IATUL 2003, Ankara Turkey 3 June 2003 The Open Archives Initiative & its Impact on Universities & Scholarly Publishing Diann Rusch-Feja International Unviersity Bremen, Germany

Overview Development of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Characteristics of the Metadata Harvesting Protocol (OAI MHP) Impact on Universities Impact on Scholarly Publications Closing Remarks & Hypothesis...

Open Archives Initiative Is an Initiative – grown out of academic need, response to indirect pressures from publishers, has created something new within an old structure and hence is changing the structure from within

Open Archives Initiative More precisely – It connects scientific Pre- and E-print Servers & Navigation Tools (Interoperability) Enables New Scientific Freedom for Researchers, Writers, Faculty, Students, etc. to Self-publish/archive Legitimates new Methods of Scientific Communication Has grown out of major Digital Library Research Is based on the Dublin Core Initiative and Philosophy

OAI – Outgrowth of Solving a Problem Roots in the Scholarly Community Researchers dissatisfied with publishing delays 1991 Paul Ginsparg‘s Preprint Server LANL Preprint Servers: submitted papers documented most recent research results and contributed to knowledge base of scientists less delay Primarily Subject-Oriented (RePec, CogPrints, etc.) Downloadable, but not Approved for Citation, Indexing No Peer Review, but rather Public, Community Review After Publication, Article Removed from Preprint Server

Universal Preprint Server (UPS) linked several Preprint Serverswww.arXiv.org Ginsparg, Luce & van de Sompel invited computer scientists, librarians, and DL researchers to Santa Fe 1999 to initiate solutions for integrating PrePrint Servers Santa Fe Convention for Cross-Server Search & Retrieval Interoperability Standard, simple Metadata & Search Protocol Decision to work on technological solution, leaving out discussion on political, socio-economic implications

Birth of the OAI Universal shifted to Open – which referred to Protocol Metadata & Searching Open = freely available Technical Openness as opposed to free content Preprint – and all implications transiency Move to Archives – commitment for long-term availability, permanence, a collective resource for scientific validation, Hence, Repositories – indirectly, a substantiation of Preprint Servers in scholarship Initiative – not a project, but more – growth and acceptance involved commitment from the community (authors had to submit, communities had to maintain the servers and the appropriate metadata, accept citations) To be effective, the entire scientific community had to be involved.

Organization of the OAI Funding Support from the U.S. Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), Digital Library Federation (DFL), CNI, NSF (USA), JISC Steering Committee (12 members, 2 EU) Technical Committee and Implementers’ Group OAI Executive - Cornell University, USA - Carl Lagoze, Herbert van de Sompel Europe: DINI & DFG (D), JISC (UK), OAI Forum (EU)

OAI Organigram

Areas of Responsibility Steering Committee Political & Strategic Decisions, Promotion & P.R. etc. Executive Coordination of Technical Development FAQs & Website, Mailinglists Registry & Implementation Coordination of Official Events Technical Committee Testing of Protocol & Modification (internationally) Assistance for Projects Testing of Navigation Tools, MD Standards Support for OAI Executive Support for Individual Communities Additional Events in Europe through OAI Forum (EU) and by Implementers Group

OAI Metadata Harvesting Protocol (MHP) Rep A Rep BRep F Rep Q MD Metadata Harvestor

Characteristics of the Metadata Harvesting Protocol (OAI MHP) Reduced Set of DC Metadata (10 elements)Reduced Set of DC Metadata (10 elements) XMLXML Registration & Checking through RegistryRegistration & Checking through Registry Collections can be definedCollections can be defined Withdrawn items can be identifiedWithdrawn items can be identified Compatible with Local Metadata SetsCompatible with Local Metadata Sets Limited to Scientific PublicationsLimited to Scientific Publications Version 1.0 January 2001, Version 2.0 April 2003Version 1.0 January 2001, Version 2.0 April 2003

Major Applications arXiv Cornell University Old Dominion University, ARC NASA & NACA Virginia Tech/ NDTLD MIT CalTech U of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign OCLC (CORC) UKOLN (UK) CERN (CH) U of Southhampton (UK) RePEc (UK) Tilburg University (NL) EuroPhysNet (D) Humboldt Univ. Diss (D) CYCLADES (UK, US, IT) DTV (DK) Library of Congress (US)

Projects - Coordination Mellon Foundation Projects - Juni Open Archives Forum & EU-Projects NSF-EU gemeinsame Projekte (Cyclades…) SIGIR, ECDL, UK / JISC, Communities German Initiative for Networked Information Heinz Nixdorf Center for Information Management of the Max Planck Society MIT DSpace with Hewlett Packard DARE and ARNO in the Netherlands Dissertations, Institutional Servers …

OAI Service Providers Virginia Tech - Navigation Tool (Diss) + Old Dominion University (USA) – ARC (“Cross Archive Searching Service”) Kepler – Tool for Development and Integration of “Small” Archives (Archives of Individuals, smaller Institutions, etc.) …

Development of Institutional Repositories Supported by SPARC, JISC, DINI, DFG, ARL, CNI Brings Electronic Archiving back to Library Places Focus & Control with University (Breaks down the Monopoly of Publishers) Consolidate Assets (both Financial & Prestige) Can be integrated into University Information Management Workflow Policy of the Institution can make or break the Success of the Institutional Repository

Institutional Repositories Universities (and other Institutions) can capture, preserve and influence dissemination of collective intellectual efforts = increased visibility of authors and institution Permanent “Repository” (“Archive”) of the research results of a specific institution – or Consortium of Institutions with common interests – Continuation of Archival Function Types of Items included: Publications (Preprints, E-Prints), Technical Reports, Images, Data Sets & Data Visualisation, Videos, Educational Materials & Supporting Materials, etc. Copyright, Author’s Rights, Distribution Rights Still Unclear Different submission, publication, and maintenance policies determined by University

Workflow Procedure: Authors Agreement of all authors for publication and archiving on institutional server Input by authors, File submitted at same time Uploading Metadata & File into library system Author responsible for the Metadata, Library enhances Build in active links on the home page of the paper Open Peer Review, Comment

Procedure – Repository Administrator / Library Import / Export to / from Library Catalog Full Text markup, add disclaimer, possibly versioning information Metadata from Library Catalog Supplement & connect to full text file(s) Add citation information, if necessary, relationship details Automate according to DTD including automated addition Disclaimer / Copyright through DTD-determined export options Maintain Server, OAI MHP

Institutional Repositories Exploit possibilities for adding more features far beyond traditional library catalog (MD + Text) Self-registration: Metadata can be not only submitted but also maintained by author(s) Standards can improve interoperability – not only on the technical level Archiving concept can be part of national bibliographic archival plan (i.e., Netherlands) – parallel to subject focus of learned society servers

Impact on Scholarly Publication Institutional Repositories can serve as meaningful Indicators of an Insitution‘s academic and scholarship quality (Johnson) Metadata will be Exchanged & Enhanced by other Institutions – possibly becoming a commodity Guaranteed Archiving & Permanent Access

Impact on Scholarly Publication (2) Authors have new choices where to publish Standard citation formats may change Evaluation of quality based on citation frequency or journal impact factors will have to include institutional repositories & subject-oriented servers Invisible networks may break down Open Access Initiatives will chip at the edges of current publisher strategies and force changes in evaluation methods for scientific quality

Further Impact on Scholarly Publications Authors have new choices where to publish Students can publish Standard citation formats may change Evaluation of quality based on citation will have to take institutional repositories & subject-oriented servers into consideration Invisible networks may break down Open Access Initiatives will chip at the edges of current publisher strategies and force changes in evaluation methods for scientific quality

Key Issues Still Open Authors‘ Rights and Returning Science to Scientists Challenges traditional Peer Review to evolve into new forms Citation Frequencies may take on new Criteria as yet not well-known or even conceived of at this time! Challenges the Pricing Policies of Publishers Archiving no longer just a task of the Publisher, but rather between Consortia of Universities – possibly in partnership with the publisher (e.g. Springer, SuUB Götingen, US, China)

Areas of Research for the OAI Communities Increased Awareness Building & Support for Implementers Simple Template with XML Conversion to Facilitate Higher Acceptance and Implementation (Possibly with configurable uploading tool) Develop Methods of achieving Metadata Consistency Better automatic Metadata Extraction Tools from Text Multilinguality, Solving the Problems of Interdisciplinarity Integration with other Services, Interfaces (Library Cats) Improve Standard Descriptions for Non-Text Ressourcen Visualizatıon Opportunities for Search results, or cross section of institutional server

Closing Remarks & Hypothesis... New Methods of Quality Evaluation within Scientific Disciplines New Means of incorporating Public (Open) and Blind Peer Review System More Domain-specific Requirements for both Subject Servers (Learned societies) & Institutional Repositories OAI Compatibility with Access Control and linking into Servers with Access Rights Metadata (terms and conditions) Global Community Building including greater contribution to the Semantic Web

Dr. Diann Rusch-Feja Director, Information Resource Center International University Bremen IU B ) IATUL 2003 “Libraries & Education in the Networked Information Environment” 3 June 2003, Ankara, Turkey