institutional repositories 'opening access to the world's research' bill hubbard...
TRANSCRIPT
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