Electronic Theses - The Next Stage Institutional Repositories: A view from SHERPA Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

SHERPA Project Development Partners –Nottingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, White Rose Consortium, British Library, AHDS Associate Partners –Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Newcastle, Durham, London LEAP Consortium 21 institutions involved Funding from JISC and CURL

SHERPA aims and outcomes IBERs - institutionally-based e-print repositories Advice - setting up, IPR, deposit, preservation Advocacy - awareness, promotion, change Part of a joined-up strategy for storing and providing access to university research.

Select Committee Inquiry House of Commons Science & Technology Committee Inquiry into scientific publications -10 December 2003 Written evidence submissions February 2004 Oral evidence March – May 2004 Report published - 20 July 2004 Government response - November 2004

Committee Recommendations UK HEIs to set up institutional repositories Research Councils mandate open access archiving Research Councils mandate retention of copyright Central body to oversee institutional repositories Repository implementation to be government funded Definite timetable to be agreed Repositories to label peer-reviewed content clearly

Repositories in institutions One repository - or many ? pre-print and post-print IBERs data-sets, conference proceedings, grey material learning objects, multimedia resources, collections... a suite of open access resources integration into information strategies

IBERs and eTheses Shared aims - to disseminate research Shared issues - IPR, plagiarism, preservation Shared solutions - software, portals, work-flows Shared advocacy - three constituencies Shared strategy - open access, institutional perspectives, individual actions

Shared issues - IPR copyright ownership the right of the depositor to deposit the e-print the rights maintained by the depositor over the work the permissions needed for preservation and continued access recognition of the conditions under which an article is removed - Deposit Licence

Shared issues - plagiarism old problem in new clothes easier to detect embargo if commercially sensitive

Shared issues - preservation maintenance, emulation (h/w & s/w), migration? distributed or centralised? give no guarantees, but best endeavours... a significant issue

Shared solutions software –ePrints.org, Dspace - and others portals –needs integration into the information environment work-flows –eTheses have a clearly defined single point of acquisition

Shared advocacy three constituencies –researchers –administrators –librarians policy guidance helps individuals have to be engaged

Shared strategy open access institutional perspectives –visibility aids individuals, but also institution –shop window, research profile, institutional identity individual actions –individuals need to be engaged

IBERs and eTheses eTheses repository can be done quickly and cheaply closely related to IBER development (which may be funded) co-ordinate implementation, share solutions needs appreciation of IPR and Preservation issues needs policies and integration with institutions information environment services and uses of eprints (shop window, etc) should take note of eTheses too