1. ANKOS Workshop 2006: The institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the institution can do for the repository Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK

2. What the repository can do for your institution Key Perspectives Ltd Part I

3. Why researchers publish their work Key Perspectives Ltd

4. Old paradigms Use of proxy measures of an individual scholars merit is as good as it gets It is a publishers responsibility to disseminate your work Printed article is the format of record Other scholars have time to search out what you want them to know Key Perspectives Ltd

5. New paradigms Rich, deep, broad metrics for measuring the contributions of individual scholarss Effective dissemination of your work is now in your hands (at last) The digital format will be the format of record (is already in many areas) Unless you routinely publish in Nature or Science, getting it out there is up to you Key Perspectives Ltd

6. The digital era The potential role of electronic networks in scientific publication … goes far beyond providing searchable archives for electronic journals. The whole process of scholarly communication is undergoing a revolution comparable to the one occasioned by the invention of printing. Stevan Harnad, 1990 Key Perspectives Ltd

7. Open Access ( dissemination) The whole process of scholarly communication is evolving … perfectly naturally … with all the constraints and patterns that evolutionary theory would predict Key Perspectives Ltd

11. And yet … Still only 15% of research is Open Access Key Perspectives Ltd

12. Open Access: How? Open Access journals (www.doaj.org) Open Access repositories (author self-archiving) Key Perspectives Ltd

13. Author experience so far Only 24% of authors have submitted an article to an Open Access journal Only 22% have self-archived in their institutional repository Natural selection or genetic drift? Key Perspectives Ltd

14. Open Access: What is it? Online Immediate Free (non-restricted) Free (gratis) To the scholarly literature that authors give away Permanent Key Perspectives Ltd

15. Open Access: Who benefits? Benefits to researchers themselves Benefits to institutions Benefits to national economies Benefits to science and society Key Perspectives Ltd

16. Why we should have Open Access Greater impact from scholarly endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of scholarship Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of research Better information-creation using new and better technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

17. Open Access increases citations Key Perspectives Ltd Range = 36%-200% (Data: Stevan Harnad and co-workers)

18. Other impact studies Lawrence 2001 (computer science) Kurtz 2004 (astronomy) Brody & Harnad 2004 (all disciplines) Antelman 2005 (philosophy, politics, electrical & electronic engineering, mathematics) Wren 2005 Eysenbach 2006 Key Perspectives Ltd

19. Self-archiving in the PhilSci Archive has given instant world-wide visibility to my work. As a result, I was invited to submit papers to refereed international conferences/journals and got them accepted. Key Perspectives Ltd An authors own testimony on open access visibility

20. Lost citations, lost impact Only around 15% of research is Open Access…. ….. so 85% is not ….. and we are therefore losing 85% of the 50% increase in citations (conservative end of the range) that Open Access brings (= 42.5%) Key Perspectives Ltd

21. What this means: Ankara University 2005: 856 articles Number of citations: 423 If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 603 citations Key Perspectives Ltd

22. What this means: Hacettepe University 2005: 1448 articles Number of citations: 874 If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 1246 citations Key Perspectives Ltd

23. National economies Since the Turkish Government invested $100m in S&T in 2005 ….. This means lost impact worth $42.5m to the Turkish economy Key Perspectives Ltd

24. Science is faster, more efficient Key Perspectives Ltd

25. Measure, assess, and manage science more effectively Assess individuals, groups, institutions, on the basis of citation analysis Track downloads, citations, patterns of use Trends: predict impact, usage, direction of science and influences on research Latency, longevity Hubs, authorities Silent unsung authors identified by semantic analysis Key Perspectives Ltd

26. Navigation and analysis of science output: Citebase Find researchers Measure citations to articles (not journals) Follow the citations through the literature Measure downloads (and predict citations) Use citation patterns to analyse science Key Perspectives Ltd

27. Find a researcher ….. Key Perspectives Ltd

28. Follow citing articles Key Perspectives Ltd

29. Measure usage and impact Key Perspectives Ltd

30. Analyse via the citing trail Key Perspectives Ltd

32. New knowledge from old Data-mining Text-mining (semantic Web technologies) UK: National Text-Mining Centre Example: NeuroCommons (www.neurocommons.org) Key Perspectives Ltd

33. Why Open Access Greater impact from scientific endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of science Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of science Novel information-creation using new and advanced technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

34. Repositories: interoperable Show their content in a specific form Harvested by search engines Form a database of global research Freely available Publicly available Permanently available Key Perspectives Ltd

35. Institutionally-based repositories 800+ Half are institutional or departmental Growth of 1 per day, but… Average number of postprints is 297! Key Perspectives Ltd

36. CERN archive Key Perspectives Ltd

38. An institutional repository provides researchers with: The means to disseminate their work, free, to the world Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress) A location for supporting data that are unpublished One-input-many outputs (CVs, publications) Tool for research assessment Key Perspectives Ltd

39. Why an institutional repository? Fulfils a universitys mission to engender, encourage and disseminate scholarly work Enables a university to compile a complete record of its intellectual effort Forms a permanent record of all digital output from an institution Enables standardised online CVs for all researchers (e.g. RAE exercise) Marketing tool for universities An institution can mandate self-archiving across all subject areas Key Perspectives Ltd

40. Coffee! Key Perspectives Ltd

41. What your institution can do for the repository Key Perspectives Ltd Part II

42. Some statistics Awareness of Open Access is increasing amongst scholars in all disciplines The number of repositories has increased at an average of 1 per day over the last year The rate of increase is rising Key Perspectives Ltd

43. A few more statistics There are circa 800 repositories globally There are 32 documented policies There are 10 mandates Key Perspectives Ltd

44. Heres the problem… Only 15% of research articles are spontaneously self-archived The average number of postprints self-archived in institutional repositories is 297 Key Perspectives Ltd

45. Policies, mandates There is a difference Both are being developed at institutional, national and even international level One is sometimes effective, the other always is Key Perspectives Ltd

46. Third component: advocacy Sometimes in the absence of either a policy or mandate; sometimes alongside these Advocacy – sustained and organised Advocacy - opportunistic Key Perspectives Ltd

47. Policies An almost-mandate from the DFG, Germany An almost-mandate from the FWF, Austria Dutch policy for the universities in the DARE network Exhortations and encouragements from public research funders in Finland, USA National policy being developed in Sweden (?) Developments in Australia, Canada, etc Key Perspectives Ltd

48. Mandates Proposed mandates: public funders (Canada, Australia, S.Africa, Ukraine, USA and EU) Real mandates: Wellcome Trust RCUK (Research Councils UK) Key Perspectives Ltd

49. USA NIH: Strengthening now very likely Require not request CURES: 6-month delay to provide OA permitted but deposit must be at acceptance FRPAA: Mandatory deposit: all research funded by the largest agencies Key Perspectives Ltd

50. UK Wellcome Trust ($750m) Research Councils UK 4 out of 8 have a mandate and 1 has a strong encouragement Key Perspectives Ltd

51. Funder / institutional policies and mandates PoliciesMandates Funders 84 Institutional repositories 246 Key Perspectives Ltd

52. Author readiness to comply with a mandate 81% 14% 5% Key Perspectives Ltd

53. Institutions with a mandate already University of Southampton School of Electronics & Computer Science (since 2003) (90+% compliance already) CERN (2003) (90% compliance already) Queensland University of Technology (2004) (40%+ compliance and growing) University of Minho, Portugal (2005) Recently, NIT (Mumbai), Zurich University and others on the way … Key Perspectives Ltd

54. Case study I: ECS, Southampton School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton Mandate early 2003 Sanctioned in the sense that assessment is based upon repository content It works Key Perspectives Ltd

55. Case study II: Minho University Minho University, Braga, Portugal Repository established 2003 Mandate introduced 2005 when self-archiving rate dropped off Mandate backed by financial incentives paid to departments Key Perspectives Ltd

56. Minho University repository Mandate introduced (Data courtesy of Eloy Rodrigues) Key Perspectives Ltd

57. Case study III: QUT QUT, Brisbane Mandate introduced by DVC Tom Cochrane at the beginning of 2004 Not sanctioned, but supported by vigorous and sympathetic library advocacy Key Perspectives Ltd

58. Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd

59. Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd

60. Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd

61. Why Open Access? Greater impact from scientific endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of science Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of science Novel information-creation using new and advanced technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

62. Mandate when? At acceptance for publication: the authors final version Mandate the deposit at that point Mandate OA to full-text unless there is a compelling reason against this If there is a compelling reason, mandate OA to metadata Mandate opening of full-text at 6 months The publishers PDF can be added, or linked to, later Key Perspectives Ltd

63. Mandate what? The authors final version In the native format Because text-mining and data- mining tools need to work on OA articles They work best on XML Key Perspectives Ltd

64. What about PDF? John Wilbanks (Science Commons): Scraping is the right word, because having to work with PDF is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Key Perspectives Ltd

65. What about PDF? Clifford Lynch (CNI): PDF is evil Key Perspectives Ltd

66. What about PDF? Peter Murray-Rust (Cambridge): Getting to XML from PDF is like starting with the burger and trying to get back to the cow. Key Perspectives Ltd

67. Summary Policies nice but largely ineffectual Mandates work and so increasing Deposit at acceptance: Open metadata immediately Open full-text later if necessary Deposit authors final version; add published version later if desired Key Perspectives Ltd

68. Author readiness to comply with a mandate 81% 14% 5% Key Perspectives Ltd

70. Publisher permissions (by journal) Key Perspectives Ltd

71. Publisher permissions 92% of journals permit self-archiving SHERPA/RoMEO list at: www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php Or at: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php Key Perspectives Ltd

72. Linking UK repositories User requirements – what services are needed? Roles and responsibilities involved Technical architecture Business models Key Perspectives Ltd

73. Services built onto repositories

74. Key Perspectives Ltd

77. Services built onto repositories

78. Patterns for repositories Key Perspectives Ltd

79. Purdue Universitys model Key Perspectives Ltd

80. Thank you for listening aswan@keyperspectives.co.uk www.keyperspectives.co.uk www.keyperspectives.com Key Perspectives Ltd