Inn Presentation

728 views

Published on

An introductory presentation to the Leeds Met Institutional repository project and the principles of Open Access to research

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
728
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Inn Presentation

    1. 1. Nick Sheppard <ul><li>Repository Development Officer </li></ul><ul><li>125 Online Office </li></ul><ul><li>James Graham Building </li></ul><ul><li>Headingley </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Ext: 24731 </li></ul><ul><li>Blog: http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/ </li></ul>
    2. 2. Institutional Repository <ul><li>Digital collection capturing and </li></ul><ul><li>preserving the intellectual output of a </li></ul><ul><li>single or multi-university community </li></ul><ul><li>Definition adapted from SPARC (2002) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Session Aims <ul><li>The project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementing an Institutional Repository for Leeds Metropolitan University </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open Access – An overview </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstration of a live IR </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits of OA and IRs </li></ul><ul><li>Objections to OA and IRs </li></ul><ul><li>How you can contribute </li></ul><ul><li>A discussion forum </li></ul>
    4. 4. Project Staff <ul><li>Project Director Jo Norry </li></ul><ul><li>Project Manager Wendy Luker </li></ul><ul><li>Repository Development Officer Nick Sheppard </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright Clearance Officer Rachel Thornton </li></ul><ul><li>Data Ingest and Enrichment Officer TBA </li></ul><ul><li>Key members of academic and TBA </li></ul><ul><li>research community </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    5. 5. An Institutional Repository for Leeds Met - Background <ul><li>Funded by JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) </li></ul><ul><li>March 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>An institutional needs analysis </li></ul><ul><li>A set of priorities for repository content </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Open Access research repository </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment, learning and teaching repository </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Showcase for students’ work </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Digital images of heritage collections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A managed environment for the deposit of internal documents </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Where are we? <ul><li>Market analysis of software </li></ul><ul><li>Software identified </li></ul><ul><li>Currently being implemented </li></ul>
    7. 7. Timeline <ul><li>Commencement of advocacy campaign </li></ul><ul><li>Work with chosen software provider to appropriately customise </li></ul><ul><li>software </li></ul><ul><li>Workflows defined </li></ul><ul><li>Populated with a representative body of initial content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Published, peer-reviewed research output </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Embedded in workflows of relevant sections of the University </li></ul>
    8. 8. The Role of the Development Officer <ul><li>Technical/administrative/advocacy </li></ul><ul><li>Select appropriate software </li></ul><ul><li>Liaise with provider to customise and test software </li></ul><ul><li>Implement and administer the Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Establish workflows for ingest of content </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy to the University community to encourage awareness, understanding and use of the repository </li></ul><ul><li>Establish the Leeds Met repository as a standard element of the workflow of those generating research outputs </li></ul>
    9. 10. Open Access <ul><li>“ Open Access (OA) means immediate, free </li></ul><ul><li>and unrestricted access to digital scholarly </li></ul><ul><li>material.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ OA was made possible by the advent of </li></ul><ul><li>the internet.” </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Suber </li></ul>
    10. 11. Open Access <ul><li>The Open Access journal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>So called “Gold route” to OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulty in establishing viable cost recovery model (eg. Author-institution pays) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Biomed Central </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DOAJ currently holds records of 2834 free, full text, quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Self-Archiving </li></ul><ul><ul><li>So called “Green route” to OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject based repository </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>arXiv.org </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional Repository </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not mutually exclusive </li></ul>
    11. 12. Self-Archiving <ul><li>Increasingly journal publishers adapting formal policies on self-archiving </li></ul><ul><li>SHERPA RoMEO project – University of Nottingham </li></ul><ul><li>Database of self-archiving policy by journal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Colour coded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Green – can archive pre-print and post print </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blue – can archive post-print </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Yellow – can archive pre-print </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>White – archiving not formally supported </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Entry for each publisher also lists conditions or restrictions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Embargo </li></ul></ul>
    12. 13. Institutional Repositories <ul><li>Most widely used technology for self-archiving </li></ul><ul><li>The Directory of Open Access Repositories (openDOAR) currently lists 120 repositories in the UK </li></ul><ul><li>The majority (90) are institutional repositories </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.opendoar.org/index.html </li></ul><ul><li>A live example: </li></ul><ul><li>http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ </li></ul><ul><li>The majority (up to 80%) of hits come from Search Engines </li></ul>
    13. 14. What are the benefits of an OA IR? <ul><li>“ Removing access barriers”…“will </li></ul><ul><li>accelerate research, enrich education, </li></ul><ul><li>share the learning of the rich with the poor </li></ul><ul><li>and the poor with the rich, make this </li></ul><ul><li>literature as useful as it can be, and lay the </li></ul><ul><li>foundation for uniting humanity in a </li></ul><ul><li>common intellectual conversation and quest </li></ul><ul><li>for knowledge.” </li></ul><ul><li>Budapest Open Access Initiative 2001 </li></ul>
    14. 15. What are the benefits of an OA IR? <ul><li>For the academic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Career advancement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence that OA is cited earlier and more often than non-OA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For the teacher/student </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All have access to key resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For the Institution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A showcase to the world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding opportunities </li></ul></ul>
    15. 16. What are the benefits of an OA IR? <ul><li>For the Information Professional </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scholarly publishing crisis (1970’s/1980’s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High cost </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>For the Tax payer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publicly funded research should be publicly available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mandates by funding bodies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>JISC/Wellcome Trust/Arts and Humanities Research Council </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>For funding bodies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increases return on investment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results more widely available and more useful </li></ul></ul>
    16. 17. What are the benefits of an OA IR? <ul><li>OA represents the democratisation of knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In interests of the first as well as developing world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research is 'missing' to the international knowledge base </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incomplete pictures of global science </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Particularly environmental and development issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li> Yiotis 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    17. 18. What are the benefits of an OA IR? <ul><li>Statistics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>number of hits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>number of full downloads </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Links </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to related material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to data resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>author biographies/CVs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multimedia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>podcasts (eg. author interview) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>video </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Citation tracking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>who and why? </li></ul></ul>
    18. 19. Benchmarking Consortium <ul><li>University of Derby – currently no repository </li></ul><ul><li>University of Huddersfield – Repository in use </li></ul><ul><li>Liverpool John Moores – Repository in use </li></ul><ul><li>University of Liverpool – Pilot project; full rollout 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>University of Salford – Repository under development </li></ul><ul><li>Staffordshire University – Repository under development </li></ul>
    19. 21. Some Objections <ul><li>Self-archiving is an amateur form of publishing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complement not replace existing publishing paradigm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCESS to research </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many predict a decreased role for publishers if OA becomes dominant </li></ul><ul><ul><li>practise of putting authors’ papers into repositories has so far had little impact on subscription rates (Kingsley, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>may be an advantage to publishers to allow authors to post their preprints and then attract the readers to the final edited version at their journal </li></ul></ul>
    20. 22. Some Objections <ul><li>Quality Control/Peer Review </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer-review medium independent; can be made more efficient within a fully realised Open Access model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need not be any ambiguity relating to self-archived preprints as long as they are clearly identifiable as such </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digital preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Issue not restricted to IRs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current best practice </li></ul></ul>
    21. 23. Some Objections <ul><li>Intellectual Property and Copyright </li></ul><ul><ul><li>complicated area and the industry is still adapting </li></ul></ul>
    22. 24. Intellectual Property and Copyright <ul><li>Copyright + Electronic = FEAR </li></ul><ul><li>In a repository this is multiplied </li></ul><ul><li>Manage interests of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Author/creator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright owner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users of the copyrighted material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Re-publishing of material </li></ul></ul>
    23. 25. Intellectual Property and Copyright <ul><li>The law – provides a baseline </li></ul><ul><li>Deal with individual situations as they arise </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines not rules </li></ul><ul><li>Takedown policy </li></ul>
    24. 26. Flashpoints <ul><li>Multiple authors </li></ul><ul><li>Third party copyright ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Publishing works originally produced for examinations </li></ul><ul><li>Data protection issues </li></ul><ul><li>Multimedia – “nested” materials </li></ul>
    25. 27. Intellectual Property and Copyright <ul><li>The Project Team invite input from: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>information professionals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>academic staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>research community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Specific concerns? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Our response? </li></ul></ul></ul>
    26. 28. You may have more!
    27. 29. Where do you come in? <ul><li>Learning Advisers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Source of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disciplinary differences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>arxiv.org </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication channel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Elicit opinion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify “champions” </li></ul></ul>
    28. 30. Where do you come in? <ul><li>Information Officers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other prospective users of the repository </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Volunteers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Continued Professional Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More information later in the project </li></ul></ul></ul>
    29. 31. In Summary <ul><li>Initial project focus is an Open Access research repository </li></ul><ul><li>Future diversification for changing institutional needs </li></ul><ul><li>The benefits of IRs are considerable for </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>researchers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>information professionals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>institutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the public </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Whole World! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>IRs are rapidly becoming an integral part of Universities’ infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>The project needs your support </li></ul>
    30. 32. References/Further Information <ul><li>http:// www.sherpa.ac.uk / </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.ukoln.ac.uk /repositories </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.jisc.ac.uk </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.sparceurope.org / </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Suber’s Open Access Overview </li></ul>
    31. 33. Thank you!

    ×