Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Building Repositories of eprints in UK Research Universities
Bill HubbardSHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
repositories and e-prints . . .
research material available on the web cross-searchable rapid dissemination institutionally based
‘e-prints’
‘e-prints’ are electronic versions of research papers and other similar output
‘pre-prints’ (pre-referred papers) ‘post-prints’ (post-refereed papers) other material
– conference papers, book chapters, reports, etc.
key is subject’s quality control– particularly peer review
archives, repositories and OAJ
archives repositories open access journals
why use OAI repositories
dissemination of research impact of research access to research easy integration with current practice
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
benefits 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
why “institutional”?
institutions have centralised resources:– to subsidise repository start up– to support repositories with technical / organisational
infrastructures– to deal effectively with preservation issues over the long term
institutions get benefits:– raising profile and prestige of institution– managing institutional information assets– encourages an institutional identity in intellectual output
SHERPA -
Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access
development partners– Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, Sheffield,
Leeds, York, British Library and AHDS
funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005
Nottingham eprints
Nottingham eprints - search
Nottingham eprints - record
Arc
Oaister
Google search
Citebase
Citebase - citation analysis
repositories set up in each partner institution test papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns starting sharing experiences and formulating strategies
SHERPA - progress
Summary
open access repositories are good for research institutional repositories offer one solution supplementary to current practice easy to adopt assistance is available
issues
collection policy preservation IPR cultural differences and changes
OAI, OAIS, BOAI
OAI - Open Archives Initiative– “Open” - interoperable archives with an open architecture
OAIS - Open Archival Information System reference model– “Open” - open for comments and contributions; the
reference model for archives is developed in an open forum
BOAI - Budapest Open Access Initiative– “Open” - freely accessible, open access
successful archives
arXiv - http://www.arxiv.org/– Set up 1991 at Los Alamos– Now based at: Cornell University– Covers: Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science– Contents: 250,000 papers (pre-prints and post-prints)
other archives:– CogPrints - Cognitive Science– RePec - Economics working papers
centralised subject-based archives
issues
collection policy preservation IPR cultural differences and changes
collection policy
document type– pre-prints v. post-prints; authors: staff, students, others?
document format– HTML, PDF, Postscript, RTF, ASCII, etc.
submission procedures– mediated / DIY; file formats
metadata quality standards– self-created metadata
research preservation issues
selection and retention criteria preservation metadata preferred formats life-cycle management cost models . . . one view is that it can all be set aside for now . . .
IPR
author permission and licensing terms copyright and copying compliance with publisher copyright terms
cultural differences and changes
different subject cultures– pre-print culture e.g. Physics– pre-print averse e.g. Medicine– Require: different policies or different archives?
changing the status quo– advocacy and support
SHERPA - next stage
work on IPR, Deposit licences, Metadata, Preservation increased advocacy within partner institutions support services: document conversion, archiving, IPR
advice, and metadata creation adoption of Associate Partners
Citebase - references
Nottingham eprints - process
Nottingham eprints - about and menu
Citebase - abstract
