1. Turning the Corner on ETDs Digital Initiatives Symposium University of San Diego, April 9 2014 Ellen Ramsey, University of Virginia Jennifer Roper, University of Virginia Christopher Vinson, Clemson University Andrew Wesolek, Clemson University

2. Despite our Differences… Clemson  Proprietary platform: bepress Digital Commons  Migration of existing ETDs dating back to 2006 Virginia  Open source  Print to …

3. We Built Key Partnerships ETD Task Force, Graduate School, Academic Departments

4. Background Planning and developing strategy

5. Background Clemson  ETDs as the cornerstone of new repository  Time of flux: adjusting embargoes, moving away from ProQuest Virginia  Phased IR implementation starting with ETDs  Moving to multi- institutional open- source IR

6. Background: UVa 1819-All theses and dissertations submitted in print or on CD 2007: and held in library stacks. 2008: Review of IR solutions for a print-to-IR transition 2009-Fedora selected as platform, Libra repository developed 2011: by Library and IT units 2011: Engineering ETD pilot 2012-Recruitment and transition of all UVa graduate programs 2014: to Libra ETD deposit 2013-Hydramata multi-institutional open source IR project (Cincinnati, Indiana, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Virginia)

7. Out with the old…

9. …in with the new

11. Implementation How we put our ETD programs into practice

12. UVa’s Implementation  Mostly implemented  All but professional schools included  Collection/archiving policies still evolving  Decentralized oversight of graduate programs  Engineering pilot  Department-specific embargo protocols, policy decisions, documentation built engagement

13. ETD-Student System Integration Print ProcessETD Process

14. Clemson  Migration process  Scrape server for ProQuest XML metadata  Sanitizing/normalizing existing metadata  Submission and embargo process  Proposed solution from ETD Task Force: 1 year embargo, option to extend on an annual basis by student or advisor (out to 6 years).  Handle submissions and embargoes in-house using Digital Commons in place of ProQuest

15. Challenges Yes, we have those, too

16. Challenges… Clemson  Conveying value of “openness” to stakeholders  Metadata  OAI “compliance” UVa  Decentralization  FERPA  Discipline-specific embargo tensions Can become opportunities!

17. Friendly advice It’s free

18. Tips to keep in mind  Collection and preservation policies will evolve, but should be robust to start  Phased implementation allows for evolution, but also inconsistency  Pay attention to your metadata…keep it clean!  Be willing to play well with others  Take embargo concerns seriously

19. Choose the Right IR for YOU  Many popular solutions available  bepress Digital Commons  Dspace  CONTENTdm  Hydra/Fedora  eprints

20. Choosing the Right IR  Find the one that matches your size, intention, and pocketbook  Hosted or on-premises?  What features do you value most?  Metadata flexibility  Nice image viewer  SEO optimization  Access controls  The list goes on…

21. Questions?  Email us!  Ellen Ramsey, ellen@virginia.eduellen@virginia.edu  Jennifer Roper, jor2a@eservices.virginia.edujor2a@eservices.virginia.edu  Christopher Vinson, vinsonc@clemson.eduvinsonc@clemson.edu  Andrew Wesolek, awesole@clemson.eduawesole@clemson.edu