1. Creating an institutional e-print repository Stephen Pinfield University of Nottingham

2. Key questions What are institutional e-print repositories? Why create them? How should they be created? Where do we go from here?

3. What…?

4. Terminology E-print archives Open archives Self archiving Institutional repositories

5. E-print archives E-prints = electronic versions of research papers and other similar research output E-print archives = online repositories of this material Might contain: –pre-prints (pre-referred papers) –post-prints (post-refereed papers) –conference papers –book chapters –reports –etc.

6. Open archives Open = freely accessible, open access – as Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and/or Open = interoperable – Open Archives Initiative (OAI)*: –develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. –OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting – allows metadata from different archives to be harvested and collected together in searchable databases –creates the potential for a global virtual research archive * http://www.openarchives.org

7. OAI Protocol: key concepts End User Data Providers Service Provider

8. Self archiving Author self-archiving: …an umbrella term often applied to the electronic posting, without publisher mediation, of author-supplied research.* Institution self-archiving (or self archiving by proxy): Institutions may post articles on behalf of authors, where authors are members of the institution * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002.

9. Successful archives arXiv –http://www.arxiv.org/ –Set up: 1991 at Los Alamos –Now based at: Cornell University –Covers: Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science –Contents: 250,000 papers (pre-prints and post-prints) Other archives: –CogPrints - Cognitive Science –RePec - Economics working papers Centralised subject-based archives

10. Institutional repositories Digital collections that preserve and provide access the the intellectual output of an institution.* Aim: encouraging wider use of open access e-prints May contain other digital objects e.g. theses, e-learning material, datasets Institutions have: –resources to subsidise archive start up –technical / organisational infrastructures to support archives –an interest in disseminating content Repository avoids the a word * Raym Crow The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper. 2002.

11. So, what am I talking about? Open-access OAI-compliant institutional e-print repositories

12. Nottingham eprints

13. Nottingham eprints - record

14. Arc

15. Google search

16. Citebase

17. Citebase - citation analysis

18. Publication & self-archiving Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Published in journal Deposits in e-print repository

19. Why…?

20. Why institutional e-print repositories? Context –structural problems in scholarly publishing –e-print repositories a possible solution Benefits –for the researcher –for the institution –for the research community

21. Context Structural problems with scholarly publishing Impact barriers –authors give away their content and want to achieve impact not income –want to disseminate research widely –but commercial publishers want to restrict circulation based on subscriptions Access barriers –researchers want easy access to the literature –but most researchers do not have easy access to most of the literature

22. Benefits for the researcher Wide dissemination –papers more visible –cited more Rapid dissemination Ease of access Cross-searchable Value added services –hit counts on papers –personalised publications lists –citation analyses lowering impact barriers lowering access barriers

23. Other benefits For the institution –raising profile and prestige of institution –managing institutional information assets –accreditation / performance management –long-term cost savings For the research community –frees up the communication process –avoids unnecessary duplication

24. Common concerns Concerns: –Quality control - particularly peer review –IPR - particularly copyright –Undermining the tried and tested status quo –Work load Responses: –Institutional repositories complementary to the publishing status quo –Authors can publish in peer-reviewed journals and deposit papers in repositories –Help and advice on IPR essential –Many publishers already allow self-archiving –Open-access does not mean plagiarism –Help with administration: the library will do the work

25. How…?

26. Installation Initial installation relatively straightforward Free OAI-compliant software: –eprints.org software (http://www.eprints.org) –DSpace (http://www.dspace.org) –CERN CDS (http://cdsware.cern.ch) –etc

27. Collection management Document type –pre-prints v. post-prints –authors: staff, students, others? Document format –HTML, PDF, Postscript, RTF, ASCII, etc. Digital preservation policy Submission procedures –mediated / DIY? –file format conversion, depositing e-prints, creation of metadata Author permission and licensing terms –copyright statement –compliance with publisher copyright terms Metadata quality standards –self-created metadata –metadata quality and visibility

28. Costs Start-up costs low –hardware –software (eprints.org free) –installation –policies and procedures Medium-term costs higher –advocacy – getting content –support –mediated submission / metadata Ongoing costs significant –metadata creation / enhancement –preservation staff time

29. JISC FAIR programme JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee FAIR: Focus on Access to Institutional Resources* Background: inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Aim: to support the disclosure of institutional assets Projects: 14 in Clusters: Museums and images; E- prints; E-theses; IPR; Institutional portals Duration: Summer 2002 onwards (1-3 year projects) Total funding: £3 million * http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub02/c01_02.html

30. SHERPA Acronym: Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access Initiator: CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries) Development Partners: Nottingham (lead), Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield, British Library, York, AHDS Duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005 Funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL Aims: –to construct a series of institutional OAI-compliant repositories –to investigate key issues in populating and maintaining e-print collections –to work with service providers to achieve acceptable standards and the dissemination of the content –to investigate standards-based digital preservation –to disseminate learning outcomes and advocacy materials http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

31. Where…?

32. Harnads scenario Universities install and register OAI-compliant e-print archives. Authors self-archive their pre-refereeing pre-prints and post-refereeing post-prints in their own university's e-print archives. Universities subsidize a first start-up wave of self-archiving by proxy where needed. The give-away corpus is freed from all access/impact barriers on-line. Then…. Users will prefer the free version? Publisher subscription revenues shrink, Library savings grow? Publishers downsize to be providers of quality control service+ optional add-on products? Quality control service costs funded by author-institution out of reader- institution subscription savings? Source: Stevan Harnad For Whom the Gate Tolls? http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm

33. The role of publishers Adding value: Managing quality control Copy editing / formatting Enhancing full text Metadata services

34. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk Stephen.Pinfield@Nottingham.ac.uk