Output – CURVE – Reuse Strategy

Title: Reuse Strategy

Pages: all

Summary of contents:
The document provides a thorough outline of the design use and management of IPeLOs (interprofessional e-learning objects).
It includes a section on overarching Reuse Principles, and outline workflows and checklists of critical questions for the supply, manage, and consume processes.

The strategy is for a particular type of formal learning object created specifically for the purpose of reusable sharing.
“IPeLOs are designed and constructed to facilitate reuse. This means they must be, to some extent, generalised. They do not contain information specific to a location, organisation, instructor, time or course. Any inbuilt bias to a region or culture is explicit. They do not contain hyperlinks to URLs which are restricted to particular groups of authorised users.”p4

Comments:
The document provides a researched strategy for the design and creation of formal commissioned LO’s for sharing and reuse.

The success or failure of the strategy is outwith the scope of the document, but it should be clear that this is not intended to be a generic strategy for sharing learning materials nor can it be easily transferred to most extant learning materials.

Date Released: 12th Nov 2007

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/05/ur_reuse_strategy_v021.doc

Output- CURVE – Policies: overview

Title: CURVE Purpose and Content Policies

Pages: all

Date Released: unknown

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/05/ir-content-policyv1.doc

Summary of contents:
The document defines policies for the repository. These include:
Collection scope: Research outputs , Learning objects, Digitized collections
Storage scope: some material types are not stored in the repository (licensing reasons or better functionality offered elsewhere)
Poliices in line with OpenDOAR’s suggested areas: metadata, data, content, submission, preservation, take-down

Comments:
This provides a useful example of a set of policies to address issues in managing the repository

Output – CURVE – Final Report: Interoperabilty

Title: JISC Final Report – CURVE

Page: 8- 10

Summary of contents:
As a result of the project interoperability and / or integration between a number of systems at Coventry has been achieved/

These systems include:
p2 “the learning and teaching environment, library systems, the e-research environment and access/authentication systems”
“Proven integration of information systems: CUOnline, Talis List, Equella, Aleph across the institution.” p8

Interoperability with CV system:
“The task of linking to CUCV, the Coventry University research database of academic CVs, qualifications, publications and research activity did not prove to be a problem as it is a web-based product and it contains field entries both for DOI and URL which easily allow linking to both internal and external repositories. The real issue identified was the lack of appropriate reference types within CUCV to store outputs from the creative areas. ” [lack of reference types is discipline wide]
p9

“There was also no problem in linking Curve to ResearchNet, the University’s web presence for research activity. We have chosen not to do this at the moment due to the concern about the potential harm caused by citation splitting referred to earlier.”
p9

Comments:
Demonstration of successful joining up of a multitude of institutional systems/ infrastructure with a repository.

Date Released: August 2008

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/10/curve_final_report.doc

Output – CURVE – Final Report: repository scope

Title: JISC Final Report – CURVE

Page: 8

Summary of contents:
“In terms of lessons learnt as a project team, we have been surprised that users have come up with all sorts of things to use the repository for that had not occurred to us. Whilst some of these uses clearly fell within the spirit and scope of the CURVE project, others did not. At this stage it was very helpful to have an already developed policy on the scope of the repository to refer to, and the decision to develop such a policy early in the life of the project proved a good one. In particular some people wanted to use CURVE as a document storage system (for example for administrative documents, committee minutes etc), which Equella software is not designed for and cuts across the idea of CURVE being an academic asset. In addition our strategy is that CURVE should be open as possible, and openness is not always possible with administrative documents.”

Comments:
Illustration of clash between software functionality, user expectations, and institutional policy (project scope). No pair of these encapsulates the full problem but illustration of the importance of having a clear policy.

Date Released: August 2008

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/10/curve_final_report.doc

Output – CURVE – Final Report: eTheses

Title: JISC Final Report – CURVE

Page: 8

Summary of contents:
“We have integrated the UK-ETD-DC metadata schema, recommended by EThOS for this collection to ensure that the EThOS service will be able to harvest material from our repository to further disseminate and share the PhD research undertaken at the University.”

Comments:
Adoption of UK-ETD-DC metadata schema to promote Theses visability.

Date Released: August 2008

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/10/curve_final_report.doc

Output – CURVE – Final Report: Identifiers and access

Title: JISC Final Report – CURVE

Page: 7

Summary of contents:
“An unexpected problem discovered during the RAE and after the submission date was the use of Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) to reference published research outputs. Some academic staff were not aware of there existence or intended use. Whenever a DOI was submitted it had to be checked immediately since experience showed that a high portion of references were wrong, inaccessible or incomplete. Despite assurances from the RAE organisers that they had arrangements in place to access all published outputs with a DOI, from about March 2008 onwards CURVE staff were regularly contacted by them to obtain electronic copies as they had been unable to access the output. In many cases a correct DOI had been given and it could be accessed from the University because the library had a subscription to the journal. In other cases the electronic copy of the output had to be resent again, highlighting the need to store all output in a repository.”

The project also records concern that the availabilty of (at least) two electronic versions (publisher’s and repository’s may dilute any impact factor in future metrics-based Research Assessment)

Comments:
Good example of a problem that repositories can help overcome by providing a single point of reference for institutional outputs (though questions about versions may exist). Also a useful pointer to the problems which authenticated/ restricted access sources may cause for future metrics-based research assessment.

Date Released: August 2008

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/10/curve_final_report.doc

Output – CURVE – Final Report:availability of key research

Title: JISC Final Report – CURVE

Page: 6

Summary of contents:

“the data collection required to support the RAE submission provided a representative sample of all the various types of research outputs used across the institution. At the start of the data collection exercise, approximately 40% of all members of staff submitted did not have complete and correct citation information about all of their four chosen outputs. Surprisingly approximately 18% did not have physical copies of their selected outputs. Reasons given included they had been mislaid, they had given away their last copy or had never received a copy from the publisher. The most common reason given in creative subjects was they had sold the artwork and had not taken a photographic copy. By the end of the data collection process we had resolved all of the issues or had substituted equivalent outputs. This highlighted the need for a systematic process to collect all outputs as they are generated and store them in a repository.”

Comments:
The project’s findings about the unavailabilty of copies of and inaccuracy of information about each academic’s four most important works over the preceding 8 years highlight the need for techncial and procedural systems (such as repositories and policies) to help academics in managing their work and help institutions retain access to ‘their’ assets.

Date Released: August 2008

URI for Output: http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/curve/files/2008/10/curve_final_report.doc