Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

E-prints: the Nottingham Experience Stephen Pinfield and Mike Gardner.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "E-prints: the Nottingham Experience Stephen Pinfield and Mike Gardner."— Presentation transcript:

1 E-prints: the Nottingham Experience Stephen Pinfield and Mike Gardner

2 User participation The biggest challenge: encouraging user participation –or: ‘we built it…so why aren’t they coming?’ Forms of participation: –contribute content –search / use the archive

3 Getting the content Two stages: Short term: enough content to set up demonstrator Medium-long term: critical mass to provide service Stage 1 > Stage 2: ‘demonstration is better than description’

4 Demonstrator Using ‘real’ content –more impressive to users –more useful for archive managers: ‘learning by doing’ Easiest approach: publications already in the public domain –on institutional web site personal pages departmental pages –on existing e-prints archives

5 Advocacy The context –structural problems in academic publishing –e-prints a possible solution Immediate benefits –for researchers –for policy makers Addressing their concerns

6 Arguing for e-prints The context: Structural problems in the academic publishing industry –‘impact barriers’ –‘access barriers’ but….academics are not normally interested in the ‘serials crisis’ per se

7 What’s in it for the researcher? Lower impact barriers –papers more visible –cited more Ease of access OAI functionality –interoperability

8

9 What’s in it for the researcher? Lower impact barriers –papers more visible –cited more Ease of access OAI functionality –interoperability Value added services –hit counts –personalised publications lists –citation analyses: OpCit project, CiteBase

10 What’s in it for policy makers? Raising profile of institution Managing institutional information assets RAE management Long-term cost savings but….beware of premature reductions in periodicals budgets!

11 Addressing their concerns Common concerns: IPR - particularly copyright Quality control - particularly peer review Work load - theirs! Undermining the tried and tested status quo Visibility - compared with web pages

12 IPR and copyright Traditionally authors sign over copyright But who actually owns copyright? Best to assume authors do Encourage / assist authors to: –Place articles with progressive publishers who do not require copyright sign over –Negotiate exceptions to sign over –Retain copyright or e-distribution rights –At worst, get round copyright restrictions by depositing a pre- print + corrections in an e-print archive (Harnad-Oppenheim strategy) Authors can then deposit most give-away literature in e-prints archives as well as submit to journals Not either / or

13 Quality control In short term: peer review with journal publishers –authors should continue to submit articles to high impact traditional journals –but also contribute to e-prints archives In medium term: peer review and publication could be separated - could be organised by: –publishers but also –institutions or –professional / learned societies –other subject groupings

14 Pre-prints v. post-prints Should the archive include pre-prints? Key collection development policy issue Different subject cultures –pre-print culture e.g. Physics –pre-print averse e.g. Medicine Different archives? The idea of pre-prints should not be over done –‘e-prints’ and ‘pre-prints’ should not be mixed up

15 Work load: archive submission Academics put off by –increased bureaucracy –need to learn new processes and systems –need to convert file formats Mediated submission in the short term ‘The library will do the work’ –file format conversion –depositing e-prints –creation of metadata

16 ‘Tried and tested’ system Some academics content with status quo –reputations made within the system –object to ‘anti-publisher’ stance –some editors may be paid by publishers Self-archiving as complement to status quo …not either / or

17 Visibility OAI metadata not accessible to standard search engines Responses: –We have found search engines do pick up metadata from browse pages - but this is not efficient –DP9: OAI Gateway Service for Web Crawlers

18 Advocacy methods Advocacy web site Briefing paper Literature e.g. SPARC leaflet Institutional magazines Presenting at departmental meetings and university committees Special advocacy events

19 The players Who? Senior LIS staff Subject librarians …. To whom? Academic enthusiasts in different departments Department/School approach - champion at senior level Senior managers Institutional administrators Stage 1: getting them on board

20 Changing roles Library: managing institutional information assets Library: publisher on behalf of the institution? LIS staff at centre of scholarly communication process

21


Download ppt "E-prints: the Nottingham Experience Stephen Pinfield and Mike Gardner."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google