Heery Reprev Aston 20090507


Published on

Reviews the role of digital repositories in relation to the broader UK digital information environment, picks up on highlights, issues and trends. Intended to steer the work of JISC and others interested in furthering enhanced scholarly communication.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Heery Reprev Aston 20090507

  1. 1. Digital Repositories Roadmap Review: towards a vision for research and learning in 2013 Rachel Heery 7 May 2009 JISC Repositories & Preservation Programme Meeting Aston Business School , Birmingham This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
  2. 2. Repository Road leading to Ha Ha Road ……. thanks to Dave Flanders.
  3. 3. Repository Roadmap: looking forward Rachel Heery and Andy Powell, 2006 www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rep-roadmap-v15.doc Repository Roadmap Review: towards a vision for research and learning in 2013 Rachel Heery, 2009 www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/ informationenvironment / reproadmaprev
  4. 4. Motivation for Roadmap Review <ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in practice, policy and technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>On Web: social networking, user generated data, network level services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In HE: RAE completed and REF in planning stage, cross disciplinary and data-centric research, awareness of need for preservation, open educational resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In repository landscape: implementation of repositories in UK HEIs, research council mandates, international activity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Extend horizon to 2013 </li></ul><ul><li>Clarify relationship of repositories to environment, to the Web and within HEIs </li></ul>
  5. 5. Progress made <ul><li>Implementation within UK HEIs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approx 97 have active repository whilst 72 have not </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presence in HEIs offers potential for cultural and organisational change </li></ul><ul><li>Repositories as example of transition from project to service </li></ul>
  6. 7. Charting Progress: UK repository statistics Statistics from OpenDOAR
  7. 8.
  8. 9. Roadmap Review scope <ul><li>UK HEIs </li></ul><ul><li>Content types – research outputs, research data, learning materials </li></ul><ul><li>Interfacing with administrative systems, wider digital services and collections </li></ul><ul><li>Relation with commercial repositories, and with publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations directed to JISC to inform future funding </li></ul><ul><li>Milestones by content type to guide near term activity in wider community </li></ul>
  9. 10. Measurable performance indicators Recommendation 1 Measure cultural and organisational change by whether repository related deliverables are included in institutional information   Produce baseline analysis of current repository content and analysis of potential repository content.   Enhance repository statistics to measure the availability of open access full text items   Analyse patterns of deposit in those institutions with an institutional mandate compared to other institutions.   Scope metrics to demonstrate the value of repositories to institutions and their members
  10. 11. Involve users <ul><li>Be guided by researchers and lecturers use of Web </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate feedback from HE staff and students on vision for enhanced scholarly communication </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate innovative use of repositories e.g. group repository, individual repository, transitory repository </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate repository into users’ workflows </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendation 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Analyse current communication behaviour of researchers and teachers, and involve them in development of future scholarly communication services. </li></ul>
  11. 12. Update vision of richer scholarly communication <ul><li>Recommendation 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Articulate an updated vision of richer scholarly communication based on the scholarly life-cycle from experiment through to research, teaching and learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Map out roles repositories might play, particularly as regards management of digital resources, open access and re-use. </li></ul>
  12. 13. Digital Repositories Roadmap vision Rachel Heery and Andy Powell, April 2006 <ul><li>‘ A vision for 2010 in which a high percentage of newly published UK scholarly output is made available on an open access basis and in which there is growing recognition of the benefits of making research data, learning resources and other academic content freely available for sharing and re-use.’ </li></ul>
  13. 14. What does the C21st research look like? <ul><li>Data centric Science </li></ul><ul><li>Open Science </li></ul><ul><li>Re-use of data </li></ul><ul><li>Blogging results </li></ul>http://www.flickr.com/photos/shankrad/2905938179/ Highly collaborative Multi-disciplinary Virtual team science With thanks to Liz Lyon, UKOLN Biochip Sensor Array Research Facilities Chemistry & Biochemistry Department at The University of Texas at Austin
  14. 15. Vision for scholarly communication 2013 Extract from vision presented in the Roadmap Review Scholarly content is created, stored and shared on the Web.. .. Open Science is the norm, with data produced in labs typically being stored automatically and made open for re-use. The primary level of social interaction for researchers, teachers and learners is at the group level (cross institutional project, institutional research, lab or teaching group). Repositories support various levels of sharing resulting in an open access content item. Repository content would reside in various types and ‘levels’ of repository, with content gravitating to the appropriate level for preservation depending on the value of the content.
  15. 16. Multiple strategic objectives <ul><li>Making more digital content available </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting the open access agenda for peer-reviewed journal articles </li></ul><ul><li>Curating and sharing research data </li></ul><ul><li>Improving institutional management of learning material </li></ul><ul><li>Improving institutional management of research outputs </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation of digital resources </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting new types of research environment </li></ul>
  16. 17. Distinguish and prioritise objectives <ul><li>IRs need to meet requirements of local stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple stakeholder groups </li></ul><ul><li>Boundaries of repository unclear </li></ul>Recommendation 4 Emphasise higher level objectives and subsume ‘repositories’ under the objective. Shift from technology to business purpose.
  17. 18. Target programme outputs Recommendation 5 Tools and project outputs need to be presented in terms of solutions to local institutional repository requirements Recommendation 8 Classify outputs of JISC funded activity into categories useful to repository managers such as relevance in short term or long term; ease of implementation; relevance to different repository types.
  18. 19. <ul><li>Recommendation 6 </li></ul><ul><li>Repository activity needs to be joined up more closely with forward looking work such as the JISC Virtual Research Environment activity, Open Science, data sharing, preservation. At the same time at the local level there needs to be support for integration with institutional systems such as CRIS, REF, VLE, author identity systems. </li></ul>Join up with related activity
  19. 20. Take the lead on exploiting the Web Recommendation 7 Harness existing JISC funded expertise to take lead on exploiting the Web for teaching and research. Ensure existing JISC services have responsibility to advise and demonstrate use of Web 2.0 for scholarly communication from research to teaching, to include aspects where repositories have a role. This may involve UKOLN, CETIS, RSP. Extend remit of CRIG (or similar group) to address interfaces with web based systems, Web 2.0 initiatives .
  20. 21. Web based architecture <ul><li>Explore options for moving to a more Web based architecture for repositories, taking into account the requirement to move forward existing ‘legacy repositories’. </li></ul><ul><li>Explore concentration of collections of different types of content at the levels of small group (lab, research group, student cohorts), discipline, global, and how these might facilitate social networking effects for repositories. </li></ul>
  21. 22. Scholarly Works Application Profile <ul><li>Recommendation 11 </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate whether use of SWAP is consistent with a Web architecture approach to repositories. </li></ul><ul><li>Explore deployment of a cut down version of SWAP, possibly at the copy level. Retain the cataloguing rules to ensure a consistent approach to linking to full text. </li></ul>
  22. 23. Use of OAI-ORE for handling complex objects <ul><li>Explore use of OAI-ORE to enable applications to handle complex objects. Demonstrate how OAI-ORE facilitates the re-use of data. </li></ul><ul><li>Clarify different roles of OAI-ORE and SWAP. </li></ul>
  23. 25. Open Access repository software <ul><li>Recommendation 13 </li></ul><ul><li>Target UK contribution to ePrints and DSpace in terms of development effort and funding to ensure strategic deliverables are prioritised. </li></ul>
  24. 26. SWORD <ul><li>Follow SWORD development pattern for other repository related applications </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate use of SWORD to deliver deposit to multiple repositories </li></ul>
  25. 27. Repository infrastructure <ul><li>Recommendation 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Explore use of cloud computing to support repository storage and services. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider what repository infrastructure is best located at the local institutional level and what is better outsourced to help alleviate costs. </li></ul>
  26. 28. Research outputs: milestones <ul><li>Milestone 1 Clarify repository roles in relation to other repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 2 Support population of institutional repositories by advocacy, case studies, guidelines, encouraging mandates, encouraging inclusion of open access and management of digital content in institutional strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 3 Explore and address integration between institutional repositories and: other institutional systems, other types of repository, funders’ systems. </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 4 Develop added value services layered on repository content (e.g. tools for deposit, search, re-use, linking data, metadata enhancement, citation metrics, publication lists). </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 5 Establish an agency within the JISC HE community to take a lead on legal issues connected to copyright and publisher policies. </li></ul>
  27. 29. Curating Research data ‘ We have only just scratched the surface’ International and national activity Likelihood of hybrid solution
  28. 30. Research data milestones <ul><li>Milestone 6 </li></ul><ul><li>Clarify responsibility for feeding existing repository implementation experience into current planning activity for research data centres. Potential candidates DCC, UKOLN, JISC. </li></ul><ul><li>Taking experience of previous JISC programmes, and existing IRs on board, the interaction between different types of research data centre should be defined at an early stage. Work in this area needs to be undertaken in collaboration with the UK Research Councils. There is a need to establish metrics for populating research data centres and measure impact. </li></ul>
  29. 31. Research data milestones contd <ul><li>Milestone 7 Ensure the multiple objectives that management and re-use of research data supports (e.g. discovery, access, re-use and preservation of data) are taken into account in proposed solutions. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure the requirements of different research data types (big science, small science, different disciplines) are taken into account in proposed solutions. </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 8 Formulate national strategy to take account of differing roles for different types of HE institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 9 Target outcomes of repository activity at appropriate stakeholder groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Milestone 10 Incorporate research data management training into repository projects. </li></ul>
  30. 32. Learning materials: milestones <ul><li>Milestone 11 </li></ul><ul><li>Identify best practice for management (discovery, access and re-use) of learning materials at disciplinary, regional and national levels. </li></ul><ul><li>Establish rewards and incentives for sharing. </li></ul><ul><li>Set up measures for progress and impact. </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate repositories with VLEs and e-portfolios. </li></ul><ul><li>Work with QAA towards adherence to guidelines for good management of learning materials. </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate deposit of learning materials in repositories. </li></ul><ul><li>Explore how different learning materials repositories might interact and in particular how Open Educational Resource initiatives fit with repository initiatives. </li></ul>
  31. 33. Identify what researchers and teachers are doing now, involve them in development of the vision of scholarly communication. “ Don’t think roll out of services, think roll-in of researchers”. David de Roure, presentation at Repository Fringe, 2008 http://video. google .com/ videoplay ? docid =3946866546394622361&hl=en