1. Bill Hubbard SHERPA Manager University of Nottingham Supporting a network of repositories - - experience from SHERPA in the UK

2. Routes to Open Access Δ Open Access Journals Δ Open Access Repositories Δ Two routes to Open Access - but not equivalent!

3. Publication and deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Published in journal Deposit in e-print repository pre-print post-print published version

4. Repositories Δ Repositories work alongside traditional and OA publication models Δ Offer Open Access benefits plus more... Δ Offer additional benefits for –authors –researchers –institutions –research funders –and research process

5. Repository Use

6. Repositories Δ Institutions have repositories –open to institutions academics Δ Networks of repositories –SHERPA, DARENet, ARROW - country networks –DRIVER - European network Δ Some subjects have specific repositories –arXiv - 482,478 items –UKPMC - 948,500 full-text articles –AgentLink Publications Clearinghouse - 1403 items

7. Why institutional repositories? Δ Practical reasons –use institutional infrastructure –integration into work-flows and systems –support is close to academic users and contributors –repository managers can oversee processes, check compliance with funders and with best-practice standards, etc Δ The OAI-PMH allows a single gateway to search and access many repositories –subject-based portals or views –institutional storage and support

8. Rise of Repositories Δ Directory of Open Access Repositories - OpenDOAR –www.opendoar.org –over 1300 open access repositories –started registration in 2006... Δ 200 added in 2007 Δ... and over 300 added in 2008 Δ 80% are institutional

9. Repositories by Continent Δ Figures from OpenDOAR www.opendoar.org

10. Repositories in Russell &1994 Groups (UK) Δ University of Bath Δ Birkbeck Δ University of Birmingham Δ University of Bristol Δ University of Cambridge Δ Cardiff University Δ University of Durham Δ University of East Anglia Δ University of Edinburgh Δ University of Essex Δ University of Exeter Δ University of Glasgow Δ Goldsmiths Δ Queens University Δ University of Reading Δ Royal Holloway Δ University of St Andrews Δ University of Sheffield Δ SOAS Δ University of Southampton Δ University of Surrey Δ University of Sussex Δ University of Warwick Δ UCL Δ University of York Δ Imperial College Δ King's College London Δ Lancaster University Δ University of Leeds Δ University of Leicester Δ University of Liverpool Δ Loughborough University Δ LSE Δ University of Manchester Δ University of Newcastle Δ University of Nottingham Δ University of Oxford Δ Queen Mary Δ Effectively, the UK HE research base...

11. How to create a network Δ Example from the UK... Δ Initial experiments Δ JISC Programmes and strategic vision Δ One example - SHERPA –Self-help group –Collaborative partnership –Peer network –Advocacy activities –Policy development and lobbying

12. Other examples Δ IRIScotland Δ DARE-NET Δ ARROWs project Δ DRIVER Δ DART-Europe Δ Ireland Δ Repositories in the USA Δ What successful lessons can be drawn?

13. Building repository networks Δ Not primarily a technical challenge –free software or commercial hosting –(relatively) simple set-up Δ Not primarily a copyright problem Δ Not primarily author-persuasion about Open Access Δ Challenges are in effective support for cultural, policy and procedural change management within institutions and research communities

14. For a repository network... Δ Practical –Repositories –Content –Repository Managers Δ Buy-in from three key stakeholders: –Academics –Funders –Institutions Δ Support...

15. Top-down support - Institutional Δ Shared vision with stakeholders Δ Encouragement –Statements, policies, funding Δ Embedding in research process and work-flows –Prestige measures to match Δ Representation to powerful lobbies Δ Ensure legal framework is supportive Δ Support for centralised support services Δ Recognition of value of bottom-up work

16. Top-down support - Funding Bodies Δ Recognition of value of Open Access to mission of funders Δ Policies/ mandates to ensure Open Access and/or deposition Δ Recognition/reward of compliance from authors –and sanctions for non-compliance from authors –work with repository managers Δ Promotion of open access work to their stakeholders (government, general public, researchers, institutions, learned societies)

17. Side-to-side support Δ Networking amongst peers –email, events, wikis, blogs Δ Professional training –advocacy, technical issues, legal issues Δ Share best practice, standards Δ Self-help - create: –mentoring arrangements –peer-networks –professional support groups - eg, UKCoRR

18. Bottom-up support - Repository Managers Δ Establish repositories Δ Create effective policies for/about repository use Δ Advocacy to researchers and authors - and library staff Δ Tackle practical problems Δ Identifying work-flows and structures within institutions to support Open Access deposit Δ Act as institutional focus to drive repository agenda

19. Assistance - examples Δ SHERPA - www.sherpa.ac.uk Δ RoMEO - www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo Δ JULIET - www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet Δ OpenDOAR - www.opendoar.org and ~/search Δ RSP - www.rsp.ac.uk Δ The Depot - depot.edina.ac.uk Δ Intute Repository Search - irs.ukoln.ac.uk Δ BASE - digital.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/index.php Δ DRIVER - www.driver-support.eu Δ UKCoRR - www.ukcorr.org

20. SHERPA Page

21. RSP Page

22. Depot Page

23. Intute RS Page

24. DRIVER Page 1

25. DRIVER Page 2

26. DRIVER Page 3

27. DART Page

28. Drawing conclusions... Δ For repository network - Δ Practical –Repositories, Content, Repository Managers Δ Buy-in from three key stakeholders: –Academics, Funders, Institutions Δ Support –Top-down, Bottom-up, Side-to-side Δ Shared vision and enthusiasm

29. www.sherpa.ac.uk bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk

31. Comparison of investment - blank

32. Comparison of investment Blue box - Public investment e.g. 2 year project, £300,000 £12,500 per month £300,000 over 24 months (and public access to results may be unavailable) 12 Red box - Publishers investment e.g. charge of £1,800 £600 per month £1,800 over about 3 months (and expenses recouped through advance payment of subscriptions) Investment comparison - public investment compared to publishers service 2 4 6 10 time - months 8 money - £ thousands

33. SHERPA Partners –University of Nottingham –University of Birmingham –University of Bristol –University of Cambridge –University of Durham –University of Edinburgh –University of Glasgow –London LEAP Consortium –University of Newcastle –University of Oxford –White Rose Partnership –The British Library –AHDS London LEAP –Birkbeck College –Goldsmiths College –Imperial College –Institute of Cancer Research –Kings College –LSE –Royal Holloway –Queen Mary –SOAS –School of Pharmacy (SoP) – UCL White Rose Partnership –University of Leeds –University of Sheffield –University of York Affiliates –Trinity College Dublin –Cranfield University –University of Exeter –University of Leicester –University of Liverpool –Sheffield Hallam University –University of St Andrews –CCLRC

34. DART-Europe Δ BICfB (Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de la Communauté française de Belgique), Belgium Δ CBUC (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya), Spain Δ Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany Δ DiVA (Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet), Sweden and Norway Δ Dublin City University, Ireland Δ Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland Δ EThOS (Electronic Theses Online System), UK Δ Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Δ Lund University, Sweden Δ Oxford University, UK Δ Tartu University, Estonia Δ Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Δ Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain Δ UCL (University College London), UK Δ University of Debrecen University and National Library, Hungary Δ University of Miskolc, Hungary Δ University of Nottingham, UK

35. Research Process Funders Institutions Research Teams Public Principal Researchers Other Researchers with subscriptions Publishers