Output – IncReASe: Final Report – proxy deposit

Title: Increase Final Report

page: 12

Date Released: 30 April 2009
URI for Output: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/increase_finalreportv1.pdf

Summary of contents:

“Our experience to date, though, suggests authors will make the most of administrative support and that a helpful administrative framework results in higher levels of self-archiving overall. In particular, authors are responsive to well-known individuals in their departments: for example, local administrators have good success rates in persuading authors to re-send appropriate versions of their work where a non-archivable version (generally the published PDF) has been sent initially. Local administrators are well placed to “champion” and support the repository in ways that more “remote” central repository staff are not; this advantage needs to be balanced against the need to provide training and support for departmentally based administrators.”

The project also notes that encouraging this practice may hinder the promotion of self-archiving as such.

This raises an interesting question of priority – is the goal author self-archiving or increased repository content?
From the point of view of a funding body / the promotion of Open Access / institutional statistic (and REF) concerns the latter is important;
however, there are strong historical ties to author self-archiving, the author is (in some senses) the one doing the sharing, and the less self-archiving the greater organisational and financial overhead of the repository.

Either way the project’s findings support the view that the invovlement of local administrators increases depost rates (motivation).

Project – RSP

Project Name: Repositories Support Project

Short Project Name:RSP

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation


JISC Project URIhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/repsupport.aspx

Project URI: http://www.rsp.ac.uk

Start Date: October 2006

End Date: March 2009

Governance:JISC IIE

Contact Name and Role:  Bill Hubbard (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

The Repository Support Project (RSP) is a 2.5 year project to co-ordinate and deliver good practice and practical advice to English and Welsh HEIs to enable the implementation, management and development of digital institutional repositories.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Outputs: (just link to individual output postings) as a bulleted list

Output – VIF: Embedding Versioning

Title: VIF: Embedding Versioning Information in an Object

Pages: webpage
Date Released: Jan2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Object/index.html

Summary of contents:
Because it is entirely possible for users to access objects within a repository without ever seeing any metadata, VIF recommends that some versioning information is embedded into the object and suggests the following:

“It is strongly recommended that at least one of the following solutions to embed versioning information into object is advocated and used systematically within a repository:

1. ID Tags and Properties Fields
2. Cover Sheet
3. Filename
4. Watermark”

The framework provides some further details about each of these. In essence – use something and use it consistently

Supporting interoperabilty, especially interoperability over time is reliant on being able to distinguish between versions. It maybe simple to regard ‘use something consistently’ as a standard but if a repository at least follows it’s own standard. this provides a starting point for interoperability.

Output – VIF: Version labels or taxonomies

Title: VIF: Version labels or taxonomies

Pages: webpage
Date Released: May 2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Essential/taxonomies.html

Summary of contents:
“Clarity of versions is important; but the terminology, even for just articles, is not static or decided. Consistent usage within one repository, possibly for particular items may be achievable, such as at LSE, but care should be taken in their use and their implementation should be supported by clear policy and definition.

Explicit definition of vocabulary used is a minimum requirement if taxonomies are used.”

Suggested taxonomies are the those produced by the following projects:

In light of their survey results (noted here: https://rrtsynthesis.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/output-vifthe-results-of-the-vif-user-requirements-study-taxonomy/ ) VIF had already noted that widespread consistency in the use of any taxonomy is unlikely. Here they have recommended some appropriate standard taxonomies and noted that within a single repository consistent use may be possible.

Outputs – VIF: Dates

Title: VIF:Dates

Pages: webpage
Date Released: May 2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Essential/dates.html

Summary of contents:

“# If there is ever only one option for a date, then it is critical that you find a way to make it clear which date you are referring to. You should agree on what the most relevant to your repository is, apply it consistently and provide information to users about it.
# VIF recommends is that if you only use one date, it should be Date Modified (by the author, not the repository) and wherever possible, this should be accompanied by a description of who made the changes and why.
# A key thing to remember when considering which date to use to enhance version identification, is that it should relate to the object at hand, not to the repository or to an understanding of the workflow.”

The VIF project provides guidance about the, often ambiguous, use of dates in repositories.

Output – VIF: Versioning Information – identification

Title: VIF: Essential Versioning Information

Pages: webpage
Date Released: May 2008

URI for Output: http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/Framework/Essential/index.html

Summary of contents:
As well as author and title information VIF reccomends that the clear identification of an item should be supported by as much of the following information as possible. The pieces of information should be exposed by “embedding them into an object or storing them in metadata”

” 1. Defined dates
2. Identifiers
3. Version numbering
4. Version labels or Taxonomies
5. Text description”

The VIF provides further details about each of these types of information. Where there are key recomendations they are listed in this blog as seperate entries.

The consistent provsion of this set of information would better enable repository services to locate appropriate copies from aggregated copies of the same item.

Output – UHRA – Self Archiving Support Materials

Title: UHRA repository self-archiving support materials

Date Released: Unknown

URI for Output: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/promotion.html

Summary of contents:

Contains useful information on the process of self-archiving including how the submission process works and issues such as copyright, rights and permissions.

Additional information:


At http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/promotion.html

Output – UHRA – Training Sessions

Title: UHRA repository self-archiving training sessions

Date Released: May to July 2008

URI for Output: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/news.html

Summary of contents:

Evidence of delivery of training outputs. Materials not available

Additional information:


Output – KULTUR – Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts

Title: Institutional Profile: University College for the Creative Arts
Number of pages or page numbers: pp 6-7
Section: Summation

Date Released: 27th March 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20UCCA%20profile%208%20April%20online%20version.pdf

Summary of contents:

A few observations of interest w.r.t. repositories for the arts in the ‘summation’ section of the report:

“The project will need to engage, advocate and secure ‘buy-in’ from the academic community. It will be important to establish an understanding of the culture of each college so that local differences or requirements can be taken into account. We will need to create a network of contact with key individuals and interest groups across the institution with which to communicate and gain direction on the project. Following on from this it will be imperative to be able to understand, interpret and communicate the range of differing concerns with the project team so that development is accurately representative.”

Additional information:


Output – KULTUR – Environmental Assessment of the University of the Arts, London

Title: Environmental Assessment of the University of the Arts, London
Number of pages or page numbers: pp 6-7
Section: Summary

Date Released: 8th April 2008

URI for Output: http://kultur.eprints.org/docs/UUAL%20profile%208%20april%20online%20version.pdf

Summary of contents:

The summary section has a few useful observations w.r.t. repositories in the Arts sector:

“The opportunities for a repository at UAL are great since there is a wealth of research
being produced at all levels within the University. At the same time the sheer amount of
research and research active staff can present its own problems. The targeting of key
research staff, the enlisting of research centres/units and the research offices are
essential for the success of the project. Advocacy from the top and from the bottom is
needed but this can only really be effective by establishing good relationships and links
with relevant University bodies and staff. We need to identify just what a repository can
do for each group and advocate along those lines … Populating the demonstrator with a good number of pieces of research will help the project become more attractive and viable to research staff. The interface and the software itself will also play a large part in any success.”

Additional information: