institutional repositories and virtual research environments bill hubbard sherpa project manager...
Post on 27-Mar-2015
Embed Size (px)
- Slide 1
Institutional Repositories and Virtual Research Environments Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham Slide 2 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? Slide 3 Users wanted... access to financial information access to funding and research opportunities support in working practices access to library services on-line Slide 4 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 Slide 5 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. Slide 6 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 Slide 7 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 Slide 8 publication & deposition Slide 9 Author writes paper Slide 10 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Slide 11 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository Slide 12 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Deposits in e-print repository Slide 13 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository Slide 14 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository Slide 15 publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository Slide 16 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 Slide 17 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 Slide 18 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 Slide 19 Benefits for society in general publicly-funded research publicly available public understanding of science knowledge transfer health and social services culture Slide 20 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 Slide 21 SHERPA aims and outcomes Establish institutionally-based eprint repositories Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change Slide 22 Repositories at Nottingham Nottingham ePrints Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive Nottingham eTheses Slide 23 Nottingham ePrints Home Page Slide 24 Department Listing Slide 25 Critical Theory Listing Slide 26 Tormey Metadata Slide 27 Tormey pdf Slide 28 Department page Slide 29 Departmental publications page Slide 30 Google - Millington Slide 31 114th Result - Millington Slide 32 Slide 33 Nottingham ePrints - May 2005 1,868 requests Average requests per day: 60 Average download per day: 6.8Mb Slide 34 Most requested eprints - May 2005 Dornyei - 156 requests Pinfield - 88 requests Slide 35 SHERPA - practical issues establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns... Slide 36 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... ? Slide 37 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 Slide 38 Policies RepositoriesArchiving activity Advocacy Context Slide 39 Barriers to adoption copyright restrictions approx.. 93% (of Nottinghams) 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 Slide 40 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 Slide 41 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 Slide 42 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 Slide 43 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 Slide 44 Report - Solutions 82 recommendations in three main areas: improving the current system Author-pays publishing model institutional repositories Slide 45 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 Slide 46 Changing the system Principle: Publicly-funded research should be publicly available Slide 47 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 Slide 48 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... Slide 49 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 Slide 50 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 Slide 51 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 Slide 52 SHERPA/RoMEO continuing project & under development... www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php Slide 53 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... Slide 54 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, ins