Creating an institutional e-print repository Stephen Pinfield University of Nottingham

Key questions What are institutional e-print repositories? Why create them? How should they be created? Where do we go from here?

What…?

Terminology E-print archives Open archives Self archiving Institutional repositories

E-print archives E-print = a digital duplicate of an academic research paper that is made available online as a way of improving access to the paper * 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. * Alma Swan et al., JISC report, 2004

Open archives Open = freely accessible, open access – as Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and/or Open = interoperable – Open Archives Initiative (OAI): –develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. –OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting – allows metadata from different archives to be harvested and collected together in searchable databases –creates the potential for a global virtual research archive

OAI Protocol: key concepts End User Data Providers Service Provider

Self archiving Author self-archiving: …an umbrella term often applied to the electronic posting, without publisher mediation, of author-supplied research.* Institution self-archiving (or self archiving by proxy): Institutions may post articles on behalf of authors, where authors are members of the institution * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper

Successful archives arXiv – –Set up: 1991 at Los Alamos –Now based at: Cornell University –Covers: Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science –Contents: 300,000 papers (pre-prints and post-prints) Other archives: –CogPrints - Cognitive Science –RePec - Economics working papers Centralised subject-based archives

Institutional repositories Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.* Aim: encouraging wider use of open access information assets May contain a variety of digital objects e.g. e-prints, theses, e-learning objects, datasets Institutions have: –resources to subsidise archive start up –technical / organisational infrastructures to support archives –an interest in managing and disseminating content Repository avoids the a word * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper

So, what am I talking about? Open-access OAI-compliant institutional e-print repositories

Nottingham eprints

Nottingham eprints - record

Arc

Google search

Citebase

Citebase - citation analysis

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

Why…?

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 –for society in general

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 commercial 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 author services –hit counts on papers –personalised publications lists Literature analysis –text mining –citation analysis Automated plagiarism detection lowering impact barriers lowering access barriers

Other benefits For the institution –raising profile and prestige of institution –managing institutional information assets –accreditation / performance management –long-term cost savings For the research community –frees up the communication process –avoids unnecessary duplication

Other benefits For society in general –publicly-funded research publicly available –public understanding of science –knowledge transfer –health and social services –culture

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 –Authors can publish in peer-reviewed journals and deposit papers in repositories –Many publishers already allow self-archiving –Help and advice on IPR essential –Open-access does not mean plagiarism –Help with administration

How…?

Installation Initial installation relatively straightforward Free OAI-compliant software: –eprints.org software ( –DSpace ( –CERN CDS ( –etc Support networks Commercial software and services

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

Costs Start-up costs low –hardware –software (eprints.org free) –installation –policies and procedures Medium-term costs higher –advocacy – getting content –support –mediated submission / metadata Ongoing costs significant –metadata creation / enhancement –preservation staff time

JISC FAIR programme JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee FAIR: Focus on Access to Institutional Resources Background: inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Aim: to support the disclosure of institutional assets Projects: 14 in Clusters: Museums and images; E- prints; E-theses; IPR; Institutional portals Duration: Summer 2002 onwards (1-3 year projects) Total funding: £3 million New programme: 2005

SHERPA Acronym: Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access Initiator: CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries) Development Partners: Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield, British Library, York, AHDS Associate Partners: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Newcastle, London: Birkbeck, Imperial, Kings, LSE, Royal Holloway, SOAS, UCL Duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005 Funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL

SHERPA aims To construct a series of 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 standards-based digital preservation To disseminate learning outcomes and advocacy materials

Where…?

Latest developments Select Committee report and Government response Wellcome Trust policy RCUK policy development Italian and Austrian rectors sign Berlin Declaration Scottish Declaration US NIH policy

Harnads scenario Universities install and register OAI-compliant e-print archives. Authors self-archive their pre-refereeing pre-prints and post-refereeing post-prints in their own university's e-print archives. Universities subsidize a first start-up wave of self-archiving by proxy where needed. The give-away corpus is freed from all access/impact barriers on-line. Then…. Users will prefer the free version? Publisher subscription revenues shrink, Library savings grow? Publishers downsize to be providers of quality control service+ optional add-on products? Quality control service costs funded by author-institution out of reader- institution subscription savings? Source: Stevan Harnad For Whom the Gate Tolls?

The role of publishers Adding value: Managing quality control Copy editing / formatting Enhancing full text Metadata services