Institutional Repositories and Virtual Research Environments
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
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
Repositories at Nottingham
Nottingham ePrints Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive Nottingham eTheses
Nottingham ePrints Home Page
Department Listing
Critical Theory Listing
Tormey Metadata
Tormey pdf
Department page
Departmental publications page
Google - Millington
114th Result - Millington
Nottingham ePrints - May 2005
1,868 requests Average requests per day: 60 Average download per day: 6.8Mb
Most requested eprints - May 2005
Dornyei - 156 requests Pinfield - 88 requests
SHERPA - practical issues
establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns . . .
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
Policies
Repositories
Archiving activity
Advocacy
Context
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
– 81% 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
Recent information
In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before taxation of £927 million (€1,474 million) on turnover of £5,020 million (€7,982 million).
“Journal costs soar by up to 94%” (THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2)
Quoting Loughborough study of 2000-2004– price increases range from 27% (CUP) to 94% (Sage)– median journal prices range from £124 (CUP) to £781 (Elsevier)– Elsevier highest median price in every subject– price per page ranged from 31p (OUP) to 98p (Taylor and Francis)– little relationship between impact factor and price
Overall . . .
universities generate research output give it free of charge to publishers give services to publishers as referees give services to publishers as editors have to buy back the results
Problems with the current system
limited access to research limited impact of research rising journal prices competition issues ‘Big Deal’ threat to Learned Society publishers disengagement of academics
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 to 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
High-level policies
NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay Delay does not equal mandated embargo . . . but . . . Wellcome Trust - a requirement, but a 6 month delay RCUK Position Statement - draft requires deposition
but does not specify any time for deposition RAE may contribute to the debate . . .
Futures
repositories can work in tandem with – traditional journals– OA journals– overlay journals– peer-review boards
possibilities to enhance research outputs– multimedia outputs– data sets– developing papers
repositories set up in each partner institution papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns
SHERPA - progress
SHERPA DP
2 year project to December 2006 use OAIS model to develop a persistent preservation
environment for SHERPA explore use of METS as metadata framework protocols for a working preservation service extend the storage layer of repository software with
open Source extensions “Digital Preservation User Guide”
SHERPA/RoMEO
continuing project & under development . . . www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
OpenDOAR
18 month project to August 2006 survey of Open Access Repositories registry of Open Access Repositories for third party service providers . . . for end users . . .
SHERPA Plus
2 year project to July 2007 advocacy strategies and material for the further
population of existing repositories advocacy, resources, information and advice for institutions
wanting to establish repositories support for repository-level, institutional and national
policy development review and analysis of extending repository holdings
with datasets, multimedia, grey literature, learning objects and other content types
SHERPA repositories
Birkbeck Birmingham Bristol British Library Cambridge Durham Edinburgh
Glasgow Imperial Leeds LSE Kings College Newcastle Nottingham
Oxford Royal Holloway Sheffield SOAS UCL York AHDS
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, Surrey
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 *
over 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 . . .
Institutional repositories worldwide
– United States (57) – United Kingdom (29) – Canada (17) – Sweden (13) – France (12) – Netherlands (12) – Italy (11) – Germany (9) – Australia (8) – Hungary (4)
– China (4) – Brazil (3) – Denmark (3) – Portugal (2) – South Africa (2) – Austria (2) – India (2) – Japan (2) – Mexico (2) – Ireland (2)
– Belgium (2) – Finland (1) – Slovenia (1) – Israel (1) – Norway (1) – Switzerland (1) – Croatia (1) – Peru (1) – Spain (1)
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 . . .
