Rebel Cummings-Sauls Ryan Otto Pilot Project has Potential to Project Institutional Repository to the Next Level Rebel Cummings-Sauls Ryan Otto

Institutional Repositories The point of IRs, in my view, isn’t to disrupt the existing scholarly publishing system, but to allow it to be expanded and diversified by providing access and stewardship for material that mainly falls outside of the traditional scholarly publishing system as it exists today – both material created by faculty and material created by the institution, or departments or other groups within it. Clifford Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information We agree! Institutional repositories showcase a variety of their institution’s scholarly, and creative activities by hosting digital objects such as presentations, publications, or images. How do we represent the most material from our institution?  What material do you represent at your institution? One possible way to accomplish this… metadata only institutional repository records.

What We Will Cover Compare old & new scholarly ingest workflows Present survey findings from the campus  Chat about next steps Surveyed community about including metadata only records in the IR

Digital Scholarship @ K-State Full text only vs including metadata records "documenting as much of K-State’s scholarly output as possible" Approximately 60% increase in representation 

Record Comparison

What are metadata only records? Repository records with no digital objects, just links.

Workflow Overview Previous Process Index Searches Citation Manager Workflow Management System Dedupe Records Create Citations & Email Authors Local permission policy database Email Authors Again Create & Edit Metadata for Individual Items  Upload Items One at a Time Purposed Process Index Searches Citation Manager Output to Desired Schema Dedupe Records Automated Permission Check Confirm Permissions Add Metadata & Apply Authority Control Download & Connect Articles Upload Records through Batchloading

Workflow Overview

The Project Overview Citation Manager Normalize EndNote or RefWorks Citation Manager Excel Spreadsheet Normalize Indexes Affiliation name searches in either Scopus or Web of Science (WoS) Export records to format corresponding to preferred citation manager Citation Managers (Optional) Normalizes metadata from different schemas Automatically attaches a unique record identifier Options for customized export schema •Normalizes metadata from different schemas •Automatically attaches a unique record identifier •Options for customized export schema

The Project Overview By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN Publisher Version Allowed in IR? Permissions Check via Sherpa/ Romeo API Deduplication By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN Automated via citation manager Deduplication By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN Automated via citation manager Automated permissions checking Is the publisher version allowed in IR?

Add Metadata & Authority Control Publisher Version Allowed in IR? The Project Overview Add Metadata & Authority Control No Publisher Version Allowed in IR? IR Ingest Add Manuscript Hands-On Verify Permissions Yes Version of Record Allowed Confirm Sherpa/Romeo Confirm & add embargo Confirm & add rights statements CC license (if applicable) Download & prepare manuscript

Add Metadata & Authority Control The Project Overview Add Metadata & Authority Control No Publisher Version Allowed in IR? IR Ingest Add Manuscript Hands-On Verify Permissions Yes Name & keyword  formatting Author identifiers Institutional ORCID College/Department affiliation Prepare for IR ingest

Survey Results Three different user groups: Faculty Libraries Students Survey varied slightly between groups. Rather than seek feedback from all faculty at K-State, we chose to seek feedback only from those faculty who had records in Web of Science or in Scopus for items published between January and March of 2015. We decided to seek feedback from every full-time employee of K-State Libraries and as many undergraduate and graduate students as possible. Five questions were shared among all three surveys: A multiple-choice question asking what type of results they prefer when searching for scholarly papers on a topic. A multiple-choice question asking how they would feel if they were to find a metadata-only record about a topic of interest. Note: this question was preceded by a screenshot of a metadata-only record. An open-response question asking what they would do to obtain the full-text of an item described by a metadata-only record. Note: this question was preceded by another screenshot of a metadata-only record. A Likert scale question asking for their opinions about how the addition of metadata-only records would impact their ability to find scholarly articles authored by K-State faculty. An open-response question inviting them to share feedback.  The faculty survey had two unique questions: A multiple-choice question asking what type of records describing their research they would like to see in K-REx. An open-response question asking if they have any objections to having metadata-only records describing their research in K-REx.  The Library Employee survey had three unique questions: An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns faculty might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx. An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns students might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx.  An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns they or other library employees might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx.  The student survey had no unique questions.

Search Results- Faculty The majority of faculty had positive responses about including metadata only content in K-REx.

Search Results- Libraries Over half of the faculty, librarians included, preferred to have a more comprehensive list of search results in their area of research. 

Faculty Response to Metadata The majority of faculty outside the library indicated they were very or somewhat pleased about having metadata only content if it provided more comprehensive search results and provided a complete picture of their digital scholarship.

Faculty Listing Preference The faculty also overwhelmingly preferred to have a complete record of their digital scholarship rather than a partial one or none at all.

Survey Results- Students No Responses from students. The team could have drawn conclusions from this, but we decided not to address. But we can here for a moment...What do you think this means?  

IR Next Steps Single source for showcasing campus scholarship Faculty & Department Webpages Social Media Discovery Layer Single source for showcasing campus scholarship Represent manuscript whether hosted on IR or on publisher site Social scholarly network link to IR for durable and consistent URLs

Next Steps- Integration Specific Department Faculty/Department  Promote more works of the authors, even without full-text, and can even represent non-traditional scholarly works. Food Science and Nutrition, Mathematics, past OA champions Arts, Humanities, Theater, Social Sciences, Music and Dance RSS or system feeds integrates records into faculty and department web pages

Next Steps- Integration Systems on campus  I.e. accreditation reports  Open access tools OAButton UnPaywall Business and Food Science and Nutrition OA Button, Unpaywall, Pubmed, etc Metadata only records may lead to a loss of effectiveness for tools like OA Button and Unpaywall Upcoming NISO standard may solve this

Next Steps- Harvests Current- Web of Science and Scopus Possibilities?  Google, Microsoft, Elsevier, SHARE/CHORUS, Open API's Controlling where records are harvested into Google Metadata only records in IRs distort search results Deprioritize actual full-text content for the IR

Questions? Please contact us at: cads@k-state.edu Rebel Cummings-Sauls - Director Ryan Otto - Digital Scholarship Librarian