Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Creating an institutional e-print repository Stephen Pinfield University of Nottingham."— Presentation transcript:

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

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

3 What…?

4 Terminology E-print archives Open archives Self archiving Institutional repositories

5 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

6 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

7 OAI Protocol: key concepts End User Data Providers Service Provider

8 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. 2002.

9 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

10 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. 2002.

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

12 Nottingham eprints

13 Nottingham eprints - record

14 Arc

15 Google search

16 Citebase

17 Citebase - citation analysis

18 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

19 Why…?

20 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

21 Problems Access to research limited Impact of research limited Rising journal prices


23 177% 30%

24 Problems (contd) Access to research limited Impact of research limited Rising journal prices Competition issues

25 Price competition does not occur in the STM journal market (Select Committee report, 2004) Lack of substitutability Journals: mini monopolies Relative inelasticity of demand Publisher can increase market share by raising prices –if high-impact journal price rises –libraries (with fixed budgets) cancel other titles Concentration in the market Big Deal: emphasises the problems

26 Problems (contd) Access to research limited Impact of research limited Rising journal prices Competition issues Big Deal VAT Lack of library purchasing power Disconnect purchasers/consumers Digital preservation

27 Summary Universities generate research output Give it free of charge to publishers Buy it back from publishers Give services to publishers free of charge as: –authors –referees –editorial board members

28 IRs: 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 lowering impact barriers lowering access barriers

29 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 –automated plagiarism detection

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

31 Barriers Lack of awareness Concerns: –Quality control - particularly peer review –IPR - particularly copyright –Undermining the tried and tested status quo –Work load

32 How…?

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

34 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 v. DIY? –file format conversion, depositing e-prints, creation of metadata Author permission and licensing terms –copyright statement –compliance with publisher copyright terms Metadata –self-created v. third party metadata –metadata quality and visibility

35 Costs Start-up costs low –hardware –software ( 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

36 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

37 SHERPA Acronym: Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access Initiator: CURL (Consortium of 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

38 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

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

40 Where…?

41 Recent developments Select Committee Report (July 2004) and Government responses (November 2004 and February 2005) Scottish Declaration on Open Access (October 2004) Wellcome Trust policy on open access (November 2004) Italian and Austrian universities sign open access declaration (November 2004) US National Institutes of Health policy on open access (February 2005) RCUK policy (expected out for consultation April 2005) UUK policy statement (expected June 2005) New JISC Digital Repositories Programme (July 2005-)

42 Unresolved issues Discipline differences Definitions of publication Versioning Digital preservation Costing and funding models Metadata

43 The future: 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?

44 Other possible futures Deconstructing the journal –content distribution –quality control Overlay journals Quality –pre-publication screening –pre-publication peer review –post-publication metrics –post-publication dialogue


Download ppt "Creating an institutional e-print repository Stephen Pinfield University of Nottingham."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google