Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Jisc Publications Router
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Jisc Publications Router

303

Published on

Presentation by Muriel Mewissen (EDINA, University of Edinburgh) at Repository Fringe 2014.

Presentation by Muriel Mewissen (EDINA, University of Edinburgh) at Repository Fringe 2014.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
303
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • This diagram represents the work we (Jisc) is doing to bring together key repository shared services to deliver a connected national infrastructure to support OA.

    IRUS is part of a set suite of shared services.

    As you can see there are a number of functions that these perform:

    Discovery and Access (CORE Aggregation (metadata and full text) and also OpenDOAR provides M2M discovery for repositories and other services)
    Business Intelligence (CORE Aggregation, Open DOAR, IRUS UK
    Usage Statistics (IRUS UK)
    Policy Transparency (SherpaRoMEO
    Funder Compliance (Juliet and SherpaFACT)
    Metadata consistency – a fundamental part of infrastructure is getting clear what are the common metadata requirements across scholarly systems and implementing work around this (RIOXX Metadata Application Profile and Vocabularies for Open Access (This also support a number functions as mentioned above – discovery, funder compliance, usage statistics.
     
    Interconnectedness - We have also been looking at the Interconnectedness of these services and the opportunity this affords to enhance functionality, to provide service efficiency – for example IRUS harvests download statistics from CORE to present an aggregate view of downloads of an item in a repository as well as from CORE (of that same item) CORE uses OpenDOAR to harvest from OA repositories
     
    Interconnectedness also includes - international use of infrastructure – so we are looking at how our infrastructure could support international requirements – OpenDOAR is already one of those international services and we are looking at how CORE could supply OpenAIRE with data they need for compliance rather than query each UK repository. CORE is also working with OpenDOAR to see how they could supply statistical data to compliment data generated by OpenDOAR.
     
    As part of bringing these shared services together – we are also addressing the sustainability issues – this includes the financial, organisational and technical aspects of their operation.

  • We are also putting in place a layer of support for IRs through the Repository Support Project (RSP) and planning co-ordination with platform-specific support through Eprints Services, the DSpace community and Fedora.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 1
    • 2. Workshop 1. (10/15mins) – Context - Jisc Repository Shared Services Project – Reminder - Publications Router function & offer – Update - HEFCE AAMs & early survey results 2. (20 mins) Discuss & Input - Group breakout 3. (10 mins) Report & Summary Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 2 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/
    • 3. Bringing together key repository services to deliver a connected national infrastructure to support OA 3Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 4. Support for Integration • Repositories to implement - patches, scripts and plug-ins produced by repository shared services. Support is being planned via: • Repository Support Project (RSP) • Planning co-ordination with platform-specific support through Eprints Services, the DSpace community and Fedora. 4Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 5. Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 5
    • 6. Offer to Supplier • Forward your content directly to IRs • Expose your OA content through GUI and • API for browsing and downloading • Accept your metadata: metadata only, • metadata and OA full-text, or metadata and embargoed full- text • Identify target IRs using affiliation in your metadata • Allow onward tracking of your content Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 6 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/
    • 7. Offer to Consumer Direct Delivery of OA content • Get OA content from all data suppliers to IR SWORD endpoint • Get all content using one single metadata format • Importer scripts available for Eprints 3.3. & 3.2, DSpace 1.8 Direct Delivery of All content • As above (without DSpace) plus – Agree to manage embargo periods – Get OA and embargoed content Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 7 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/
    • 8. Offer to Consumer Browse • See all OA content from all data suppliers • Web GUI http://broker.edina.ac.uk/ • Search by target repository and author Harvest • Get all OA content from all data suppliers • Use OAI-PMH APIs http://broker.edina.ac.uk/cgi/oai2 • Search by target repository, author and funder • Choose from multiple formats Notification • Receive monthly email alerts of new content from all data suppliers for chosen repositories • Self-register at http://broker.edina.ac.uk/cgi/postcard_registration Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 8 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/
    • 9. HEFCE REF OA mandate • Change the requirements – AAMs • Require new workflows • Explore, support, revise & adapt – Chance to Input • Jisc survey of HEIs – Circulated via UKCoRR, ARMA, RLUK, SCONUL 2-18 July 2014 – 113 respondents – Some duplicate institutions – responses from different people within same institution Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 9
    • 10. How well would each of the following ways of getting the accepted manuscripts into your institution's system(s) work for you? Jisc Publications Router – Repository Fringe 2014, Edinburgh 10 • Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 11. i. Third-party service to push content to your system (e.g. using SWORD). • Wouldn't work 8% • OK at a push 11% • Satisfactory 23% • Ideal solution 21% • Don't know 37% 11 • Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 12. ii. Pull the content into your system using an API. • Wouldn't work 1% • OK at a push 9% • Satisfactory 30% • Ideal solution 29% • Don't know 31% 12 • Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 13. iii. Receive the content via email as file attachments. • Wouldn't work 7% • OK at a push 43% • Satisfactory 30% • Ideal solution 6% • Don't know 14% 13 • Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 14. If there is another solution not listed above that would work better for you, please describe it here. • “Deposit at publication” • “Our academics receive their post-prints and upload them to the repository. Why or how would other systems be needed or help?” • “Solutions above are good, the ideal source of this information and metadata would be from publishers.” • “SWORD-like technologies would be interesting provided that institution/author matching is really good. A pull system would give us more control and reduce the scope for errors” 14 •Some example replies… Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 15. • “Anything that involves minimal reliance on academics updating information etc would be ideal. I can see how this could work for the meta data, but not sure how we'd also get the post-print.” • “Self deposit directly into system” • “Publishers to provide the metadata to institutions on acceptance. We cannot rely on authors to do this.” • “researchers will have to do it themselves - we can't rely on management or software to do it for them.” • “being notified of accepted manuscripts by publishers so that we can liaise with authors” 15 • More example replies… Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 16. Discussions with publishers  Representations are still underway  Most publishers open to this agenda  Most interested in principle in depositing via Router  Uncertain about technical issues  Jisc to make more specific proposal to them in late September 16Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014
    • 17. Breakout • Small group • Discuss the barriers & issues • Inform developments • Suggested questions • Choose 3 questions/topics max • 1 reporter per group Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 17 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/
    • 18. Summary • Report from each group • Refine requirements Muriel.Mewissen@ed.ac.uk Repository Fringe 2014 - Edinburgh - 31 July 2014 18 http://broker.edina.ac.uk/

    ×