve and provide access
to 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
.
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
pre-print
Deposits in e-print
repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
pre-print
Deposits in e-print
repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
pre-print
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Deposits in e-print
repository
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
pre-print
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
pre-print
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
post-print
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
pre-print
Submits to journal
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Published in journal
post-print
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
pre-print
Submits to journal
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
post-print
Author submits final version
Published in journal
published
version
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
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
Repository content






Preprints
Postprints
Datasets
Learning objects
Videos
Sound files






 linkage between these objects
Theses
Dissertations
Royalty publications
Conference papers
Conference organisation
Grey literature
Repository use







Access to material
Citation analysis
Overlay journals
Review projects
Evidence based work
Data-mining
Cross-institutional research
group virtual research
environments
 . . . Services built on top
 RAE-like submissions,
activities and
management
 Archival storage
 “Shop-windows”
 Facilitate industrial links
 Career-long personalised
work spaces
Repositories are spreading because . . .








Give easy access
Give rapid access
Give long-term access
Increase readership and use of material
They offer advantages to academics
They offer advantages to institutions
They offer advantages to research funders
They offer new ways for information to be linked and
used
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
 18 out of 19
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
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
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
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
– 79% would deposit willingly if required to do so
 Deposition policies are key
Developments & schisms
 Open Access
– but not OAI-PMH
– but not scholarly material
– is scholarly, but innovative content
 Repositories gaining connections - & loosing clarity?
– Modified to accept publishers’ embargoes
– Relating or merging with research assessment needs
 Spin and confusions - “open” “access”
–
–
–
–
but hedged with restrictive rights-limitations
but not free - subscription or fee required
but not immediate access
but not full-text
SHERPA
 SHERPA - an outcome of JISC's strategy & support
 Facilitated establishment and development of
repositories in partner institutions
 Examined issues for repository growth
SHERPA Partners
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
University of Nottingham
London LEAP Consortium
University of Birmingham
– Birkbeck College
University of Bristol
– Goldsmiths College
University of Cambridge
– Imperial College
University of Durham
– Institute of Cancer
Research
University of Edinburgh
– Kings College
University of Glasgow
– London School of
London LEAP Consortium
Economics and Political
University of Newcastle
Science (LSE)
University of Oxford
– Royal Holloway
White Rose Partnership
– Queen Mary
The British Library
Arts & Humanities Data Service
– School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS)
– School of Pharmacy
(SoP)
– University College,
London (UCL)
White Rose Partnership
– University of Leeds
– University of Sheffield
– University of York
SHERPA - current projects









SHERPA Plus
OpenDOAR
SHERPA/RoMEO
SHERPA DP
PROSPERO
RDN IR Search Service
DRIVER
EThOS
MIDESS, IRIS, VERSIONS, SPECTRa and StORe
SHERPA - practical outcomes










Establishing an archive, individual or consortium
Basic technical needs
Basic costs
Populating an archive
Copyright
Advocacy & changing working habits
Mounting material
Maintenance
Preservation
Concerns
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
http://www.opendoar.org
[email protected]
Demonstrations






SHERPA
Nottingham Repository
Google
SHERPA/RoMEO
OpenDOAR
OpenDOAR developments
Supporting Institutional ePrint Repositories in the UK
SHERPA is . . .
opening access to research
ePrints are . . .
• electronic versions of research papers
• full-text journal articles, conference papers,
book chapters, reports etc
• ‘pre-prints’ (pre-refereed papers) if these are
used by the subject discipline
• ‘post-prints’ (post peer-review papers) that are
duplicates of the published text
Partners
Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, British Library,
Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Goldsmiths, ICR, Imperial, Kings, Leeds, LSE,
King’s, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Queen
Mary, Royal Holloway, Sheffield, SOAS, SoP,
UCL, York, AHDS
Institutional Repositories are . . .
• a complement - not a replacement - for existing
publishing processes
• archives of an institution’s research output
• open access - which means the contents can
be viewed for free by anyone online
SHERPA Plus
A two year project to encourage the development
of the national repository infrastructure in the UK
SHERPA DP
Working towards a practical model for a national
digital preservation service for
open access repositories
Benefits of Repositories . . .
• allow academics to disseminate and re-use
their own work
• papers are more visible: evidence shows they
are cited more
• allow wide and rapid dissemination
• access barriers for researchers are removed
• all repositories are cross-searchable as one
virtual repository
• structured environment allows targeted
searches
• IRs are indexed by general search engines
• provide a showcase for an author’s,
department's or institution’s output
SHERPA/RoMEO
An online reference service listing the different
open access rights authors retain with different
publishers
OpenDOAR
An global directory of open access repositories,
Working in partnership with Lund University.
PROSPERO
A national repository for UK academics whose
Institutions do not yet have a repository.
Why Institutional?
• can support academics in every discipline
• centralised resources for start up, support and
preservation
• can help in research management & RAE
• eprints in institutional repositories can be found
through subject gateways
• store locally – find globally
RDN Search Service
Securing a Hybrid Environment for
Research Preservation & Access
A UK HE-focussed service to search open
access repositories around the world.
DRIVER
An EU project to establish and promote a
european network of academic repositories.
For more details of SHERPA’s work see
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
Future Themes - discussion
Futures
 10 years - what changes are coming down the track
and what responses are needed?
 What is inside your control and what is outside?
 Irrespective of repositories, author-side charges,
open access - what will develop?
 Developments in the web and ICT alone will produce
substantial change . . .
 Some themes . . .
Future themes
 Journals - what is happening now and what will
develop in the future?
– subscriptions, commercial pressures, staffing . . .
 Academics & IT - what will people expect from IT?
– access, speed, integration . . .
 Research funding and processes - how is research
changing?
– what stakeholders are involved and what do they want? . . .
 How will this effect current publishing models?
 How will this effect open access and repositories?
Journals




Governments will not loosen the purse strings
Subscriptions per journal will continue to decline
Continued agglomeration of publishing concerns
Smaller publishers will continue to be squeezed and
have to react
 The big and the nimble will survive
 Editorial and peer-review process will be
technologically mediated
 Unbundling of products, processes and services - with
a global marketplace for service provision
Academics and IT
 Increasing connectivity
 Increasing demand for rapid, permanent access,
everywhere
 Increasing demand for more information
 Increasing demand for free access
 Information per se will be more freely available and
the links between information will become the valued
commodity
Research




Full Economic Costing and Value For Money
Public awareness and availability
Raised awareness of IPR issues
Institutions being pressured to capitalise on their
assets
 Cross-disciplinary research
 Synthesis - evidence based research - data mining
 Emergence of global standards - quality control? with a global marketplace for service provision
What will happen?
 Who knows? But whatever happens  If definitive versions are of value to research work (and they are)
– then they will be used
 If journals are of value to research work (and they are)
– then they will be used
 If publishers are of value to research work (and they are)
– then they will be used
 If learned societies are of value to research work (and they are)
– then they will be used
 If repositories of work are of value to research work (and they are)
– then they will be used
Future Themes - discussion




Which themes are independant of OA
Which themes relate to OA
Which will be solved through OA
The fit of current business models within the
business environment of 2016
 The fit of OA within business environment of 2016