Project – OARS

Project Name:Open Access Repository System for Forced Migration Online (OARS)

Short Project Name: (OARS)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: SUE

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

Project URI: http://oars.forcedmigration.org/

Start Date: 1 September 2007

End Date: February 2009

Governance: JISC IEE

Contact Name and Role: Mike Cave (Project Manager) Refugee Studies Centre

Brief project description:

‘This project will migrate a fragmented digital repository of scholarly resources, currently managed by two proprietary software systems, to a single open source platform. This repository, based at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, is the largest in the world on its subject area of forced migration. It is a unique, widely used and constantly expanding collection of resources. The enhancement of this repository will make it more manageable for those maintaining it, and also make it globally interoperable with other open systems, as well as with the University of Oxford’s institutional repository.’

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

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

  • Single management/search interface across Forced Migration Online (FMO)
  • Interoperability between the FMO repository and other institutional repositories and search services
  • Potential to make FMO’s grey literature collection available via the University’s online Library Catalogue
  • Open source management/search software built on Fedora

Output – UHRA – University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

Title: The University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

Date Released: Approx September 2007

URI for Output: https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/

Summary of contents:

The main output from this project is the establishment of the University of Hertfordshire Research Archive. It is described as “.. a showcase of the research produced by the University of Hertfordshire staff (copyright permitting) which is freely available over the web” and ” .. provides a simple interface to enable researchers to self-archive the full text of their published work with just a few quick and easy steps.”

Additional information:

Comments:

The archive/repository appears to be fully functional and contains 2556 items as at 30th January 2007.

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:

Comments:

Project – UHRA

Project Name: University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (UHRA)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: e-Research, e-Resources, Information Envirnonment

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

Project URI: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/uhra/

Start Date: 1st April 2007

End Date: 31st March 2009

Governance: RPAG?

Contact Name and Role: Monica Rivers-Latham, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The University of Hertfordshire had previously made an institutional commitment to increasing open access to scholarly communications through the establishment of the UHRA,a institutional repository of research outputs. The University has agreed a mandatory policy for deposit of published research, subject to publishers’ policies and permissions, and for deposit of higher degree theses.

The next stage JISC funded UHRA project will build on this robust foundation to address the two critical requirements for a successful repository:

  • achieving substantial ‘critical mass’ repository content
  • embedding sustainable self-archiving operational arrangements and practice across the University

Outputs:

  • Establishment of UHRA repository. The UHRA project will provide all the building blocks for embedding a self sustaining research archive within the workflow processes of the University and its Research Institutes
  • Enhancement of public open access to University of Hertfordshire research outputs
  • Identify and evaluate good practice models for embedding self archiving and of current and emerging standard
  • Disseminate and demonstrate good practice models
  • Support the national development of repositories
  • Final report

Comments:

The main output from the project is the establishment of the repository/archive which has been achieved.

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 – 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 – 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