2. National Oceanography Centre,
Southampton
NOC is one of the world’s leading centres
for research and education in marine and
earth sciences, for the development of
marine technology and for the provision
of large scale infrastructure and support
for the marine research community
Joint Venture between Natural
Environment Research Council and the
University of Southampton
Research-led multidisciplinary
university:
20,000 students
5000 staff (3000 researchers)
3. Multidisciplinary University
(20 schools)
• Engineering, Science and Mathematics
• Law, Arts and Social Sciences
• Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
• Centres/Institutes
• Joint Ventures
• Professional Services
4. Faculty of Medicine,
Health and Life Sciences
• School of Biological Sciences
• School of Health Professions and Rehab
Sciences
• School of Medicine
• School of Nursing and Midwifery
• School of Psychology
• Health Care Innovation Unit.
5. Outline
• Open Access Context
• OA Routes : publishing and repositories
• Southampton case study
6. Open Access
• Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
• OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and OA should apply
to the full-text, not just to abstracts or summaries.
• OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-
view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing
restrictions).
See JISC briefing paper on Open Access April 2005
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_openaccess
7. Historical Context:
Subversive Proposal (1994)
• 27 Jun 1994 Stevan Harnad’s ‘Subversive Proposal’ leading to
the open access vision for scholarly material
( “Faustian Bargain” with publishers – a price tag barrier to research)
– Harnad, S. (1995) A Subversive Proposal.
In: Ann Okerson & James O'Donnell (Eds.) Scholarly Journals at
the Crossroads: a Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing.
Washington, DC., Association of Research Libraries, June 1995.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/subvert.html
http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html
– In an ideal world of scholarly communication – all
research should be freely available
8. But journals become more
and more expensive (serials crisis)
• journals are the primary research publication channel
• journal publishing is dominated by commercial ventures
• Researchers write papers for journals (free or page charges!)
• Researchers transfer copyright to publishers (free)
• Researchers on Editorial Board (free)
• Researchers review papers (free)
BUT
• Libraries pay huge subscriptions to publishers to access the
paper(and electronic) and universities pay more than once:
subscription, photocopying license and for study packs
• Or possibly they cannot afford the subscription
9. The Global Journals Problem
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01
Journal price index
Current serials
Journal expenditure
Book price index
Books acquired
Book expenditure
Retail Price index
• Dissatisfaction with the current
scholarly communication
model
• Even the wealthiest institution
cannot purchase access to all
the information that all of its
researchers require
• Site-licenses and consortia
deals have helped, but mainly
in the richest countries; though
good examples of deals for
developing countries (INASP)
• Many commercial publishers
charge extra for online access
– so causing more pressure on
budgets
11. The Situation Today –
Dissatisfaction at All Levels
• Authors
• Their work is not seen by all their peers – they do not
get the recognition they desire
• Despite subscriptions, they often have to pay page
charges, colour figure charges, reprint charges, etc.
• Often the rights they have given up in exchange for
publication mean there are things that they cannot do
with their own work
• Readers
• They cannot view all the research literature they need
– they are less effective
• Libraries
• Cannot satisfy the information needs of their users
• Society
• We all lose out if the communication channels are not
optimal.
12. Solution –
alter the research landscape
Open Access to Research
freely accessible, more visible, immediately available,
free at the point of use
2 complementary routes
– Open access journals
• No payment by author = open access or subscription
• Publishing model – author pays = OA
– Open access archives or repositories
• Author deposit of full text of articles, conference papers,
reports, theses, learning objects, multimedia etc. -
Scoped by need
13. Open Access –
gaining high level support
Political Interest:
– UK Science and Technology Committee Inquiry:
Scientific Publications: Free for all? Jun 2004
(82 recommendations)
• Require that authors deposit a copy of their articles in their
institution’s repository within one month of publication.
• Review copyright and, provided it does not have a negative impact
make it a condition of grant that authors retain copyright
in their papers.
• Provide as part of research grants, monies to allow
payment of charges for publication in Open Access journals
Institutional Repositories
– UK HEIs to set up IRs
– Response – up to institutions
– British Library to be supported to provide digital preservation
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm
14. Open Access –
gaining high level support
US Congress working with National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop
new access policy (Feb 2005)
– Copies of all papers reporting research funded by NIH ($28 billion)
will be deposited in PubMed Central by date specified by the author
as soon as possible after acceptance of final peer reviewed
manuscript (and within 12 months of the publisher's official date of final
publication)
Approximately 60,000 papers each year will be made freely
available
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html
15. Open Access –
gaining high level support
• The Wellcome Trust announced (May 2005) that
from 1st October 2005, all papers from new research
projects must be deposited in PubMed Central or a
UK PubMed Central – once it has been formed -
within 6 months of publication.
• Looking for partners to set up UK PubMed Central
• £400 million producing 3500 papers per year
• (PubMed Central Feb 2000 - )
16. Reflects the view of 8 research councils (28 Jun 2005)
Mandate
• Research Grants awarded from 1 October 2005 will require
grant holders to copy any resultant published journal articles
or conference proceedings in an appropriate e-print repository
either institutional or thematic
• Subject to copyright and licensing arrangements
• Wherever possible at or around the time of publication
• No obligation to set up a repository where none
exists at present
• Will allow applicants to include predicted cost of publication in
author-pays journals in fEC project costings
17. RCUK
Next steps
RCUK Position Statement published on the RCUK
website on 28 June 2005
Remains a consultative document until 31 August 2005 while:
• The remaining HEI responses are collected
• Formal comments from the British Library are awaited
• RCUK engages in detailed dialogue with the Learned
Societies on a possible future role for them in the peer
review process
• Continue in a wider grouping to address other
concerns eg Preservation
18. Open access –
gaining high level support
Funders indicate commitment to open access through
endorsement
• Howard Hughes & Andrew Mellon Foundations in USA fund OA/IR
Projects
– Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access 2003
Germany: Fraunhofer Society, Wissenschaftsrat, HRK, Max
Planck Society, Leibniz Association, Helmholtz Association,
German Research Foundation, Deutscher Bibliotheksverband
France: CNRS, INSERM
Austria: FWF Der Wissenschaftsfonds
Belgium: Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek –
Vlaanderen)
Greece: National Hellenic Research Foundation
19. Open Access –
gaining high level support
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
‘Promoting Access to Public Research Data for
Scientific, Economic, and Social Development ‘
‘…an optimum international exchange of data,
information and knowledge contributes decisively to
the advancement of scientific
research and innovation’ and ‘…open access will
maximise the value derived from public investment in
data collection efforts.’
http://dataaccess.ucsd.edu/Final_Report_2003.pdf
*** 30+ nations have signed
20. Declarations on Open Access
• Peter Suber - Timeline of the Open Access Movement -
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
• The IFLA Statement on Open Access to Scholarly Literature
and Research Documentation
http://www.ifla.org/V/cdoc/open-access04.html
• Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the
Sciences and Humanities (Max Planck) (Oct 2003) Now nearly
50 signatories
• Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (Jun 2003)
• Buenos Aires
• British Columbia
• Scotland (2005) 16 Universities and Research Orgs
• Russell Group (UK Universities) 2005
• Budapest Open Access Initiative Feb 2002 (Soros Open
Society)
21. Budapest Open Access Initiative
2002
Open Society Institute (George Soros) offered funding to achieve
Two complementary strategies:
• Self-Archiving: Scholars should be able to deposit their
refereed journal articles in open electronic archives which
conform to
Open Archives Initiative standards - OAI Metadata Harvesting Protocol
which creates potential for interoperability between Repositories by enabling
metadata from a number of archives to be collected together in one searchable
database.
• Open-Access Journals: Journals will not charge subscriptions
or fees for online access. Instead, they should look to other
sources to fund peer-review and publication
(e.g., publication charges)
22. Open Access Journals
Ideally
• Peer reviewed articles
• Accessed online without charge
• No author/page charges
• Publisher’s model
– No Author payment = subscription (‘toll’) access
– Author pays – open access
• BioMed Central - $500 per article
• Public Library of Science - $1500
• National Academy Of Sciences - $1000
• American Institute of Physics - $2000
• European Geosciences Union - $20 per page
23. Theory Into Practice -
Open Access Journals
• PLoS Biology (launched October 2003)
and PLoS Medicine (launched October 2004)
• BioMed Central (published 4500+ papers) and now
cited in ISI journals building Impact Factors
• New Journal of Physics
• Indian Academy of Sciences (Learned Society) has
made their 11 journals available free online
• Lund Directory of Open Access Journals – over 1641 peer
review open access journals
(http://www.doaj.org/)
24.
25.
26. The alternative :
Repositories (open archives, e-Print archives)
JISC Report ‘Delivery, Management and Access Model for e-Prints and open
access journals … (Jul 2004) makes distinction - e-Print Archives =
material in journals; e-Print Repositories = grey literature and other data
as well as published journal materials
• Digital collections of research output placed there by their authors, either
before or after publication:
What are the essential elements?
• Institutionally , subject or nationally defined: Content
generated by the community
• Scholarly content:, published articles, books, book sections, preprints
and working papers, conference papers, enduring teaching
materials, student theses, data-sets, etc.
• Cumulative & perpetual: preserve ongoing access to material
• Interoperable & open access: free, online, global
27. Repository benefits
• For the Individual
Provide a central archive of their work
Increase the dissemination and impact of their research
Acts as a full CV and research reporting tool
• For the Institution
Increases visibility and prestige
Acts as an advertisement to funding sources, potential
new faculty and students, etc.
• For Society
Provide access to the world’s research
Ensures long-term preservation of institutes’ academic
output
28. Repository Choices
• Institutions
• Departments
• Disciplines
• Long term projects
• Funding Agencies
• Conferences
• Publishers
• Personal
• National
• International (Internet Archive – ‘Universal’ )
• Data Archives
Institutional Archives Registry http://archives.eprints.org/
Directory of Open Access Repositories –
Lund University and Nottingham University UK
29.
30.
31. Discipline based repositories
• Early e-Print services subject based and hosted by a
single institution. Rely on distributed researchers
remotely depositing their papers using the self archiving
protocol
– ArXiv (Los Alamos now at Cornell) (1991) set up by
Paul Ginsparg and Richard Luce for high energy
physics community
( now physics incl Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics,
Math, Computing Science and nonlinear science).
• Despite success of Los Alamos and others - RePec
(Economics), Cogprints (Cognitive Psychology),
Mathematics, etc – varying success by other subject
communities (Chemistry Preprints Server finished)
32. Institutional Repositories
contents of these archives are created and stored locally in an archive
specific to and limited to one institution.
• 2000 - Complementary model - Offering both self
archiving and mediated archiving to researchers
– Institutions can provide the supporting technical,
organisational and cultural infrastructure
– Direct interest in exposing their research output
– Promote the institutions research profile
33. National Repositories
• Service Provider (national aggregator)
• EPrints UK – harvesting from all UK
repositories (enhancing metadata using
OCLC Automated Subject Classification
protocol and name authority service)
34.
35. Centralised: regionally- or nationally-organised, or
subject-based contents are created in individual
member institutions which upload to one centralised one
• DARE, the Dutch Digital Academic Archives This is a collaborative
venture between all Dutch universities
(http://www.surf.nl).
• ODINPubAfrica = National, Subject repository for the ocean data and
information community in Africa. Deposits to one central repository
https://doclib.luc.ac.be/odin )
36. OAI Gateway Specification –
Static Repository
• Institutions that do not have an OAI repository can utilise the newly
developed OAI gateway specification.
• This development is intended to lower the barriers to making metadata
available through the OAI. It works on the basic principle that metadata can
be encoded in an XML file (conforming to a specific schema) and mounted
of a standard web site, e.g. an author’s or institution’s home page. This file
is known as a static repository.
• The URL of the static repository can be registered with an entity known as
a ‘static repository gateway’. The gateway reads the metadata file and
incorporates it into a fully compliant OAI-PMH service that can
subsequently respond to OAI requests.
• The idea is that metadata can be made available from standard web sites
and Incorporated into an OAI environment.
37. Repositories:
a truly global movement
• Australian National University ARROW Project - Au$12
million
• Canada – CARL Project (DEST)
• Netherlands – DARE Project (SURF)
• Hong Kong University
• Humboldt University in Berlin
• Max Planck Society
• Utrecht, Lund,
• MIT, CalTech, Library of Congress
• UK – JISC FAIR Project - UK – Glasgow, Nottingham,
Edinburgh, Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol …..
nb. Led by Librarians
38. UK Context
• HEFCE / JISC Focus on Access to Institutional
Resources (FAIR) 2002 - 2005
– To support the disclosure of institutional assets:
To support access to and sharing of institutional
content within Higher Education and Further
Education and to allow intelligence to be gathered about
the technical, organisational and cultural challenges of
these processes…
Inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)
that digital resources can be shared between organisations
based on a simple mechanism allowing metadata about
these resources to be harvested into services
39. ? why INSTITUTIONAL
Repositories
• Subject or project repositories often linked to an individual or a group
– can be transitory - collection at risk eg. Paul Ginsparg to Cornell
• Institutions take responsibility for
– Centralising a distributed activity
– Framework and Infrastructure
– Permanence that can sustain changes
– Stewardship of digital assets
– Preservation
– Provide central digital showcase for the research, teaching and
scholarship of the institution
40. UK Context - FAIR
JISC FAIR Programme August 2002 -
• £3 million on 14 projects
• Clusters:
• Museums and Images
• e-Prints
• e-theses
• IPR
• Institutional portals
(New Call for Digital Repositories Proposals in Feb & Jun 2005)
41. FAIR - ePrints Cluster
• Sharing experiences :
• SHERPA: broader - Consortium of University Research Libraries – filling
archives and joint infrastructure ( some 20 universities led by Nottingham
University)
• HaIRST: A testbed for Scotland for harvesting Institutional resources led by
Strathclyde University (includes 10 FE colleges)
• Daedalus : Glasgow University
• ePrints-UK :harvesting UK e-Print archives
• (E-Theses led by Robert Gordon University & Theses Alive led by Edinburgh University and
RoMEo worked within this cluster)
• TARDis: Targeting Academic Resources for Deposit and Dissemination
42. TARDis built on Southampton
visions
• EPrints software had been created at School of Electronics and
Computer Science (ECS), Southampton to enable the self
archive vision
• ECS already used the software for a publications database –
now a sustainable repository
• National Oceanography Centre was an early adopter of e-Prints
culture
• Resulting TARDis Project is the collaboration of The University
Library, School of Electronics and Computer Science, and
Information Systems Services alongside academics as one
institution
43. TARDis : Targeting Academic Resources
for Deposit and Dissemination – activities
Investigating practical ways in which university research output can be
made more freely available - more accessible, more rapidly – as a
fundamental building block of e-Research
• Creating an IR model
- Southampton University Research e-Prints (e-Prints Soton)
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk
• Refining Software
- feeding back into pioneering EPrints software, good citation and
information management practice experimenting with best balance
of assisted deposit and fast track (functionality, fields, interface)
• Supporting ease of use for depositors of different backgrounds
with a wide variety of research output
– essential ingredient, working closely with ‘schools’(found that
depends so much on publication culture and working practices )
– identifying barriers
44. TARDis evolution to e-Prints Soton
• Original intent to provide secure storage for the full
text of Southampton research output (including post
refereed pre published versions of papers deposited
by researchers)
• Feedback: from our advocacy, pilot and full service
was that e-Prints Soton would provide maximum
benefit if the service also assisted researchers with
time consuming research metrics
• Evolved to ‘hybrid’ publications database for all
research output with full text where available
45. e-Prints Soton evolution: aiming
for full moon at midnight
•Target – academ ic research
•Creation of e-Prints Soton
•Initial Advocacy
•Environm ental audit
•Softw are redesign for IR
•M ediation offered
•Project cluster
collaboration
Institutional Research
Repository
Full text only
Institutional Research R epository
with full text
where possible
Institutional Research
Repository
with RAE m anagem ent
Full Text
e-Print Research Archives
•Pilot and Feedback:
One record – m any outputs
Saving academ ics’ tim e
•Policy and strategy change
•Redirection to
Southam pton University
Publications Database
•Targeted Advocacy
Open Access Vision
EPrints Software
JISC FAIR Program m e
Research Policy Com m ittees
University, Faculty and Schools
Pilot Schools
Research Reporting
Requirem ents:
University, National, International
•Dem onstrate potential of
IR as RAE tool
•Im port existing m etadata
•Collaborate w ith researchers
to encourage proactive input
•Address authentication and
branding issues
•Develop extra functionality
•M oving tow ards sustainable
open access institutional
repository
•Proactive open access
culture
•Integrated research
discovery
– enriched resources:
m ultim edia, datasets
Open Access Paradigm Shift
Other Institutional Repositories
e-Research
3
4 1
2
46. Environmental Audit - assessing
current practice
Department
Total number
of publications
listed on Web
Full text on
Web
Percentage of
Publications
with full text
Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences
Archaeology 252 2 1%
English 243 3 1%
Modern Languages 160 0 0%
Music 280 5 2%
Politics 138 6 4%
Economics 357 89 25%
Maths Education 170 34 20%
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Biology 796 24 3%
Medicine 1603 247 15%
Health Professions and
Rehabilitation Sciences
332 0 0%
Nursing and Midwifery 439 0 0%
Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics
Chemistry 1128 111 10%
Electronics and Computer
Science
7008 866 12%
Mathematical Studies 849 310 37%
Ocean Circulation and
Climate Group, SOES
286 9 3%
James Rennell Division, SOC 792 68 9%
47. Institutional Repository –
Advocacy
• Advocacy needs to be intensive, constant : enthusiast
with network and presentation and debating skills,
sensitive to organization/school culture
• Medicine
– Already use web pages
– Already use PubMed
– Already have their own publications database
– Download
– Require sophistication of software before depositing
• Authentication, versioning
– Only refereed articles
• Open access journal article discussion (BioMed)
– RAE driver
• Nursing and Midwifery
– Keyed in 4 years data within a month
48. Institutional Repositories –
author surveys
• JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey (3000 researchers)
– 69% would deposit in IR if required by employer
– 3% would not be prepared to do so
– 66% thought archiving in IR important
– 60% thought publishers should allow it
– 75% authors not familiar with IRs – advocacy needed!
SOUTHAMPTON SURVEY
– 93% prefer mediated deposit!!
• Researchers have many concerns :
• Discipline differences
• workload, status quo; content quality control;
authentication, versioning control and of course
Copyright
49. Institutional Repository –
Copyright (incl IPR)
Rapidly changing publishers attitudes - moving goalposts!
• Traditionally authors sign over copyright, whether they own it or not!
• As a guide traditional copyright agreements have not allowed authors to:
– Reuse an article as a chapter in a book
– Revise or adapt an article
– Distribute an article to colleagues
– Reproduce copies of an article for teaching purposes
– Self archive/make available an article in an repository
– But now 76% of journals allow deposit in institutional repositories – places to check
• Publishers Copyright policies database
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
– Publishers who permit self archiving – dynamic search
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?colour=green
• Journals Copyright Policies
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php.
50.
51.
52. Policy into Practice (1)
• The Name!
• Mandatory Use – dovetailing with present working practices
• Scope - What to deposit - all Research Output, excluding learning objects or
administrative documents (at present). Current research or legacy?
• Who can Deposit – what size of footprint?
• Database- one for ease of maintenance (Nottingham x 2; Glasgow x 3)
• Software – multiple choices - OSI Directory of IR Software
Essential technical support : customization, functionality
• Deposit Options– we offer choice : self, assisted and fast track deposit
• Mandatory Metadata fields– document dependent - sufficient for citation
but too many = barrier to deposit
• Metadata quality– all data is validated. Institutional responsibility requires
quality data. QA is labour intensive – what level? Submitted data often poor
53. Policy into Practice (2)
• Value Added – e-journal URL and abstract
• Full Text v Record – policy linked to Southampton needs, requests for
copies
• Import Records – from subject repositories - arXiv, PubMed Central
• - from in house publication databases
• File Formats – accept a variety – discipline specific, but thinking about
easy dissemination versus preservation.
• File Conversion - Word into pdf, but wish to add conversion tools to
interface with guidance for depositors
• Digitization – offer scanning for illustrations not held electronically if text
deposited
• Preservation - secure storage is offered.
54. Legal Issues
• Deposit Agreement and User Agreement
Legal documents?
Acceptance by click or proceeding through
- Withdrawal of records
- Quality assurance - not of content
appoint editors within research groups
- IPR
• Important to link with your Legal Affairs Office
55. Policy into Practice - lessons
• Choose optimum time to introduce
- Southampton restructuring
• Interface aesthetics - look and feel is important
• Metadata quality is a huge issue
• Assisted deposit is time consuming
• Sophisticated software functionality expectations
by researchers
• Need Champions within your organization …..
• Dedicated Technical, Advocacy & Admin support
56. Institutional Repository –
support
• Staff Support / Maintenance (2-3 FTE)
- Technical
• Upgrades, interface, functionality
– Information Managers
• Advocacy, copyright advice, metadata
guidance (School Liaison Librarians)
– Administrative
• Metadata validation, workflows,
documentation, quality assurance ( Institutional
Repository implies guarantee of quality)
Nb. Researcher self deposit is the goal
57. Feedback: Perceived benefits to University,
Schools and Researchers
• University profile
• School and
discipline visibility
• Researcher profile
• Full text content
freely accessible
• link to learning and
teaching
• Increased citations
• Secure storage of
publications
– including also theses
and dissertations,
technical reports
• Links to projects and
web pages
• Research reporting
• Interdisciplinary
research
Articles freely available online are more highly cited. For greater impact and faster
scientific progress, authors and publishers should aim to make research easy to
access Nature, Volume 411, Number 6837, p. 521, 2001 Steve Lawrence
“Online or Invisible?”
58. Achieving a slower but more
sustainable model – the TARDis road
•Target– academicresearch
•Creationofe-PrintsSoton
•InitialAdvocacy
•Environmentalaudit
•SoftwareredesignforIR
•Mediationoffered
•Projectcluster
collaboration
InstitutionalResearch
Repository
Full textonly
Institutional ResearchRepository
withfull text
wherepossible
Institutional Research
Repository
withRAEmanagement
FullText
e-PrintResearchArchives
•PilotandFeedback:
Onerecord–manyoutputs
Savingacademics’time
•Policyandstrategychange
•Redirectionto
SouthamptonUniversity
PublicationsDatabase
•TargetedAdvocacy
OpenAccessVision
EPrintsSoftware
JISCFAIRProgramme
ResearchPolicyCommittees
University,FacultyandSchools
PilotSchools
ResearchReporting
Requirements:
University,National,International
•Demonstratepotentialof
IRas RAEtool
•Importexistingmetadata
•Collaboratewithresearchers
toencourageproactiveinput
•Addressauthenticationand
brandingissues
•Developextrafunctionality
•Movingtowardssustainable
openaccessinstitutional
repository
•Proactiveopenaccess
culture
•Integratedresearch
discovery
– enrichedresources:
multimedia,datasets
OpenAccessParadigmShift
OtherInstitutionalRepositories
e-Research
3
4 1
2
•To achieve the original vision we
are moving around the clock face
•Collaborating with academics to
provide tailored valued services
for different disciplines (needing
extra functionality)
•Aided by a fast moving shared
international movement
All rising to great place is by a
winding stair
Francis Bacon
59. Southampton Press Release 15
Dec 2004
University funded service managed by the
University Library
'We see our Institutional Repository as
a key tool for the stewardship of the
University's digital research assets,'
said Professor Paul Curran, Deputy
Vice-Chancellor of the University. 'It
will provide greater access to our
research, as well as offering a
valuable mechanism for reporting and
recording it.’
60. Researchers want to provide
one record
• For many purposes …..
• External and internal visibility
61. Showing benefit of high profile
Global Web Search Engines -
indexed by Google and Google Scholar and SCOPUS …
72. Data available to Head of School
New JISC Project to design RAE
module for use within EPrints
and DSpace software
73. Then (2002) and Now (2005)
• Open Access little known
–High level support
–Open access publishing
–Open access repositories
• Authors non acceptance
–surveys
• Copyright transfer
–License to Publish
• Publishers
–Changing policies
–New publishing models
• Software, few options
–Multiple, open source
• Funders no support
–Mandate deposit
74. Scholarly knowledge cycle –
a national vision - today:
Learning&
Teaching
workflows
Research&
e-Science
workflows
Aggregator
services: national,
commercial
Repositories:
institutional,
e-prints, subject,
data, learningobjects
Datacuration:
databases&databanks
Institutional
presentation
services: portals,
Learning
Management
Systems, u/g, p/g
courses, modules
Validation
Harvesting
metadata
Datacreation/
capture/
gathering:
laboratory
experiments,
Grids,
fieldwork,
surveys, media
Resource
discovery,
linking,
embedding
Deposit / self-
archiving
Peer-reviewed
publications: journals,
conferenceproceedings
Publication
Validation
Dataanalysis,
transformation,
mining, modelling
Resource
discovery, linking,
embedding
Deposit / self-
archiving
Learningobject
creation, re-use
Searching,
harvesting,
embedding
Quality
assurance
bodies
Validation
Presentationservices: subject, media-specific, data, commercial portals
Resource
discovery, linking,
embedding
Linking
e-Prints + data + e-learning
When data and documents will be
linked automatically and easily
accessible
They will be an integral part of the
academic work space just as the
World Wide Web is today
The Web will acquire meaning and
become the Semantic Web
Open Archive protocols and
metadata standards are a part of
this journey
75. Next phase includes building
on TARDis (sequel)
•TARDis completed its transition to invisibility early in
2005
–PRESERV (Preservation Services for EPrints) - partnering with
National Archives File Format Registry (PRONOM) and the
British Library
–CLADDIER (Citation, Location and Deposition in Discipline and
Institutional Repositories) Linking e-Research. – partnering
CCLRC, Reading, NERC
–GRADE (Geospatial Repositories …) – partnering EDINA
Back to the Future !!
•
