Presentation on theme: "Creating Institutional Repositories Stephen Pinfield."— Presentation transcript:
Creating Institutional Repositories Stephen Pinfield
Key questions What are institutional repositories? Why set them up? How can they be set up?
Terminology E-print archives Open archives Self archiving Institutional repositories
E-print archives E-prints = electronic versions of research papers and other similar output E-print archives = online repositories of this material Might contain: –pre-prints (pre-referred papers) –post-prints (post-refereed papers) –conference papers –book chapters –reports –etc.
Open archives Open = freely accessible, open access, and/or Open = interoperable - Open Archives Initiative (OAI)*: –develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. –OAI Metadata Harvesting Protocol allows metadata from different archives to be harvested and collected together in searchable databases –creates the potential for a global virtual research archive *
Self archiving Author self-archiving …an umbrella term often applied to the electronic posting, without publisher mediation, of author-supplied research.* Institution self-archiving Institutions may post articles on behalf of authors * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper Draft.
Institutional collections? Aim: encouraging wider use of e- prints Institutions have: –resources to subsidise archive start up –technical / organisational infrastructures to support archives –an interest in disseminating content
Institutional repositories Institutional repositories: digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.* Repository avoids the a word More than just e-prints? * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper Draft.
Why institutional e-print repositories? Context –structural problems in scholarly publishing –e-print repositories a possible solution Benefits –for the researcher –for the institution –for the research community
Context Structural problems with scholarly publishing Impact barriers –authors give away their content and want to achieve impact not income –want to disseminate research widely –but publishers want to restrict circulation based on subscriptions Access barriers –researchers want easy access to the literature –but most researchers do not have easy access to most of the literature
Benefits 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 lowering impact barriers lowering access barriers
Other benefits For the institution –raising profile and prestige of institution –managing institutional information assets –accreditation / performance management e.g. RAE –long-term cost savings For the research community –frees up the communication process –avoids unnecessary duplication
Common concerns Concerns: –Quality control - particularly peer review –IPR - particularly copyright –Undermining the tried and tested status quo –Work load Responses: –institutional repositories complementary to the publishing status quo –help and advice on IPR –help with administration: the library will do the work
Installation Initial installation relatively straightforward E-prints.org software* –Advantages: free relatively straightforward to install easily configurable simple administration procedures customisable web interface for the user, searching and browsing easy OAI compliant –Disadvantages: not flexible - basic workflow difficult to alter long-winded self-archiving process *
Collection management Document type –pre-prints v. post-prints –authors: staff, students, others? Document format –HTML, PDF, Postscript, RTF, ASCII, etc. Digital preservation policy Submission procedures –mediated / DIY? –file format conversion, depositing e-prints, creation of metadata Author permission and licensing terms –copyright statement –compliance with publisher copyright terms Metadata quality standards –self-created metadata –metadata quality and visibility
SHERPA Initiator: CURL Partners: Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield, British Library, York Duration: three years, Summer 2002 – Summer 2005 Funding: JISC (FAIR programme) Aims: –to construct 6 institutional OAI-compliant repositories –to investigate key issues in populating and maintaining e-print collections –to work with service providers to achieve acceptable standards and the dissemination of the content –to investigate OAIS-compliant digital preservation –to set up an e-print data provider advisory service –to disseminate learning outcomes and advocacy materials
Key points Initial installation of an OAI-compliant e-print repository is relatively straightforward Repositories need collection policies Getting researchers on board is the biggest challenge