Institutional Repositories and Virtual Research Environments Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

A virtual research environment? what is in this environment ? what do academics want ? what role does the library play ? what role does a repository play?

Users wanted... access to financial information access to funding and research opportunities support in working practices access to library services on-line

A virtual research environment offers personalised services syntheses access to information and services provides a supported working environment used for finding information used for disseminating information facilitates collaboration in new ways and across old boundaries

Institutional repositories Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.* encouraging wider use of open access information assets may contain a variety of digital objects –e-prints, –theses, –e-learning objects, –datasets * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper

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 service to authors

Open Access 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

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Published in journal Deposits in e-print repository

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

Other benefits for the institution –facilitates use and re-use of the information assets –raises profile and prestige of institution –manages institutional information assets - RAE –long-term cost savings for the research community –frees up the communication process –avoids unnecessary duplication

Benefits for society in general publicly-funded research publicly available public understanding of science knowledge transfer health and social services culture

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

SHERPA aims and outcomes Establish institutionally-based eprint repositories Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change

Repositories at Nottingham Nottingham ePrints Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive Nottingham eTheses

Nottingham ePrints Home Page

Department Listing

Critical Theory Listing

Tormey Metadata

Tormey pdf

Department page

Departmental publications page

Google - Millington

114th Result - Millington

Nottingham ePrints - May ,868 requests Average requests per day: 60 Average download per day: 6.8Mb

Most requested eprints - May 2005 Dornyei requests Pinfield - 88 requests

SHERPA - practical issues establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns...

Academic concerns subject base more natural ? –institutional infrastructure, view by subject quality control ? –peer-review clearly labelled plagiarism –old problem - and easier to detect I already have my papers on my website... –unstructured for RAE, access, search, preservation threat to journals? –evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future... ?

Administrator concerns setting up the repository –technical solutions populating the repository and advocacy maintenance costs preservation service models and costs –author-deposition –mediated-deposition –mixed economies

Policies RepositoriesArchiving activity Advocacy Context

Barriers to adoption copyright restrictions –approx.. 93% (of Nottinghams) journals allow their authors to archive embargoes –defines relationship of publisher to research cultural barriers to adoption authors are willing to use repositories –81% would deposit willingly if required to do so deposition policies are key

Select Committee Inquiry House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: –to examine expenditure, administration, and policy of OST –to examine science and technology policy across government inquiry into scientific publications - 10 December 2003 written evidence: 127 submissions (February 2004) oral evidence (March – May 2004) –Commercial publishers, Society publishers, Open access publishers, Librarians, Authors, Government officials report published, 20 July 2004 government response November 2004

Recent information In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before taxation of £927 million (1,474 million) on turnover of £5,020 million (7,982 million). Journal costs soar by up to 94% (THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2) Quoting Loughborough study of –price increases range from 27% (CUP) to 94% (Sage) –median journal prices range from £124 (CUP) to £781 (Elsevier) –Elsevier highest median price in every subject –price per page ranged from 31p (OUP) to 98p (Taylor and Francis) –little relationship between impact factor and price

Overall... universities generate research output give it free of charge to publishers give services to publishers as referees give services to publishers as editors have to buy back the results

Problems with the current system limited access to research limited impact of research rising journal prices competition issues Big Deal threat to Learned Society publishers disengagement of academics

Report - Solutions 82 recommendations in three main areas: improving the current system Author-pays publishing model institutional repositories

Improving the existing system JISC to develop independent price monitoring JISC to press for transparency on publishers costs Office of Fair Trading to monitor market trends Funding bodies to review library budgets VAT problem to be addressed JISC, NHS and HE purchasing consortia JISC to improve licences negotiated with publishers BL to be supported to provide digital preservation

Changing the system Principle: Publicly-funded research should be publicly available

IBERs - Recommendations UK HEIs to set up IBERs Research Councils to mandate self archiving central body to oversee IBERs IBER implementation government funded –identified as good value for money IBERs should clearly label peer-reviewed content RCs should investigate and if feasible mandate author-retention of copyright

High-level policies NIH - watered down to a request with a 12 month delay Delay does not equal mandated 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 RAE may contribute to the debate...

Futures repositories can work in tandem with –traditional journals –OA journals –overlay journals –peer-review boards possibilities to enhance research outputs –multimedia outputs –data sets –developing papers

repositories set up in each partner institution papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns SHERPA - progress

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...

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...

SHERPA Plus 2 year project to July 2007 advocacy strategies and material for the further population of existing repositories advocacy, resources, information and advice for 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 repositories Birkbeck Birmingham Bristol British Library Cambridge Durham Edinburgh Glasgow Imperial Leeds LSE Kings College Newcastle Nottingham Oxford Royal Holloway Sheffield SOAS UCL York AHDS

National progress all of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live: –Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Kings, Imperial, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL,York and the British Library other institutions are also live: –Bath, CCLRC, Cranfield, Open University, Portsmouth, Southampton, St Andrews, Surrey other institutions are planning and installing IBERs

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 % on the way...

Institutional repositories worldwide –United States (57) –United Kingdom (29) –Canada (17) –Sweden (13) –France (12) –Netherlands (12) –Italy (11) –Germany (9) –Australia (8) –Hungary (4) –China (4) –Brazil (3) –Denmark (3) –Portugal (2) –South Africa (2) –Austria (2) –India (2) –Japan (2) –Mexico (2) –Ireland (2) –Belgium (2) –Finland (1) –Slovenia (1) –Israel (1) –Norway (1) –Switzerland (1) –Croatia (1) –Peru (1) –Spain (1)

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 Trusts repository Widespread publicity and support...and India, Africa, Australia...