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/