Output – IncReASe: Final Report – self archiving rates

Title: IncReASe Final Report

Pages: 10-11

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

Summary of contents:
“It is often stated that, worldwide, the spontaneous level of self-archiving is around 10-15% (i.e. about 15% of published articles are made openly available by their authors).[Harnard (2006), Björk, B-C., Roosr, A. & Lauri, M. (2008)] We found similar levels of archiving: 16% of questionnaire respondents link to local, open copies of their work; 19% link to external copies – though often these are not openly accessible. Having said this, much of the self-archived content on web sites is working papers, reports and conference papers; the % of published journal papers spontaneously self-archived (on personal web sites or in any repository) by White Rose authors is likely to be lower than 15%. Of course, there is considerable variation between subject disciplines. This highlights the immediate potential value of open access repositories but also, perhaps, underlines the scale of the cultural change required – even after several years of institutional repository development – to engage researchers in active dissemination of their outputs.”

Comments:
This provides further evidence for the percentile statistics of self-archiving. One consequence of this figure (even within a now established repository) is the challenge faced by instituions seeking to comply with funder’s deposit manadates.

Project – CIRCLE

Short Project Name: Common Institutional Repositories for Collaborative Learning Environments (CIRCLE)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation programme

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/sue/circle

Project URI: https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/display/circle/Home

Start Date: 1st Feb 2007

End Date: 31st July 2008

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Stuart Brown, Project Manager

Brief project description:

Exploring the organisational, cultural, procedural and technical challenges in creating a singular repository to fulfil the roles usually provided by discrete Learning Object Management, Open Archive and scholarly repository systems. Delivering these systems into live operation. Collaborating with Intrallect to accelerate development. Advancing understanding and acceptance by the dissemination of the results of our work through the JISC programmes structures.

Outputs:

• Establish Learning Object Management system.
• Establish repository to hold and make available Brookes research outputs as an Open Archive.
• Situate these developments within processes encouraging collaboration, self-direction and sharing.
• Explore the wider relationship between these repository applications and other content management and collaborative technologies.
• Share the experience and promote an advance in thinking on the relationships between repository types and their integration with complex and diverse user communities.

Comments:

No significant outputs found as at 22nd January 2009 other than project website and conference presentations.

Output – The Depot – UK Repository Junction

Title: UK Repository Junction

Date Released: June 2007

URI for Output: http://depot.edina.ac.uk/junction.html

Summary of contents:

‘UK Repository Junction’ is a re-direct service to ensure that content that comes within the remit of an existing institutional repository is correctly placed.

Additional information:

The service is essentially part of the functioning of the Depot service quality repository (separately listed as an output).

Comments:

On testing the redirection using the example of the University of Bath which has it’s own repository, the junction worked correctly.

Output – The Depot – Service Quality Repository

Title: The Depot Service Quality Repository

Date Released: Approx November 2007

URI for Output: http://deposit.depot.edina.ac.uk/

Summary of contents:

“The purpose of the Depot is to enable all UK academics to share in the benefits of open access exposure for their research outputs. As part of JISC RepositoryNet, the Depot is provided as a national facility geared to support the policies of UK universities and national funding agencies towards Open Access, aiding policy development in advance of a comprehensive institutional archive network”

The Depot offers the following features:

• a re-direct service, nicknamed UK Repository Junction, to ensure that content that comes within the remit of an existing institutional repository is correctly placed.
• accepts deposit of e-prints from researchers at institutions that do not currently have an Institutional Repository (IR). The principal target is postprints, that is articles that have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication.
• as  institutional repositories (IRs) are established, the Depot will support the transfer of relevant content to help populate those new IRs.  Meantime, the Depot will act as a keep-safe, notifying  institutions when deposits are made.
• an OAI-compliant interface, so, like other open access repositories, its contents is available for harvesting, with special attention being paid to ensure that it can searched through the Intute Search, another part of JISC RepositoryNet.

Additional information:

Comments:

I created a Depot account and submitted a test item for the purposes of assessing the repository on the 27th November 2008. The was later removed. My observations following this are:

• The repository browse functioned well and was responsive. The repository in general was working well.
• When submitting an item, the submission page annoyingly scrolls to the top on opening hidden metadata fields (Firefox 3.0.4 , Mac OS X 10.5.5).
• The submission process is lengthy.
• No subject matches found for ‘jazz’, ‘journalism’ or ‘music’. Seems odd.
• The process of adding a new version of an existing item is convoluted and tricky.  Similar for deletion – not intuiative.

The Depot repository would appear to match a large number of repository benefit and role categories, all of which are self evident. Feedback would be welcomed on these.

Output – SOURCE – Screencast and Summary of Bulk Migration Tool

Title: Screencast and Summary of Bulk Migration Tool

Date Released: 31st July 2007

URI for Output: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/life/source/alpha/BulkMigrationTool_AlphaRelease.html and http://www.source.bbk.ac.uk/reports/SummaryToScreencast_BulkMigrationTool_Alpha (PDF document)

Summary of contents: A screencast and summary document that demonstrate the use of the alpha release bulk migration tool to migrate content from one repository (Equella) into two other repositories (two Harvest Road Hive repositories).

Additonal information:

Comments: lack of audio on the screencast limits it’s usefulness.

Output – SOURCE – Screencast for Proof of Concept Demonstrator

Title: Screencast for Proof-of-Concept Demonstrator

Date Released: 6th April 2007

URI for Output: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/life/source/demonstrator/Screecast_ProofOfConceptDemonstrator_SOURCE.html

Summary of contents: Audio and video screencast of the proof of concept SOURCE bulk migration tool. The screencast shows a java swing bulk migration application querying MIT hosted applications of Learning Edge and Intralibrary repositories. The repositories are queried and items found. A learning object is then migrated to a Harvest Road Hive repository using the tool and shown to be deposited.

Additonal information:

Comments:

Output – SOURCE – Bulk Migration Tool and Service

Title: Bulk Migration Tool and Service

Date Released: Unknown

URI for Output: http://www.source.bbk.ac.uk/code/

Summary of contents: A bulk migration tool that can plug into the common repository plugs of two or more repositories and migrate content interchangeably from one repository to another.

Additonal information: The current version is a java Alpha build available as a zip file from http://www.source.bbk.ac.uk/code/BulkMigrationDemonstrator_ProofOfConcept_AlphaBuild. It require a username and password to download with no information on how to get this.

Project – The Depot

Project Name: The Depot

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Information Environment

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/depot

Project URI: http://depot.edina.ac.uk/

Start Date: 1st August 2006

End Date: 31st March 2009

Governance: RPAG

Contact Name and Role: Bill Hubbard, Project Manager

Brief project description:

“The Depot is a JISC support service, launched in June 2007 with the specific task of ensuring that all in the UK research community can benefit from making their published papers available under Open Access, and helping maximise readership of their work. The Depot is OAI-compliant, allowing deposited e-prints to be ‘harvested’ by search engines across the world.”

The Depot offers two services:

1. a re-direct service, with the Depot acting as a gateway, especially to repositories at UK universities (institutional repositories)
2. a deposit service for e-prints, with the Depot acting as a national repository for researchers not yet having an institutional repository in which to deposit their papers, articles, and book chapters (e-prints).

Outputs:

• Depot project website
• Service-quality repository with the performance and capacity to meet the requirements of stakeholders
• Service website providing a full range of supporting documentation
• Functionality that acts as a UK Repository Junction

Output – NTU: IRep for NTU – Final Report: Copyright and Intellectual Property management

Title: IRep for NTU – Final Report

Pages: 12-13

Section: Copyright and Intellectual Property management

Date Released: 18/07/2008

URI for Output: http://www.ntu.ac.uk/irep/63815.doc

Summary of contents:

NTU produced an evaluation of current IPR practice in the university and reviewed the possible use of Creative Commons licensing. It notes differences in practice between research and teaching materials within the institution. [The evaluation of the CC licenses is interesting (and has been done extensively in other projects (rightscom’s project for Jisc legal)) but the implications for the university may be of wider use:]
‘Creative Commons licences – Consequences for the University if proposal adopted
• All University materials containing third party content that are selected for deposit in the IRep would need to be checked carefully to ensure that is permissible to licence that content using Creative Commons.
• University created materials that contain third party content licensed under the Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial, share alike (by-nc-sa) licence would also need to be licensed under the same licence.
• The two University copyright policies, the Copyright in Learning and Teaching Materials and the Intellectual Property policy, would both need amending to reflect this change in policy.
• As the licences are non-exclusive the University would be able to licence commercial use of the materials if desired if either of the two most restrictive licences were used.’

Comments:
I think, the findings for the university point to the following issues:

• Significant IPR clearing workload
• Non-trivial need to change policies
• Concerns over potential impact on commercialization

Output – IncReASe: Questionnaire

Title: Questionnaire – summary

Number of pages or page numbers: web page

Section:

Date Released: Post March 2008

URI for Output:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/quest_summary.html

Summary of contents:

of 330 respondents.

• 70% hadn’t heard of institutional repository (WRRO)
• 65% were unaware of funders Open Access policies
• 57% did not know if there was a Open Access repository for their discipline
• 78% did not submit details of their publications to any systems outside the university

‘Top three services that might encourage people to use WRRO:

1. Statistics about publications (62%)
2. Links to papers from personal websites (57%)
3. RSS feeds (43%)’