1. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES UPDATE Joan K. Lippincott, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) Simon Fraser University June 26, 2009

2. Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)  Founded in 1990 by ARL and EDUCAUSE  Mission: accelerate progress in digital information related to research and education  200+ member institutions  Executive Director Clifford Lynch  Headquarters in Washington, DC  www.cni.org www.cni.org  Fall and Spring Task Force (membership) meetings

3. Highlight Three IR Issues  Revisiting the mission  Strategies for increasing content submission  Inclusion of new types of content

4. IR: Mission Possible?  Is the mission to provide stewardship for all types of digital products being produced at an institution?  Focus on stewardship role of library/archives  Focus on gray literature produced at the university  Is the mission to provide a place for published faculty output, possibly supplemented with other materials like research data?  Focus on Open Access policies  …or something else?  (credit: Clifford Lynch, 2009)

5. IR: Mission Possible?  Do you have a strong mandate or incentive to provide this service?  Clear signal from administrators/faculty  Dedication to fulfilling the library mission  How motivated is the library to provide resources for the IR?  “If you build it, they will come” is generally not working in this arena

6. Who should be involved in establishing or revisiting the mission?  Librarians  Academic administrators  Faculty  Faculty governing body  Graduate students  Others?

7. Repositories  What serves your constituency best and for what content?  Institutional  Disciplinary  National  Regional (EU, etc.)  How do the levels of repositories interrelate and interoperate?  How can you explain this issue to researchers?

8. Strategies for Content Submission  There is no substitute for understanding your user population  Interviews  Observation of workflow  Speaking at faculty meetings and getting feedback  Surveys or other data collection  Identify target departments/institutes

9. Observation/Interview at U. Rochester

10. Strategies for Content Submission  The “Special Libraries solution” – do it for them  The build a tool(s) to make it easy solution  The institutional Open Access faculty resolution solution  The requirement solution, e.g. for ETDs or institutional reporting  The “payoff” solution – make the IR something that enhances faculty’s research dissemination and visibility

11. Faculty Motivation and Compliance “Although self-archiving is ‘so simple that a child could do it,’ sometimes a child is not available…” Therefore, the library does the work for faculty, even reformatting preprints for the IR. Paul Royster, U. Nebraska

12. Motivation Strategies

13. Researcher Interest and Motivation  Disciplinary differences  University mandates  Personal reputation; evidence of use  Dissemination of information to developing countries  Concern about digital information curation after retirement

14. Motivation Strategies  European Economics Portal NEOO  Open access to economics information  Peer status

15. Compliance Strategies  95% researchers say they would add content to IR if required by institution or funder, and in test cases around 90% complied  Alma Swan, American Scientist listserv, 8/06  Canadian Institutes of Health Research Mandate  NIH Deposit Mandate in the US

16. IRs and Publishing Programs  What are the goals of each  What is the relationship between programs  Clarify relationships for the library and for researchers

17. Inclusion of New Types of Content  What are your institutional goals for moving beyond text/PDF?  Data related to science, humanities, etc. research  Multi-media objects  Learning objects  What claims can you make about stewardship?

18. Data in Repositories  Storage needs  Formats  Updating  Migrating  Subject and tool expertise  Authenticity/tampering

19. Research Data in Repositories

20. Moving Forward  Continue to build understanding of your users  Clarify the relationship between institutional/national/regional and subject repositories  Do something important for your institution  Share results of your initiatives with others

21. Resources  Lynch, Clifford. “Revisiting Institutional Repositories”  Will be available at http://www.cni.org/tfms/2009a.spring/abstracts/PB-revisiting-lynch.html  “Increasing Use and Content through Creative Service-Repository Bundling,” U. Nebraska  http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/media-pubs/index.shtml

22. Contact