Presentation on theme: "Consortium within a consortium: the basis for the York service model Elizabeth Heaps (University Librarian) Elizabeth Harbord (Head of Collection Management)"— Presentation transcript:
Consortium within a consortium: the basis for the York service model Elizabeth Heaps (University Librarian) Elizabeth Harbord (Head of Collection Management)
University of York profile Founded 1962 6 th smallest UK university - 10,000 students Development plans to increase to 15,000 over 5-10 years 24 departments and research centres Evenly balanced between sciences, social sciences and humanities Devolved structure - no faculties
White Rose and SHERPA Invited to join in SHERPA project bid as a member of White Rose –White Rose is the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York, the research universities of Yorkshire SHERPA was a successful bid to the JISC FAIR project –http://www.sherpa.ac.ukhttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk –Led by Nottingham University –Other members include Oxford, Glasgow, White Rose, BL and MIMAS –All members of CURL apart from York (and MIMAS)
Consortium model Our participation was intended to trial the consortium model within the project consortium of individual partners
Initial decisions Driven by the project objectives - advocacy and content – and limited funding Collaboration within White Rose: –Server location and choice of software –Establishing way of working collaboratively (WR project group of 3) –Awareness of the different contexts: each university starting from different points in terms of advocacy –Practical issues before policy
Phase 1 : May 2003 to May 2004 Server set-up and customisation –One repository or three on same server? –Software installation ( customisation and security) –Subject access (each university has a different structure and uses different names for departments) –4 papers loaded by May 2004 Staffing –SHERPA funding of.2FTE for each partner i.e. White Rose –Additional funding sought and full-time project officer, based at Leeds but shared between the three universities, appointed June 2004
Phase 2 : June 2004 to date Faster progress is now being made in gathering content and advocacy 139 papers loaded on to repository (53 from York) Meetings held with senior academic staff and committees; more planned Scientific Committee report helpful in raising awareness Policy issues identified for discussion and resolution
Policy issues which have arisen at York Content: –Peer-reviewed, working papers, theses –Role in relation to promotion applications and RAE –Methods of gathering content (target publishers/journals known to allow archiving and look for York authors, or ask individuals for their publications, many of which it may not be possible to archive) Copyright: Romeo list, but what if the publisher isnt listed or its position is unclear? IPR: university policy needs clarifying in relation to publications
Policy issues (cont) Uploading – mediated or not ? relates to.. Quality control – metadata ….and Longer term sustainability Advocacy – to gain university support for using the repository (bottom-up and top-down) Deposit and distribution licences - wording Plagiarism – will repository encourage this? Preservation – especially important with non peer- reviewed material Security – could content be altered in the repository?
Collaboration – does it work? Benefits –Share expertise (e.g. IT support, advocacy material, staffing) –Save money (one server, not three) –White Rose is a research brand –View so far is that the joint repository should be retained, after the SHERPA project ends in Nov 2005 Potential disadvantages –Institutions want to maintain their own identity –Different situations require different methods e.g. in acquiring content or decisions about which content should be included
What next at York? Presentations to Information Committee and Research Committee –Scholarly communication, open access journals, institutional repositories Sub-group of the two committees –Policies, e.g. on peer-reviewed content –Effects on research process especially RAE Continuation of project officer for additional year until embedded
Future considerations Continuation of consortial working or establishment of our own server Extension of content coverage to other research materials, learning objects, e-theses? Policies for steady state: –Uploading of content –Metadata management –Continuation funding
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.