Peiling Wang, PhDAssociate Professorpeilingw@utk.edu

Institutional Repositories and Institutional Repositories and Open AccessOpen Access

Βιβλιοθήκη Αλεξάνδρειου Τεχνολογικού Εκπαιδευτικού Ιδρύματος

Thessaloniki, GreeceSeptember 13 – 14, 2006

http://www.utk.edu/~peilingw/ATEI

Timeline: Access to Information Timeline: Access to Information

library automation

1980s

electroniclibrary

onlinelibrary

1990s 2000s

digitallibrariesvirtual

libraries

digitalrepositories

&open access

e-journals

•Cost•Open-access new jn •Price•Individual subscription•Continued access•permanent access

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

Institutional Repositories (IR)Institutional Repositories (IR)

Digital archives Open archives Digital preservation Digital academic repository E-archiving Self archiving Knowledge repository Dark archives C

lust

ere

d r

ela

ted t

erm

s or

Syn

onym

s ?

Defining IRDefining IR

university-based (organization, national) services (committed) to its community management/stewardship of digital materials:

long-term preservation organization access Distribution

"Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the

Digital Age" ARL, no. 226 (February 2003): 1-7.

Defining Open Access (OA)Defining Open Access (OA)

e-science movement for sharing scholarly information and research data/outputs

Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

Berlin Declaration (2003) http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin

open and unrestricted access to published research literature and databases

users are licensed to download, print, copy, redistribute, and use

free or partial free

IR and OA: Twins IR and OA: Twins

OA is the front-end for users: maximizing accessibility to digital content

IR is the back-end for intellectual assets: content, preservation, metadata

together to increase access and to reduce cost

OCLC adaptation of Liz Lyon, UKOLN JISC/CNI 6th International MeetingJuly 6-7m 2006

Growth of IRGrowth of IR

IR—Needs IdentifiedIR—Needs Identified

Research outputs (pre- post-print) Learning objects (re-use) Primary data (re-analysis) Scholarly communication (e-Science

movement!) Personal digital collections

(preservation and access)

Author’s ConcernsAuthor’s Concerns

Willingness to deposit—disciplinary diff My intellectual property/copyrights How are my works used (stats)? Tenure/promotion Where to deposit? How much effort? Working papers vs. peer-reviewed

publications

Institutional ViewInstitutional View

We see our IR as a key tool for the stewardship of the University’s digital research assets. It will provide greater access to our research, as well as offering a valuable mechanism for reporting and recording it.

Paul Curran, Deputy Vice ChancellorU. of Southampton Press Release 15 Dec 2004

End-user’s ExpectationsEnd-user’s Expectations

Free of charge Convenience in discovering Easy access to digital objects Google, Yahoo! What is DL? Managing personal digital space

Publisher’s PerspectivesPublisher’s Perspectives

Peer-review New business model

library- or reader-pays (subscription) author-pays pay-per-download

Impact Factor (IF) quickly increases with OA Longer economic break-even point (7 years or

more?)

Brody et al., 2004

Funder’s PerspectivesFunder’s Perspectives

Measuring outcomes of funded research outputs

Public access to funded research publications New policy to require self-archiving in IR

UK Welcome Trust CERN NIH (PubMed Central) SURF (DARE, Netherland)

Library’s PerspectivesLibrary’s Perspectives

New models Change of roles Cost Collaboration

consortia coalition

Managerial & Technical challenges

Repository ServicesRepository Services

PubMed Central (NIH, Welcome Trust) OCLC Digital Archive ProQuest Digital Commons BioMed Central DARE (Digital Academic Repositories)

15 Institutions 207 authors (187 male, 20 female) 40479 records = 195/author (from 3 to 1224) 23853 full text = 58.7% (from 19% to 96%

per institute) 15% only metadata available at the moment

Some figures from DARESome figures from DARE

Research & DevelopmentResearch & Development

CNI completed the first international survey, 2005

CIBER international survey, 2005

EC Study on economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe, 06

Numerous IR and OA initiatives and projects

OCLC Systems & Services: a special issue on IR, 2007

Conferences

International survey of IRInternational survey of IR

IR ConferencesIR Conferences

Open Scholarship 2006: New Challenges For Open Access Repositories, an inaugural conference at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 18-20 October 2006.

Moving towards open access: A JISC conference for research funders, authors, publishers and librarians, Keble College, Oxford, 27 - 28 September 2006.

JISC/CNI 6th International Meeting on Envisioning future challenges in networked information Park Inn York, 6-7 July 2006.

CNI/JISC/SURF Conference: Making the strategic case for institutional repositories, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 10-11, 2005

ASIST DASER Summit (2003, 2005) WebWise (IMLS & OCLC) DL conferences

JCDL; ICDL; ICADL; ECDL

ModelsModels

discipline based associations and learned societies

community based (land-grant universities) stakeholders

institution based university or organization

publisher based (BioMed Central) national (DARE) International/regional across nations

Successful Initiatives Successful Initiatives

ETD across disciplines: IR duplicate copies OAI-PMH union catalog in OCLC and others

OA across countries: SciELO (Brazil, Chili ...) http://www.scielo.org BioLine International http://www.bioline.org.br/

Challenges—Managerial Challenges—Managerial

cost policy at national level

NIH mandate deposit UK mandate deposit (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/)

knowledge/information lifecycle distributed vs. centralized model (overlapping

and gaps) certified or trusted repository institutions for

communities

Challenges—Technical Challenges—Technical

data diversity format obsolete storage degrade long term preservation metadata ephemeral longevity sustainability scalability

Success factorsSuccess factors

Infrastructure to ensure integration and seamless management

Workflow—lifecycle of research, learning Technical standards:

OAIS; METS; OAI-PMH Tools Terminology Collaboration

Reference Model for an Open Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (ISO)Archival Information System (ISO)

METS Header

Administrativemetadata

FileInventory

Structuremap

Descriptivemetadata

Behavioralmetadata

optional

optional

optional required

optional optional

METS: Metadata Encoding & METS: Metadata Encoding & Transmission StandardTransmission Standard

Open Source SoftwareOpen Source Software

D-Space: somewhat limited to text-based materials and still in early development.

FEDORA: more extensible, but still embryonic ARROW: a robust, well architected underlying

platform, persistent identifier granularity (VTLS as development partner) Greenstone: DAITSS: focusing on the preservation

repository function.

Selected Pioneer’s Sites Selected Pioneer’s Sites

BioMed Central: http://www.biomedcentral.com/ (countries involved: US, UK, Germany, Canada, India, Italy,France, Australia, Japan, Sweden)

PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.org/ Health Education Assets Library www.healcentral.org California Digital Library http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship ETD at Virginia Tech: www.vt.edu DAITSS: FCLA Digital Archive: www.fcla.edu/digitalArchive LOCKSS: Initiative (trusted dark archive) eBank UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/ebank-uk/ DARE (http://www.creamofscience.org/)

OrganizationsOrganizations

Coalition for Networked Information Joint Information Systems Committee UK Research Councils UK SURF Netherlands Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations:

(http://www.ndltd.org) Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources

Coalition (SPARC) OCA (http://www.opencontentalliance.org)

OrganizationsOrganizations

Coalition for Networked Information Joint Information Systems Committee UK Research Councils UK SURF Netherlands Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations:

(http://www.ndltd.org) Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources

Coalition (SPARC) OCA (http://www.opencontentalliance.org)

BREAKOUT sessionBREAKOUT session

Scenario 1You are writing a proposal for support to establish policy for

IR or to get fund for an IR initiative outline

What do you want to do Justify

Why is it important/significant for the institute Detail

Who, How, Where, When (timeline)[User studies as basis for what you proposal]

BREAKOUT sessionBREAKOUT session

Scenario 2You are developing strategies for your role as a

change agent How would you advocate the idea of self-archiving

and deposit? What would you offer to ease scholars/faculty

stress & burden Plan for measuring outcomes of your IR and OA

BREAKOUT sessionBREAKOUT session

Scenario 3

You are designing or evaluating an IR system

Identify Functionalities – needs

(usefulness to be measured) Usability factors – interaction

(usable by the target users)

BREAKOUT sessionBREAKOUT session

Scenario 4 Designing a user interface for registering

users (subsystem) Rationalize

The purposes of user registration Elements of the subsystem

E.g., User ID handling Diagram elements as in interaction flowchart