Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Are Institutional Repositories Taking Over The World?
Institutional Repositories: The National Picture (So Far)
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
UK Institutional Repositories
AHDS S Bath Birkbeck S Birmingham S Bristol S British Library S Cambridge S
CCLRC Cranfield Durham S
Edinburgh S Glasgow S Imperial S Leeds S LSE S Kings College S Newcastle S Nottingham S
Open University Oxford S
Royal Holloway S Sheffield S St Andrews SOAS S
Southampton Stirling Surrey UCL S York S Warwick
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 . . .
Repositories are spreading because . . .
Supplementary to traditional publication Do not affect current research publication processes Give easy access Give rapid access Give long-term access Increase readership and use of material They offer advantages to institutions They offer advantages to research funders They offer new ways for information to be linked and used
Institutional repositories
“Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.”
Encourage wider use of information assets May contain a variety of digital objects
– e-prints, – e-theses, – e-learning objects, – datasets– multimedia
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 A service to authors, managers and funders
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
Institutional Repository use
Two sets of users - two modes of use Meta-users
– Browse and analyse statistics and aggregates– Browse and analyse countries, institutions and funding
bodies
Researchers– Target individual eprints– They also create the metadata . . .– Repositories are not a replacement for journals
What will happen?
Whatever usage-strategies researchers will evolve - If definitive versions are of value to their work (and they are)
– then they will be used
If journals are of value to their work (and they are) – then they will be used
If publishers are of value to their work (and they are) – then they will be used
If learned societies are of value to their work (and they are) – then they will be used
If repositories of work are of value to their work (and they are) – then they will be used
Barriers to adoption
Copyright restrictions– No - approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their
authors to archive
Cultural barriers to adoption– Awareness? Working habits?
Authors are willing to use repositories– 81% would deposit willingly if required to do so
Deposition policies are key
Policy development
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay . . . delay does not equal 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) UUK Statement in support of Open Access and
Institutional Repositories RAE may contribute to the debate . . .
National development
Research-led universities adopting research repositories– extension with eTheses, data-sets, multimedia, etc
Policies for development – from research funders; institutions; departments– level playing field needed for policies to operate effectively
National perspective for services– of repositories, repository holdings – for search and analysis of contents– for UK research on the global stage
JISC developments
£40m (2006 – 2008) to support & enhance the UK’s digital infrastructure, access to online content and the development of digital repositories.
– continued development of JANET & links
– digitisation of major scholarly collections
– enhancement of e-learning programmes
– development of e-infrastructure, collaborative environments, virtual research environments
– development of shared infrastructure to support the use of institutional repositories.
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 - practical outcomes
establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns
SHERPA Plus
2 year project to July 2007 for national support advocacy strategies and material for the further
population of existing repositories resources, information and advice for all 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 Plus
RepositoryDevelopment
Support
Advocacy
Resources
PopulationExtension
Establishment
Policies
Strategies
Analysis Information
Representation
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 . . .
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 UK HE policy development - Russell Group, RCUK Widespread publicity and support . . .and India, Africa, China, USA, Australia . . .
Futures
Policies for deposition will help establish repositories and their use
Advocacy, search and value-added services will embed repositories into the research process
The organisation of research will embed repositories into institutional services and administration
Repositories, and their use, will grow
