RePosit presentation for Symplectic User Conference 2011


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We have a shared, consortial repository – White Research Research Online.Runs on one instance of EPrints – currently at Leeds.Prior to the introduction of the Research Management System (or CRIS, used here as a shorthand term for any similar type of system) we had one workflow gathering content from all three partners.
  • Each partner has a separate CRIS. Two partner have taken Symplectic. We’re looking at how to link EPrints to more than one CRIS system. A good link between the systems, and a simple workflow for both depositors and library staff is very important to us.
  • For Leeds, authors used to interact directly with EPrints. The ingestion route is now Symplectic Elements. This gives us an opportunity to have a comprehensive data collection system (Symplectic) enhanced by a full-text repository platform White Rose. We see this as mutually beneficial. The connector between the two systems is at a fairly early stage of development. We would like further discussion with Symplectic about what data is fed from Symplectic Elements to EPrints and what data is fed back from EPrints to Elements. For example, could we provide depositors with more feedback on the status of their deposited files?
  • WRRO contains a few thousand items from the three partners but that’s not as much content as we would have liked by now. We’re aware that we have two key issues (i) awareness across the consortium (ii) translating awareness into action by becoming effectively embedded in the researcher workflow. Previously we have undertaken time consuming actions – such as searching WoS for Leeds papers and emailing authors to request deposit – but this has a fairly low return on investment. We’re happy that some areas we were struggling with will be addressed by the link with Symplectic Elements – particularly as Elements has become a well known, centralised system with good uptake. It is a way to bring a repository like ours ‘in from the cold.’ Of course, repositories vary a great deal in terms of how embedded they are, how well known they are at the institution etc so the type of conversation you will have about how your local repository interacts with Elements may be very different in nature from ours.
  • There are many ‘wins’ to commend this model. It makes sense in principle – though the workflows could be improved. Linking in this way is a trade off. We’re used to working in an open source environment where we can address the design, text, flow etc. of the system ourselves to address known issues. We will now need to work more closely with Symplectic to introduce such improvements. Dealing with legacy data was more time consuming than we anticipated. However, preliminary feedback suggests that academics like the simplicity of the deposit process – though would like it simpler still (e.g. being able to deposit directly from the alert email). We have noticed some unusual author behaviour such as uploading and then deleting files – sometimes more than once. Each action in Elements has a consequence in Eprints - but this is not immediately obvious to the depositor. We need to do more work to understand which aspects of deposit are confusing and what we can do to help. Overall, we’ve had to rethink our service and consider which services we planned to develop will now be provided by Elements. The two systems need to develop in concert so that we continue to build on the strengths of both.Changing environment
  • The CRIS+Repository model brings together a variety of stakeholders - researchers, research support staff, IT staff, librarians, repository staff, research funders. We all get together in various different forum e.g. the Symplectic conference, the jisc-repositories email list, ARMA etc. – do we have sufficient shared interest around the model to develop a dedicated community? RePosit has created a Google group as a first step.
  • RePosit presentation for Symplectic User Conference 2011

    1. 1. positing a new kind of repository deposit<br />Rachel Proudfoot, Sarah Molloy and Nicola Cockarill<br />Symplectic User Group Conference<br />24th May 2011<br /><br />
    2. 2. Aims<br />Aims of the project<br /><ul><li> Increased engagement with repositories
    3. 3. More content
    4. 4. More unique users
    5. 5. Advocacy
    6. 6. Shared advocacy tools
    7. 7. Community</li></ul><br />
    8. 8. Aims<br />The recipe…<br /><ul><li> 5 HEI partners, 1 commercial partner
    9. 9. 1 RMS, 5 different implementations
    10. 10. Agreed aims
    11. 11. JISC funding</li></ul><br />Image: Piyachok Thawornmat/<br />
    12. 12. Aims<br />The question…<br /><ul><li> Does simplifying the method of deposit result in increased engagement and more content in repositories?</li></ul><br />Image: Renjith Krishnan /<br />
    13. 13. Achievements<br />So far…<br /><ul><li> Set up and use of project blog
    14. 14. Google Group
    15. 15. Slide deck template (CC licence)
    16. 16. RePosit logo
    17. 17. Other advocacy materials (CC licence)
    18. 18. Advocacy plans for each HEI partner
    19. 19. Survey
    20. 20. Dissemination events</li></ul><br />
    21. 21. Case study at Queen Mary<br />In the beginning…<br /><ul><li>ePrints repository never launched
    22. 22. Partners in Sherpa-LEAP
    23. 23. No history of central repository
    24. 24. Open Access and dissemination supported
    25. 25. No formal statement or plan from QMSE
    26. 26. Built into outputs from the RPMS project started in September 2008
    27. 27. April 2010 – QMRO
    28. 28. DSpace
    29. 29. On campus only</li></ul><br />Image: Idea go /<br />
    30. 30. Case study at Queen Mary<br />Embedding in College strategy…<br /><ul><li> Communication Strategy for Elements and QMRO
    31. 31. Library Strategy
    32. 32. Research Strategy
    33. 33. College Strategy
    34. 34. Research Support Librarian</li></ul><br />Image: Salvatore Vuono/<br />
    35. 35. Case study at Queen Mary<br /><ul><li> QMRO
    36. 36. Still on campus only
    37. 37. Official launch imminent
    38. 38. Spontaneous deposits
    39. 39. Regular depositors
    40. 40. Embedding into researcher processes
    41. 41. Still lots to do!</li></ul>Progress so far…<br /><br />Image: Idea go /<br />
    42. 42. Case study at University of Plymouth<br /> Starting from …<br /><ul><li>Pearl (Plymouth Electronic Archive & Research Library)
    43. 43. Launched Oct 2010 for ePHDS
    44. 44. Integration work ongoing with Symplectic
    45. 45. Summer 2011 launch to staff
    46. 46. Simultaneously rolling out Symplectic Publications
    47. 47. Self submission model
    48. 48. Have a shared Symplectic service with University of Exeter with multiple repositories tool</li></ul><br />Image: SayanSamana/<br />
    49. 49. Case study at University of Plymouth<br />And the advocacy story so far:<br /><ul><li>Presentation to VC’s Senior Leadership Team
    50. 50. Key driver = external communication and visibility
    51. 51. Staff awareness sessions - mixed reception:
    52. 52. “great for grey literature and conferences”
    53. 53. “we can add an signature line to all our emails”
    54. 54. “it’s not for me”
    55. 55. “Why would the publishers allow it?”</li></ul><br />Image: Master Isolated images/<br /><br />
    56. 56. Case study at University of Plymouth<br />Only time will tell:<br /><ul><li> Need to get Implementation work finished
    57. 57. Continue advocacy work
    58. 58. Integration with Publications seen as seamless
    59. 59. Need lots of selling points
    60. 60. Real evidence counts most
    61. 61. Open Access “Lite” – all about “why should I?”</li></ul><br />Image: Simon Howden/<br />
    62. 62.
    63. 63.
    64. 64. Login / Upload / Share<br />Workflow: semi-mediated<br />
    65. 65. Login / Upload / Share<br />Pre-connector / RePosit<br /><ul><li>Modest awareness and take up of WRRO
    66. 66. Awareness of WRRO didn’t always lead to action
    67. 67. Direct emails based on WoS search – 25% response
    68. 68. Silo</li></ul>Image: Tom Curtis /<br /><br />NB repositories vary a good deal: awareness, uptake, embedding, tailoring<br />
    69. 69. Login / Upload / Share<br />So far..<br /><ul><li> Legacy
    70. 70. Spontaneous deposit
    71. 71. Deposit profile different
    72. 72. Simplicity helps – never simple enough!
    73. 73. Some business as usual – copyright, versions
    74. 74. Unexplained user behaviour..
    75. 75. More user interface development
    76. 76. Rethink, review, respond </li></ul>Image: vichie81/<br /><br />Do we all want something different out of a joined up system?<br />
    77. 77. Login / Upload / Share<br />Community?<br />Google group<br /><br />Repositories and CRIS: working smartly together. Conference and Software Exhibition, 19th July, Nottingham<br /><br />Image: vrenjithkrishnan/<br />
    78. 78. Symplectic+WRRO: simple+impact<br /><br />