Cardiff ePrints Caerdydd: from Vision to Reality Anne Bell

 Creating Cardiff ePrints  Outcomes - the “finished” pilot  Where we are now - advocacy Overview

Cardiff ePrints Timeline: 1  2001 – interest in OA & repositories  2002/3 – awareness events  2003/4 – institutional merger  2004 September – project group  2004 December – project start  2004/5 – Strategic Library Review

Cardiff ePrints Timeline: 2  2005 April – first implementation  2005 October – final configuration  2006 February – OAI registration & OpenDOAR  2006 March – low profile publicity, content 18 papers

Cardiff ePrints Timeline: 3  2005/6 – Modern Working Environment  2005/6 – RAE planning  Summer 2006 – more full text content  Autumn 2006 – end of Pilot development – 66 items  2007 January – advocacy plan

Cardiff ePrints Pilot: Features 1  EPrints software  Initial focus Engineering & Optometry  Mediated deposit  Self-archiving  Aims  demonstrate the concept  full text published papers

Cardiff ePrints Pilot: Features 2  Library driven  Specialised support from other parts of INSRV.  INSRV Project group – high level guidance  ePrints Project team – cataloguers & subject librarians  No dedicated staff resources

Cardiff ePrints Pilot: Outcome 1  Total of 300+ papers were checked  Approx 60 papers added during pilot phase  Optometry 211 papers, 73 “green”, 34 added  Engineering 75 papers, 57 “green” 23 added  Nursing 30 papers, 14 “green”, 1 added

Publishers and Copyright  Quality and perception  Publisher pdf or author final version  Without the journal pdf, self-archiving perceived to be self-publishing, and the content not peer- reviewed

 Resource issues  Copyright and quality concerns  Culture change  Institutional backing  Re-think on objectives and approach to advocacy Cardiff ePrints Pilot: Outcome 2

Cardiff ePrints: Advocacy 1  Advocacy plan – a project in its own right  Institutional mandate? “…voluntary persuasion of individuals is known not to work beyond a pitiful participation level. Self-archiving needs to be made part of the routine academic duty, and this requires a policy endorsement by someone.” (Arthur Sale)  RAE?

Cardiff ePrints: Advocacy 2  Open meeting of stakeholders  Raise awareness  OA benefits, simple messages  Identify Schools’ priorities  Briefing material to ensure consistency  RAE publication data  MWE integration

Cardiff ePrints: Advocacy 3  Information Services Annual Report  “Open Access repository positions the University for the future”  2 key messages – OA impact advantage + funding mandates  Presentations to University audiences via existing events  School Strategy planning  Promotional postcard

Why have a Repository?  40+ UK institutions have repositories  Benefits for researchers  wider dissemination and citation  easier searching and access  Benefits for institutions  promoting research reputation  managing publications and data  Compliance with funding authority policies  Metrics-based RAE (post 2008)

Benefits: Research Impact  “…online articles are more highly cited because of easier availability."  Nature (2001) vol 411, no. 6837, p.521  "Overall, [self-archiving] of articles in open access repositories seems to be associated with both a larger number of citations, and earlier citations for the items deposited...”  UK scholarly journals: 2006 baseline report: An evidence-based analysis of data concerning scholarly journal publishing.

Cardiff ePrints: Advocacy 4  Internal context  Pragmatic  Preparing for the future  RAE  MWE  GFI