Bill Hubbard

SHERPA Manager

University of Nottingham

Supporting a network of repositories -- experience from SHERPA in the UK

Routes to Open Access

Δ Open Access JournalsΔ Open Access Repositories

Δ Two routes to Open Access - but not equivalent!

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

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

Repository Use

Repositories

Δ Institutions have repositories– open to institution’s 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

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

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 2007Δ . . . and over 300 added in 2008Δ 80% are institutional

Repositories by Continent

Δ Figures from OpenDOAR

www.opendoar.org

Repositories in Russell &1994 Groups (UK)

Δ University of BathΔ BirkbeckΔ University of BirminghamΔ University of BristolΔ University of CambridgeΔ Cardiff UniversityΔ University of DurhamΔ University of East AngliaΔ University of EdinburghΔ University of EssexΔ University of ExeterΔ University of GlasgowΔ Goldsmiths

Δ Queen’s UniversityΔ University of ReadingΔ Royal HollowayΔ University of St AndrewsΔ University of SheffieldΔ SOASΔ University of SouthamptonΔ University of SurreyΔ University of SussexΔ University of WarwickΔ UCLΔ University of York

Δ Imperial CollegeΔ King's College LondonΔ Lancaster UniversityΔ University of LeedsΔ University of LeicesterΔ University of LiverpoolΔ Loughborough UniversityΔ LSEΔ University of ManchesterΔ University of NewcastleΔ University of NottinghamΔ University of OxfordΔ Queen Mary

Δ Effectively, the UK HE research base . . .

How to create a network

Δ Example from the UK . . . Δ Initial experimentsΔ JISC Programmes and strategic visionΔ One example - SHERPA

– Self-help group– Collaborative partnership– Peer network– Advocacy activities– Policy development and lobbying

Other examples

Δ IRIScotlandΔ DARE-NETΔ ARROWs projectΔ DRIVERΔ DART-EuropeΔ IrelandΔ Repositories in the USAΔ What successful lessons can be drawn?

Building repository networks

Δ Not primarily a technical challenge– free software or commercial hosting– (relatively) simple set-up

Δ Not primarily a copyright problemΔ 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

For a repository network . . .

Δ Practical– Repositories– Content– Repository Managers

Δ “Buy-in” from three key stakeholders:– Academics– Funders– Institutions

Δ Support . . .

Top-down support - Institutional

Δ Shared vision with stakeholdersΔ Encouragement

– Statements, policies, funding

Δ Embedding in research process and work-flows– Prestige measures to match

Δ Representation to powerful lobbiesΔ Ensure legal framework is supportiveΔ Support for centralised support servicesΔ Recognition of value of bottom-up work

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)

Side-to-side support

Δ Networking amongst peers– email, events, wikis, blogs

Δ Professional training– advocacy, technical issues, legal issues

Δ Share best practice, standardsΔ Self-help - create:

– mentoring arrangements– peer-networks– professional support groups - eg, UKCoRR

Bottom-up support - Repository Managers

Δ Establish repositoriesΔ Create effective policies for/about repository useΔ Advocacy to researchers and authors - and

library staffΔ Tackle practical problemsΔ Identifying work-flows and structures within

institutions to support Open Access depositΔ Act as institutional focus to drive repository

agenda

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

SHERPA Page

RSP Page

Depot Page

Intute RS Page

DRIVER Page 1

DRIVER Page 2

DRIVER Page 3

DART Page

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

www.sherpa.ac.uk

bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk

Comparison of “investment” - blank

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 - Publisher’s 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

mo

ne

y -

£ t

ho

usa

nd

s

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

DART-Europe

Δ BICfB (Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de la Communauté française de Belgique), BelgiumΔ CBUC (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya), SpainΔ Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, GermanyΔ DiVA (Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet), Sweden and NorwayΔ Dublin City University, IrelandΔ Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, SwitzerlandΔ EThOS (Electronic Theses Online System), UKΔ Helsinki University of Technology, FinlandΔ Lund University, SwedenΔ Oxford University, UKΔ Tartu University, EstoniaΔ Trinity College Dublin, IrelandΔ Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, SpainΔ UCL (University College London), UKΔ University of Debrecen University and National Library, HungaryΔ University of Miskolc, HungaryΔ University of Nottingham, UK

Research Process

Funders

Institutions

Research Teams

Public

PrincipalResearchers

Other ResearchersResearchers

with subscriptions

Publishers