Objects in Motion The Institutional Repositories Landscape

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

Objects in Motion The Institutional Repositories

Landscape University of Surrey, May 2007

Gareth J JohnsonSHERPA Repository Development Officer

SHERPA, University of [email protected]


Introduction

• Who are SHERPA?

• The Open Access landscape

• Institutional Repositories

• Services & support for authors

• Conclusions

Slides online at:

SHERPA Homepage | Presentations


Who are SHERPA?

• SHERPA Project (2002-2005)– Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and

Access– Setting up IRs with partners institutions (7 rising to 23)

• SHERPA (2006-)– Now ongoing project based team– Broader portfolio of projects– Funded by JISC, CURL, OSI, SPARK Europe, Wellcome

• Work activities include– Assisting in set up & develop of institutional repositories– Investigating related issues, disseminating experience & advice– All projects relate to scholarly publishing & Open Access


Exeter (Affiliate)


SHERPA Today

• Respected voice in OA development– International reputation

• SparcEurope 2007 Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communication

• Focus for bids and proposals for new work• Requests for collaboration & source of

information and advice• Provides services seen as “vital to OA

infrastructure”


Open Access Landscape

• Open Access– Open Access Journals– Open Access Repositories

• Data Providers and Service Providers

• Repository networks

• Funders mandates

• Publisher activities

• Less of a niche activity


Traditional Publication

• Personal academic effort lost– No tangible reward for research publication– Loss of IPR to institution through copyright gifting

• Publicly funded research not publicly accessible– Demands for accountability for public investment

• Potential readership limited by economics– Journal prices rise as budgets fall– Research becomes inaccessible

• Untimely communication– Publishing & indexing timescales

• Authors are willing to use repositories– 79% would deposit willingly if required to do so


Researcher Benefits

Global readership & research useSpeed of research disseminationConducive to improved citation

- Lawrence (2001), Antelman (2004) & Harnad & Brodie (2004)

Personal professional standingDepartmental Institutional significance & funding opportunities

Preservation & long term accessibilityEase of access Potential for value added services

– Personalised publications lists, hit rates & citation analysis

Plagiarism risk


Broader Benefits• Institution

– Facilitates use & re-use of information assets– Raises profile and prestige of institution– Potential long-term cost savings

• Research community– Frees up the communication process– Avoids unnecessary duplication

• Society benefits– Publicly-funded research publicly available– Aids in public understanding of research


Institutional Repositories

• Digital collections that preserve and provide access to the intellectual output of an institution.– Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a

SPARC position paper. 2002

• Contents freely available to all– No subscription or restrictions to readership

• Encourage wider use of open access information assets

• May contain a variety of digital objects – e-prints, theses, e-learning objects, datasets etc


Publishing & Repositories

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Published in journal

Deposit in open access repositoryPreprint

Post

prin

t

Conference papers

Learning Objects

Theses

Research Data, images, information etc

Pos

tprin

t


Why Institutional?

• The OAI-PMH allows a single gateway to search and access many repositories– Subject-based portals or views– Subject-based classification and search– Institutional storage and support

• Practical reasons– Use institutional infrastructure– Integration into work-flows and systems – Support is close to academic users and contributors– Longevity concerns over some SRs




Repository Contents

• Preprints• Postprints• Datasets• Learning objects• Videos• Sound files

• Theses• Dissertations• Royalty publications• Conference papers• Technical reports• Grey literature

Linkage between these objects


Practical Concerns

• Author concerns– What about quality assurance & peer review?– If its freely available, what about plagiarism?– What about commercially or sensitivity material?– Subject base more natural? – Threat to journals?

• Repository administrator concerns– IPR & Copyright– Technical & software issues– Policies & workflow– Isolation & support


Supporting Services

• OpenDOAR– Quality assured survey & service– Search for repositories & browse by criteria– Variety of output formats

• Information on repositories includes– OAI-PMH URLs for m2m use– Contact emails, address and tel of administrators– Descriptive reviews of each site– Standardised policies for 5 key aspects



Search Tools

• OpenDOAR search– Powered by Google Custom Search Engine– Unlocks research in repositories

• BASE– Bielefeld Academic Search engine

• OAIster

• Google– Google Scholar


Supporting Services

• Based on work at Loughborough (2003)• SHERPA/RoMEO

– Author retained rights in plain English– Quality assured by publishers– Incorporating specific journal variations (soon)– Controlled descriptive vocabulary

• International reuse of data– Site available in regional languages– A lobbying tool locally, nationally & globally



SHERPA/RoMEO• Highlights publisher’s archiving policies

– 294 currently listed

Green(36%)

Can archive both pre & post-prints

Blue(25%)

Can archive post-print only

Yellow(11%)

Can archive pre-print only

White(28%)

Archiving not formally supported

• Quality assured by contacting publishers• Prohibitive restrictions reduce colour level

Figures accurate as of May 2007


Mandates & Copyrights

• Funders Mandates– OA an increasing condition of research grants– OA or hybrid journal publishing

• S/JULIET for Implications of funding mandates– Highlights 3 key areas– 22 current funders listed

• Quality assured through links with funders– Uses controlled vocabulary– Links to full policies wherever possible

• S/RoMEO links to JULIET data



Practicalities, Services & Support• SHERPA Website

– Partner generated materials– Guidance for authors & repository administrators

• DRIVER Support & RSP sites– Also offering & developing reusable materials

• Repositories Support Project– Providing training, mentoring, advice & enquiry

resolution

• UKCoRR– Professional society for repository workers– Focus on practical issues and real solutions


Long Term Preservation

• Number of Projects working on sustainable access

• SHERPA DP – Looking at digital preservation models

• VERSIONS project– Life cycle of documents & repositories

• LOCKSS– Software developers for maintaining access to

local content


In 10 Years…?

• Who knows? But whatever happens -– If definitive versions are of value to research work

(and they are) – If journals are of value to research work (and they

are) – If publishers are of value to research work (and they

are) – If learned societies are of value to research work (and

they are) – If repositories of work are of value to research work

(and they are) • Then they will be used


Conclusion

• There are many concerns for repository administrators

• The global scholarly communication debate is not an easy one to engage in isolation

• SHERPA services and projects exist to support the OA movement in the UK


Gareth J Johnson

SHERPA Repository Development OfficerSHERPA, University of Nottingham

[email protected]

0115-84-67544


Sites of Interest

• www.sherpa.ac.uk/• opendoar.org/• www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/• www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/• base.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/index_english.html• www.sherpa.ac.uk/update/

Education

Objects in Motion The Institutional Repositories Landscape