1. Implementing BePress’ Digital Commons Institutional Repository Solution: Two Views from the Trenches Carol Watson, Associate Director for Information Technology, University of Georgia Law School James M. Donovan, Faculty and Access Services Librarian, University of Georgia Law School Pamela Bluh, Associate Director for Technical Services & Administration, University of Maryland School of Law

2. Introduction An institutional repository is a means to collect the intellectual digital output of an organization Primary goals of the IR: Collect organization’s output into one virtual location Includes a variety of formats Provides open access to materials Increases an institution’s visibility on the Internet

3. The Business Plan: SSRN v. Digital Commons Does the Law School need both? James M. Donovan

4. Factors to Consider Level of Promotion—SSRN favors individual, while Digital Commons prioritizes the institution Depth of Content—SSRN contains only text documents; Digital Commons allows a variety of file formats to be included Search Engine Visibility

5. White Paper Stats as of Jan 14, 2008 SSRN Download Stats as of May 23, 2008 DC/SW Stats

6. Not only is the Selected Works copy more frequently downloaded, (despite often being uploaded AFTER the SSRN copy), but the rate of downloads appears to INCREASE over time.

7. Our Conclusion: SSRN and Digital Commons are not redundant; each serves a different population of readers—SSRN targets immediate readers in the law community, Digital Commons/ Selected Works pushes longterm consumption by readers at large. Maximal distribution of scholarship requires both mechanisms. The dual expense is justified.

8. Obtaining Content Carol A. Watson

9. Obtaining Content Building Buy-in Develop a Strategy to Promote Awareness of the Repository We populated each category with one representative document & included at least one document from each faculty. THEN…we held a wine and cheese reception.

10. Obtaining Content Building Buy-in Ease of submission is critical Direct submission  Useful in an environment with a large contributor base  Eliminates the need for contact with human intermediaries Mediated submission  Better service  Control over content  Faculty are often unaware of copyright

11. Obtaining Content Building Buy-in Feedback promotes participation Digital Commons provides a monthly email report on downloads

12. Obtaining Content Building buy-in Studies have shown online availability increases readership

13. Obtaining Content Establish clear content policies To cope with overzealous contributors: Create distinct categories. For example, popular media vs. scholarly works Upload documents as supplements to a main record. Encourage faculty members to set up Select Works pages

14. Copyright: Obtaining and Tracking Permissions James M. Donovan

15. Copyright Procedures: 1: Assume permission from your own authors 2: Construct spreadsheet of existing publications 3: Batch requests for contacting each journal to ask permission to upload identified articles both to Digital Commons and the author’s own webpage (e.g., Selected Works) 4: For newer works, encourage authors to include these rights in any future publication agreements

16. When All Else Fails: 1: Don’t overlook the obvious: a) look at the publisher’s website to see if publication agreement is included; b) look at any documentation the author may have saved 2: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.phphttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php SHERPA/RoMEO gives publisher’s standard agreements concerning self-archiving. Few law journals currently included

17. Decision Chart for Copyright Permissions

18. Tracking Permissions 1: Paper files unwieldy 2: Attach permission to each article as undisplayed supplemental material 3: Create an “Institutional Repository” Community to include global permission grants

19. Beyond the IR Carol A. Watson

20. Beyond the IR Liaise with other administrative depts Example: UGA School of Law’s 2003 graduation speaker was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas We worked with our law school p.r. department to capture items related to the event to include in Digital Commons

22. Beyond the IR Implementing a repository in a consortium environment

23. Beyond the IR Advantages of supra-IRs Increased buying power Share tech support, experience & expertise Populate the IR more quickly Smaller institutions can leverage their collective presence Scholars can be easily apprised of the latest scholarship at peer institutions Disadvantage of supra-IRs Loss of individual scholar’s primary institutional identity

24. Conclusion The goals of an IR are: to collect an institution or organization’s intellectual output, including gray literature to provide open access to repository materials to increase the visibility of the repository’s institution or organization Promoting the benefits of an IR is critical for a successful implementation.

25. Conclusion “Whether enhancing the scholarly reputation of an institution, serving as a historical archive of its achievements, or forging new relationships with peer institutions, the IR can become central to the organization’s mission to bring the world to its halls and to communicate its contributions.”

26. Implementing BePress’ Digital Commons Institutional Repository Solution: Two Views from the Trenches For further reading: White Paper: Behind a Law School’s Decision to Implement an Institutional Repository, James M. Donovan & Carol A. Watson, University of Georgia Law Library http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/ir/1/

27. Maryland’s (out of the trench) Experience SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series Started 2004/2005 Current scholarship 16,946 total downloads 206 records

28. Getting Started Soliciting Content Word of mouth Personal contacts Staff assistance Sources of Content SSRN postings Monthly list of new faculty publications Systematic retrospective approach D IGITIAL C OMMONS@ UM L AW

29. Overcoming the Challenges Defining the term ‘institutional repository’ Explaining the benefits of the repository Soliciting ‘working’ papers Clarifying copyright and publishing agreements Mediating the process Updating the content

30. Enhancing the site

31. Special Collections

32. Special Features EdiKit® Back Office Solutions

33. The ‘wish list’ Making use of all the features of the repository Adding new content – administrative material? Creating e-journals Integrating Digital Commons and Selected Works Federated searching of the content Providing better usage statistics