ANKOS Workshop 2006: The institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the...
-
Upload
morgan-vaughn -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of ANKOS Workshop 2006: The institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the...
ANKOS Workshop 2006:The institutional repository:
what it can do for your institution and what the institution can do for the repository
Alma Swan
Key Perspectives Ltd
Truro, UK
What the repository can do for your institution
Key Perspectives Ltd
Part I
Why researchers publish their work
0 20 40 60 80 100
% respondents
Communicate results to peers
Advance career
Personal prestige
Gain funding
Financial reward
Key Perspectives Ltd
‘Old’ paradigms
Use of proxy measures of an individual scholar’s merit is as good as it gets
It is a publisher’s responsibility to disseminate your work
Printed article is the format of record Other scholars have time to search out
what you want them to know
Key Perspectives Ltd
‘New’ paradigms Rich, deep, broad metrics for measuring
the contributions of individual scholarss Effective dissemination of your work is
now in your hands (at last) The digital format will be the format of
record (is already in many areas) Unless you routinely publish in Nature or Science, ‘getting it out there’ is up to you
Key Perspectives Ltd
The digital era
“The potential role of electronic networks in scientific publication … goes far beyond providing searchable archives for electronic journals. The whole process of scholarly communication is undergoing a revolution comparable to the one occasioned by the invention of printing.”
Stevan Harnad, 1990
Key Perspectives Ltd
Open ‘Access’ (dissemination)
The whole process of scholarly communication is evolving
… perfectly naturally
… with all the constraints and patterns that evolutionary theory would predict
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
And yet …
Still only 15% of research is Open Access
Key Perspectives Ltd
Open Access: How?
Open Access journals (www.doaj.org)
Open Access repositories (author ‘self-archiving’)
Key Perspectives Ltd
Author experience so far
Only 24% of authors have submitted an article to an Open Access journal
Only 22% have self-archived in their institutional repository
Natural selection or genetic drift?
Key Perspectives Ltd
Open Access: What is it? Online Immediate Free (non-restricted) Free (gratis) To the scholarly literature that
authors give away Permanent
Key Perspectives Ltd
Open Access: Who benefits?
Benefits to researchers themselves Benefits to institutions Benefits to national economies Benefits to science and society
Key Perspectives Ltd
Why we should have Open Access
Greater impact from scholarly endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of
scholarship Better assessment, better monitoring,
better management of research Better information-creation using new
and better technologies
Key Perspectives Ltd
Open Access increases citations
0 50 100 150 200 250
% increase in citations with Open Access
BiologyEconomics
Political SciHealth SciBusiness
EducationManagement
LawPsychology
SociologyPhysics
Key Perspectives Ltd
Range = 36%-200%(Data: Stevan Harnad and co-workers)
Other impact studies
Lawrence 2001 (computer science) Kurtz 2004 (astronomy) Brody & Harnad 2004 (all disciplines) Antelman 2005 (philosophy, politics,
electrical & electronic engineering, mathematics)
Wren 2005 Eysenbach 2006
Key Perspectives Ltd
“Self-archiving in the PhilSci Archive has given instant world-wide visibility to my work. As a result, I was invited to submit papers to refereed international conferences/journals and got them accepted.”
Key Perspectives Ltd
An author’s own testimony on open access visibility
Lost citations, lost impact
Only around 15% of research is Open Access….
….. so 85% is not ….. and we are therefore losing 85% of
the 50% increase in citations (conservative end of the range) that Open Access brings (= 42.5%)
Key Perspectives Ltd
What this means: Ankara University
2005: 856 articles Number of citations: 423 If all had been OA, there
would have been (42.5% more) 603 citations
Key Perspectives Ltd
What this means: Hacettepe University
2005: 1448 articles Number of citations: 874 If all had been OA, there
would have been (42.5% more) 1246 citations
Key Perspectives Ltd
National economies
Since the Turkish Government invested $100m in S&T in 2005 …..
This means lost impact worth $42.5m to the Turkish economy
Key Perspectives Ltd
Science is faster, more efficientTime taken to be cited for articles in the arXiv database
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
-6 0 6
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
Months from publication
Nu
mb
er
of
art
icle
s
1991199319951997199920012003
Key Perspectives Ltd
Measure, assess, and manage science more effectively Assess individuals, groups, institutions, on the
basis of citation analysis Track downloads, citations, patterns of use Trends: predict impact, usage, direction of
science and influences on research Latency, longevity Hubs, authorities ‘Silent’ ‘unsung’ authors identified by semantic
analysis
Key Perspectives Ltd
Navigation and analysis of science output: Citebase
Find researchers Measure citations to articles (not journals) Follow the citations through the literature Measure downloads (and predict
citations) Use citation patterns to analyse science
Key Perspectives Ltd
Find a researcher …..
Key Perspectives Ltd
Follow citing articles
Key Perspectives Ltd
Measure usage and impact
Key Perspectives Ltd
Analyse via the citing trail
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
New knowledge from old
Data-mining Text-mining (semantic Web
technologies) UK: National Text-Mining Centre Example: NeuroCommons
(www.neurocommons.org)
Key Perspectives Ltd
Why Open Access
Greater impact from scientific endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of
science Better assessment, better monitoring,
better management of science Novel information-creation using new and
advanced technologies
Key Perspectives Ltd
Repositories: interoperable
Show their content in a specific form Harvested by search engines Form a database of global research Freely available Publicly available Permanently available
Key Perspectives Ltd
Institutionally-based repositories
800+ Half are institutional or
departmental Growth of 1 per day, but… Average number of postprints
is 297!
Key Perspectives Ltd
CERN archive
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
An institutional repository provides researchers with:
The means to disseminate their work, free, to the world
Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress)
A location for supporting data that are unpublished
One-input-many outputs (CVs, publications) Tool for research assessment
Key Perspectives Ltd
Why an institutional repository?
Fulfils a university’s mission to engender, encourage and disseminate scholarly work
Enables a university to compile a complete record of its intellectual effort
Forms a permanent record of all digital output from an institution
Enables standardised online CVs for all researchers (e.g. RAE exercise)
‘Marketing’ tool for universities An institution can mandate self-archiving across all
subject areas
Key Perspectives Ltd
Coffee!
Key Perspectives Ltd
What your institution can do for the repository
Key Perspectives Ltd
Part II
Some statistics Awareness of Open Access is
increasing amongst scholars in all disciplines
The number of repositories has increased at an average of 1 per day over the last year
The rate of increase is rising
Key Perspectives Ltd
A few more statistics
There are circa 800 repositories globally
There are 32 documented policies
There are 10 mandates
Key Perspectives Ltd
Here’s the problem…
Only 15% of research articles are spontaneously self-archived
The average number of postprints self-archived in institutional repositories is 297
Key Perspectives Ltd
Policies, mandates
There is a difference Both are being developed at
institutional, national and even international level
One is sometimes effective, the other always is
Key Perspectives Ltd
Third component: advocacy
Sometimes in the absence of either a policy or mandate; sometimes alongside these
Advocacy – sustained and organised
Advocacy - opportunistic
Key Perspectives Ltd
Policies
An almost-mandate from the DFG, Germany An almost-mandate from the FWF, Austria Dutch policy for the universities in the DARE
network Exhortations and encouragements from public
research funders in Finland, USA National policy being developed in Sweden (?) Developments in Australia, Canada, etc
Key Perspectives Ltd
Mandates
Proposed mandates: public funders (Canada, Australia, S.Africa, Ukraine, USA and EU)
Real mandates: Wellcome Trust RCUK (Research Councils UK)
Key Perspectives Ltd
USA
NIH: Strengthening now very likely
Require not request CURES: 6-month delay to provide OA
permitted but deposit must be at acceptance
FRPAA: Mandatory deposit: all research funded by the largest
agencies
Key Perspectives Ltd
UK
Wellcome Trust ($750m) Research Councils UK
4 out of 8 have a mandate and 1 has a strong encouragement
Key Perspectives Ltd
Funder / institutional policies and mandates
Policies Mandates
Funders 8 4
Institutional repositories
24 6
Key Perspectives Ltd
Author readiness to comply with a mandate
0 20 40 60 80 100
% respondents
Would complywillingly
Would complyreluctantly
Would notcomply
81%
14%
5%
Key Perspectives Ltd
Institutions with a mandate already
University of Southampton School of Electronics & Computer Science (since 2003) (90+% compliance already)
CERN (2003) (90% compliance already) Queensland University of Technology (2004)
(40%+ compliance and growing) University of Minho, Portugal (2005) Recently, NIT (Mumbai), Zurich University and others on the way …
Key Perspectives Ltd
Case study I: ECS, Southampton School of Electronics &
Computer Science, University of Southampton
Mandate early 2003 Sanctioned in the sense
that assessment is based upon repository content
It works
Key Perspectives Ltd
Case study II: Minho University
Minho University, Braga, Portugal
Repository established 2003 Mandate introduced 2005
when self-archiving rate dropped off
Mandate backed by financial incentives paid to departments
Key Perspectives Ltd
Minho University repository
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Dec-04
Dec-05
Jun-06
Mandate introduced
(Data courtesy of Eloy Rodrigues) Key Perspectives Ltd
Case study III: QUT QUT, Brisbane Mandate introduced by
DVC Tom Cochrane at the beginning of 2004
Not sanctioned, but supported by vigorous and sympathetic library advocacy
Key Perspectives Ltd
University of Tasmania
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700Ju
n-0
4
Jul-0
4
Au
g-0
4
Se
p-0
4
Oct
-04
No
v-0
4
De
c-0
4
Jan
-05
Fe
b-0
5
Ma
r-0
5
Ap
r-0
5
Ma
y-0
5
Jun
-05
Actualdocuments
DESTpublications
Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd
University of Queensland
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
03/0
2/20
04
03/0
3/20
04
03/0
4/20
04
03/0
5/20
04
03/0
6/20
04
03/0
7/20
04
03/0
8/20
04
03/0
9/20
04
03/1
0/20
04
03/1
1/20
04
03/1
2/20
04
03/0
1/20
05
03/0
2/20
05
03/0
3/20
05
03/0
4/20
05
03/0
5/20
05
03/0
6/20
05
03/0
7/20
05
03/0
8/20
05
03/0
9/20
05
03/1
0/20
05
Do
cum
ents
Documents
DEST
Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd
Queensland University of Technology
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
24/0
5/20
04
24/0
6/20
04
24/0
7/20
04
24/0
8/20
04
24/0
9/20
04
24/1
0/20
04
24/1
1/20
04
24/1
2/20
04
24/0
1/20
05
24/0
2/20
05
24/0
3/20
05
24/0
4/20
05
24/0
5/20
05
24/0
6/20
05
24/0
7/20
05
24/0
8/20
05
24/0
9/20
05
Do
cum
ents
Data courtesy of Arthur Sale Key Perspectives Ltd
Why Open Access?
Greater impact from scientific endeavour More rapid and more efficient progress of
science Better assessment, better monitoring,
better management of science Novel information-creation using new and
advanced technologies
Key Perspectives Ltd
Mandate when? At acceptance for publication: the author’s final
version Mandate the deposit at that point Mandate OA to full-text unless there is a
compelling reason against this If there is a compelling reason, mandate OA to
metadata Mandate opening of full-text at 6 months The publisher’s PDF can be added, or linked
to, later
Key Perspectives Ltd
Mandate what?
The author’s final version In the native format Because text-mining and data-
mining tools need to work on OA articles
They work best on XML
Key Perspectives Ltd
What about PDF?
John Wilbanks (Science Commons):
“Scraping is the right word, because having to work with PDF is really scraping the
bottom of the barrel.”Key Perspectives Ltd
What about PDF?
Clifford Lynch (CNI):
“PDF is evil”
Key Perspectives Ltd
What about PDF?
Peter Murray-Rust (Cambridge):
“Getting to XML from PDF is like starting with the burger and trying to get back to the cow.”
Key Perspectives Ltd
Summary
Policies nice but largely ineffectual Mandates work and so increasing Deposit at acceptance:
Open metadata immediately Open full-text later if necessary
Deposit author’s final version; add published version later if desired
Key Perspectives Ltd
Author readiness to comply with a mandate
0 20 40 60 80 100
% respondents
Would complywillingly
Would complyreluctantly
Would notcomply
81%
14%
5%
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Publisher permissions (by journal)
79%
13%
8%
'Green' (postprints) 'Pale green' (preprints) 'Grey' (neither yet)
Key Perspectives Ltd
Publisher permissions
92% of journals permit self-archiving
SHERPA/RoMEO list at:
www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
Or at: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
Key Perspectives Ltd
Linking UK repositories User requirements – what
services are needed? Roles and responsibilities
involved Technical architecture Business models
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Services built onto repositories
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Key Perspectives Ltd
Services built onto repositories
Patterns for repositories
Key Perspectives Ltd
Purdue University’s model
Key Perspectives Ltd
Thank you for listening
www.keyperspectives.co.uk
www.keyperspectives.com
Key Perspectives Ltd