Creating a buzz for NECTAR Miggie Pickton Research Support Specialist and NECTAR Queen Bee Repositories Support Project Professional briefing and networking event University of Northampton Thursday 15 th November 2007

Outline Some background NECTAR scope and principles Winning support from the research community Stakeholder reactions Incorporating stakeholder views Promoting NECTAR: honey or sting? Dissemination mechanisms Maintaining the buzz

Some background Prompted by the RAE –Initial contact from Prof Hugh Matthews – Dean of Graduate School and Director of Knowledge Exchange (mid 2006) –Repository seen as support for research Accepted as priority for Information Services (Jan 2007) and project kicked off Steering Group of senior managers (with influence) Project Team - liaison, technical & metadata skills Purpose and principles of repository agreed Name for repository agreed Northampton Electronic Collection of Theses And Research

NECTAR scope and principles Showcase and preserve the research outputs of the University of Northampton –articles (refereed and non-refereed), books, book chapters, performances, exhibitions, conference papers, research reports, maps, patents etc Research theses (PhDs & MPhils – later, other doctoral theses) All formats – including multimedia Mediated deposit – at least to begin with NECTAR to be owned by the university research community, not the library …these principles outlined on a short ‘briefing sheet, circulated to stakeholders (Deans, research leaders, Information Services staff etc.) with an invitation to comment

Winning support from the research community Presentations to –University Research Committee (minutes to Senate) –Readers and Professors Forum –School of Health Research Forum Convene focus group of senior researchers Personal representation to PVC Research JISC bid - letter of support from VC

Stakeholder reactions Generally positive about NECTAR Welcomed the idea of using NECTAR as data source for research reporting (surprisingly amenable to ‘mandatory’ submission) Greatest concerns: –Copyright –Work being deposited without author permission –Author privacy –Ethical issues e.g. extreme art Reluctance among academics to become NECTAR champions (pressure of time)

Incorporating stakeholder views Focus group –Only ‘quality’ research to be permitted in NECTAR, i.e. items previously available in the public domain –Members of focus group willing to form advisory group if necessary ‘Regional interest’ subject tree – aligning NECTAR with institutional priorities Need for clear information and promotional materials Annual Research Report confirmed as major selling point - various changes required to Eprints

Promoting NECTAR: honey or sting? The honey (flavour depends on audience) –For authors: visibility and accessibility => IMPACT –For university senior managers: regional/community agenda –For research administrators: multipurpose tool –For everyone: the moral high ground – the principle of open access opportunities for collaboration (internally and externally) The sting –For academics - Annual Research Report – be in there to be counted –For research students - mandatory submission of e-theses (changes to university regulations are currently under consideration)

Dissemination mechanisms Targeted s to key stakeholders Blanket s to all staff via ‘Mailmaster’, global s Announcements on TUNIS, the UoN intranet Pieces for in house publications – Update and BiblioTech Personal contacts with research community –Existing library liaison channels e.g. Academic Boards –Research Support Specialist Shush! – the library blog

Maintaining the buzz… Advocacy will be key to the acceptance and uptake of NECTAR Some ideas: Celebrate NECTAR milestones (e.g. official launch, 100 papers deposited, 1000 downloads, 10,000 visits) Appoint NECTAR champions – academics, research administrators, library liaison Exploit usage stats – ‘paper of the week’, access/download counts, departmental league tables? Promote links to/from other repositories and databases e.g. Northamptonshire Observatory

Acknowledgement Thank you to the JISC for £30,000 ‘repository start-up’ funding, awarded September 2007 to March