CRIS and Repository integration: The St Andrews perspective Janet Aucock Repository Manager April 1st 2011

Portal underpinned by our PURE system and database. Very rich research information Substantial set of publications data Functionality to add full text in PURE Functionality to send that full text to our Dspace repository

Aims and objectives (from a Poster contributed to Open Repositories in Southampton in 2008) To develop the Research Expertise Database and the Digital Research Repository in parallel. To establish good communication and practice in centralised and coordinated development of both databases. To embed the deposit, storage and dissemination of research profile data and publications into centralised workflows and engender academic support for this by demonstrating benefits To embed the deposit of research profile data and publications into the day to day routines of academic staff and to promote this as part of routine scholarly communication To reuse data and to avoid duplication of data input at every stage of the process, while still maintaining high metadata standards To explore the repurposing of data at every stage of the process To provide efficiency in University processes while still adhering to the principles of Open Access

Publications Fed Out Research Information System REF, RCUK SFC, HESA HEI – Strategic Planning Public, Media Recognition / Impact Industry / SME’s Interface Collaborations Research Pools Pulled In Student Records Grants, Projects, KT Human Resources Finance Manual Input Entered Web of Science, arXiv, PubMed… Harvested Full Text Repository Open Access Linked Bibtex, Refman Uploaded

Key dates October 2005 Launch of Research Expertise Database as central publications database and CRIS (Current Research Information System) for the University. Software written in house. Primary role in RAE data gathering. December 2006 Digital Research Repository launched for electronic theses. Thesis deposit for doctoral theses is mandated by the institution. May 2007 Research Expertise Database to Digital Research Repository integration demonstrated at the the euroCRIS members meeting in Stockholm/Helsinki March New version of Research Expertise Database launched with batch import facilities for Web of Science and Bibtex format metadata 2009 Further development with inhouse system or third party? Decision to replace inhouse CRIS with vendor system. Procurement process with Aberdeen and decision to purchase PURE September Implementation phase Summer 2010 – Launch of PURE Spring 2011 – Launch of Research Portal

PURE integration with DSpace PURE offers all the metadata input we require to feed into the repository Add value by adding a generic subject classification scheme to publications Passes through a licence Workflow done in PURE and not DSpace, includes the quality control for metadata and the copyright checking for Open Access LNI Transfer to collections based on the institutional structure Ability to have a dark archive of publications in PURE and our Open Access archive in the repository. Time embargoed publications will be kept hidden in PURE until they can be released OA into the Repository Handles will be returned to PURE and be available in the PURE portal

ROMEO data Use of the API fits our strategy of the reuse of data Find external data and reuse it whenever we can Clearance of full text for release into text is done in PURE Embargoes set in PURE ROMEO used as part of the PURE workflow

REF Open Access Data

ROMEO data End user tool? Administrator tool? Different views of the data needed? Complexity Clarity Barriers to deposit?

Process in workflow to add full text, document version, embargo and rights statement

Notes and comments history generated automatically as part of workflow

ROMEO data API produces no results for some publishers eg Elsevier, Taylor and Francis. Due to multiple results being found in ROMEO via the ISSN key No results because no ISSN in publication metadata in PURE Data returned into PURE is flat, no hyperlinks PURE only calls the API for the article publication type, so not for other publication types Can’t currently automatically use the publishers prescribed rights statement to populate a rights field in PURE

Local practice We use ROMEO a lot, but not necessarily always through the API We still maintain a local knowledge base ie print outs of particular publisher policies We never treated ROMEO integration with the CRIS as a top priority. Always on our list of requirements, but not at the top. Often quicker to use ROMEO independently One option is to link to publishers website via DOI and look at policy there

Wish list Disambiguation in journal title hits retrieved by API Interactive data ie live links. Currently the data in PURE is flat and no hyperlinks Automatic population of rights statements Keep a local knowledge base within PURE Could there be any clever evaluation of publication dates to calculate embargo period

Wish list Something simple for end users and depositors, especially in start up advocacy phases Option to have something more complex and sophisticated for administrators (and perhaps for more mature repositories, with more informed depositors) “Please add your author version”

Wish list Review the idea of the colours Concentrate more on versions requirements Unambiguous wording. Standard terms. Can we send any useful data back to ROMEO? Eg recent dialogues with publishers?

PURE developments Roadmap More reuse of information More features

We can only wish...

Jackie Proven Repository Support Officer Janet Aucock Repository Manager text Research Policy Office