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.

Comment:
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).

Advertisements

Output – IncReASe: Final Report – web pages

Title: IncReASe: Final Report

Page: 13

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

Summary of contents:
“Analysis of individual researcher publication pages revealed a good deal of inconsistency of formatting, including within individual publication lists. The idea of “scraping” publication metadata from researcher pages is attractive, but the reality is quite challenging.”
“The Perl code written for one author could not be reused with another and would need tweaking every time.”

more detials of the issues encountered are available http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/scraper.html

Comments:
the project notes that the AIR project is investigating more sophisticated approaches to this problem (using machine-learning alogorithims) http://clg.wlv.ac.uk/projects/AIR/.

Output – IncReASe: Final report – self-archiving

Title: IncReASe Final Report

Page: 11, 21-22

Date Released: 30 April 2009

URI for Output: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/increase_finalreportv1.pdf

Summary of contents:
“Our observations suggest that conditions likely to improve self-deposit are:
(i) keeping things as simple as possible from the author’s perspective
(ii) always asking for the author’s final version of a work (… “Accepted Version” suggested by The VERSIONS project …)
(iii) facilitating capture of the work at the point of acceptance for publication. …
(iv) providing central support to monitor uploaded files and seek copyright clearance where required
(v) reminding authors to deposit: this could be a periodic reminder, or could be linked to a publication “event” such as a publication being indexed in a bibliographic database
(vi) highlighting the impact of deposit through the regular provision of usage data”

From the conclusions:
“There is probably no simple “optimum” deposit point for research outputs; however, in the short term, capturing papers at the point of acceptance for publication is probably the most realistic option. The emergence of desktop capture/deposit tools may facilitate earlier capture and assist with version control. Capturing the most appropriate version of a work continues to be an issue; all efforts should be made to inform researchers about the “accepted version” and its importance in the open access landscape. It is likely to be helpful to instil this awareness in early career researchers and PhD students by including open access / scholarly communication elements in training.”

Comments:
Based on their survey work and interviews these are the project’s suggestions to support the self-archiving process; this is an ongoing challenge even with mandates; in itself it provides workflow advice and suggests what software tools are needed.

Output – SAFIR: Requirements Specification – OAIS

Title: Digital Library Project (SAFIR): Requirements Specification

Pages: 5-13
Date Released: 07 March 2008

URI for Output: https://vle.york.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/xid-89716_3

Summary of contents:

This section of the specification uses the Reference model for Open Archival Information Systems (OAIS) as a basis for analysing the repositories context and creating a specific reference model on which to base the requirements specification.

The following the OAIS model the analysis considers:

  • the designated communities of the repository
  • how it aproaches different functional areas (ingest, archival storage, data management, administration, preservation planning, and access)
  • the information model and information lifecycle that has to be supported
  • issues of interoperablity and integration

Comments:

This provides an example of a lightweight use of OAIS as a method of describing and analysing the context of a repository. As such it considers the whole information lifecycle as part of the planning process.

Project – RSP

Project Name: Repositories Support Project

Short Project Name:RSP

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand:

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 – LIFE2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Title: Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers:1
Section:

Date Released: 03/09/2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/4/9061_Legal_deposits_workflow.pdf

Summary of contents: Pdf version of Visio Workflow for the British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Output – Life2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Title: Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers:1
Section:

Date Released: 03/09/2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/5/9061_Burney_collection_workflow.pdf

Summary of contents: Pdf version of Visio Workflow for the British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers