Institutional repositories 'Opening access to the world's research' Bill Hubbard...

Institutional repositories 'Opening access to the

world's research'

Bill HubbardSHERPA Project Manager

University of Nottingham

Sconul Vision 2010 & repositories

Personalisation of services– access to learning and information objects

Collaboration– enhanced support for research groups

Management and skills– web based-support

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

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Published in journal

Deposits in e-print repository

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

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

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

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

Report - Problems

impact and Access barriers price rises, Big Deal, VAT competition digital preservation disengagement of academics from process

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 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

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

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

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 . . .

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 . . .

What can we do in our institutions?

Set up a repository Contextualise it within larger developments:

– of a virtual research environment– of personalised services to academics– of information management systems

Raise policy development for its use Encourage cultural change

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk