1. DARE: building a networked academic repository in the Netherlands ICOLC October 25 Ronald Dekker Delft University of Technology Library

2. DARE: digital academic repositories Repositories at all universities in the Netherlands Capturing all academic output Efficient storage and available for various forms of re-use Key criterion: interoperability

3. What do we win? Increased awareness among scholars of: –importance of better availability of scholarly information –the effect on visibility and reputation of scholars themselves –advantages that ICT can offer (multimedia, digital review process, e-archive et cetera) Universities have decisive role in academic information chain Universities are better able to fulfil their social responsibility for the availability and use of their research output Improved management of academic information Improved national/international knowledge infrastructure

4. To DARE or not to DARE Academic output is not limited to published text Adequate visibility for scholars? Do we have a reliable overview of our scientific output? Can we do without the commercial publishers? Can we afford the current system?

5. Approach Gradual development of general aims and planning into concrete plans and action –Pioneering, trial and error –Pragmatic approach Build and expand on existing projects Make good use of existing experience and expertise at participating institutes –Ensures commitment Organize locally what can be done locally, restrict central activities to strictly necessary –General issues, coordination

6. Building on existing initiatives (1) SPARC provides a good overview of the improvements that are sought by various parties in the information chain Parties like –scholars, –teaching staff –service providers and –university administrators

7. Building on existing initiatives (2) Using specifications of existing projects are starting point –ARNO, Roquade/Prodis, e-Archiving, E- Depot Expand/adapt on basis experiences and comparison with international projects –Implementation ARNO en Prodis; Dspace, E-prints

8. The main hurdles…… in involving scientists Traditional publication system and its importance for one’s academic career University administration and librarian’s problem is not the scholar’s problem Scholar’s autonomy

9. … and and means to overcome them… Appeal to scholar’s self-interest – ‘what’s in it for me’? Offer practical, immediate advantages, not ideology and long-term Stress possibilities for complementing and improving, not for replacing the present scholarly information and communication systems Get scholars and teaching staff enthusiastic

10. DARE: solutions through collaboration

11. Stakeholders

12. DARE aims & scope Institutional repositories at all universities : digital collections capturing and preserving all intellectual output of a university dissertations; grey literature (working papers, pre-prints); data sets; articles; multi- media presentations et cetera, so capturing… All academic output (data level) Distributed network Efficient storage, available for various forms of re-use by value added service providers (Service level) Key criterion: interoperability through standardization Eg. OAI-PMH, Dublin Core, DOI

13. The DARE repository in its environment World wide web DARE repository Journal Personal homepage Your community

14. The projects approach (1) Activities divided in sets: Data level Define specifications repository (set 3) Build repositories (set 5) Realise interoperability (set 4) Service level Services projects (set 6) Development of (policy for) long term preservation, metadata and access control (set 7) Linking with digital learning environments for educational purposes (set 8)

15. The projects approach (2) Short term – ‘quick wins’ – first service projects in 2003 – copyright management –online publishing of conference proceedings –connection to national system for research results –digital review process Longer term – lasting change – change in career assessment methods, work with publishers on new business models Participation of scholars in (development of) DARE programme – they are the best ambassadors Build on experience - what works, what doesn’t

16. Individual responsibility, joint action Each university –is responsible for its own repository –has its own motivation for introduction –decides which services it wants to offer Joining forces –to create greatest effect –to be able to do the job –to be able to realize interoperability

17. Technical Specifications Conceptual framework approved Metadata standards What belongs in the repository, what does not - up for discussion Dynamic archiving versus long term preservation, role National Library Define link with research management information systems Link with digital learning environments

19. To DARE or not to DARE (revisited) Without dare there would not have been: mobile telecom, space travel, internet…. Without DARE there might not be a new generation of scientific communication…

20. Thank you very much!