I’m just going through old files before I leave my current post and uncovered this which I drafted for the Repositories Support Project (RSP) several years ago but which was never used. As the RSP is now defunct, I’m linking it here in case it might be of use to someone:
This is a guest post by Pablo de Castro, UK RepositoryNet+ Consultant.
Please do also take the time to complete the RepNet survey at http://ukcorr.org/events/future-events/teesside-university-friday-9th-november-2012/repnet_survey/
Much has been said in recent months about the Gold Rush and the financial unsustainability of a given way of planning the transition to research output dissemination through Gold Open Access publishing models. However, the ‘Gold Rush’ may be better than no rush whatsoever, and the post-Finch emphasis on Gold OA models has resulted in the profile of colour-agnostic Open Access getting significantly raised among Research Committees at HEIs following effective communication efforts by Institutional Repository (IR) managers and University Libraries. Furthermore, the current analysis on potential Open Access policy compliance mechanisms could well result in a substantial wave of supporting policies at institutions towards IRs and Green Open Access.
All these issues were discussed last Tuesday Dec 4th at the RSP webinar ‘The Role of Institutional Repositories after the Finch Report’. Three prominent IR managers -Sally Rumsey, U Oxford, Dominic Tate, Royal Holloway U London (RHUL) and Miggie Pickton, U of Northampton- were delivering presentations on the present state of IR/Open Access awareness and the role IRs will play for policy compliance purposes at their universities.
Each of them provided a very useful specific insight on the point discussions are right now at their institutions: research-intensive U Oxford (80k publications/year) has set up an OA@Oxford Programme lead by the Bodleian Libraries and involving Research Services, IT Services and Academic Divisions. The programme comprises ten projects, three of which are focused on the Oxford Research Archive (ORA) IR (see Sally Rumsey’s presentation to learn more). Royal Holloway Research Online manager and his Library Director presented a brief and solid report to their Research Committee last September on the current state of OA policies which was praised by the Committee and has lead the way to subsequent discussions on possible ways to deliver compliance – Dominic Tate incidentally made an offer to share this report with other IR managers interested in carrying out their own awareness raising activities for their Research Committees. Finally, Miggie Pickton mentioned her calculation of the costs attached to Gold Open Access publishing of the U Northampton yearly research output as an input to the University Research and Enterprise Committee.
All three IR managers agreed that there were big opportunities for IRs as a result of the endorsement for Open Access delivered by the Finch report, regardless of what the recommended form was for realising it. As a result of the Finch report and the subsequent RCUK Open Access policy, scholars and institutional administrators now need to be aware of what Open Access is and what the requirements will be for universities in order to be eligible for receiving RCUK funding. Central Open Access publishing funds -such as the one already available at the University of Nottingham – are currently under consideration at many HEIs as a mechanism for effectively dealing with RCUK block grants and other funders’ requirements in terms of Open Access publishing. This discussion may very much reinforce the role IR managers and Libraries play in conveying the Open Access agenda to institutions, since no-one knows better about Open Access than they do. Preliminary Gold Open Access publishing cost analysis provided by IR managers to their Research Committees in the course of this discussions have resulted in Institutional Repositories being brought into consideration as a much cheaper, already available option for delivering compliance at institutional level.
IRs are however unevenly placed to take advantage of these opportunities: many of them are presently very poorly populated and feature large rates of metadata-only items. In order to be able to stand up to the requirements in terms of monitoring policy compliance, IRs will need to offer institutions a reliable set of functionalities for tracking Open Access outputs (and eventually payments, see the recently released RIN/OAIG report on the issue). This is what the UK RepositoryNet+ (aka RepNet) Project is working for: to provide the means to extend already existing IR tools and services to the whole IR network and to promote the implementation and use of new repository functionalities that allow IRs to become central pieces in the institutional research information management (RIM) services.
After the project presentations delivered a few weeks ago at the UKCoRR membership meeting at Teeside University, the RepNet put out a survey for collecting information from IR managers on the current state of service tool awareness and availability at IRs. The results of this survey -which account for over 20 answers so far- will shortly be disseminated from this UKCoRR blog. One of the questions in this survey deals with available RIM infrastructure at institutions, since we consider there is a pressing need for having an accurate landscape of CRIS/IR availability at HEIs in order to avoid effort duplication in building reporting tools. A preliminary RepNet note is already available examining use cases for RIM infrastructure configurations at HEIS, from IR-only and IR-as-CRIS to CRIS-only and CRIS-as-IR case studies through all possible ways of system co-existence. Once this CRIS/IR directory is complete, it will be made available by the RepNet and we hope it will be useful for building models on top of it, be it for REF reporting or now also for delivering OA compliance and reporting about it.
An overview of the different strategies for supporting and enhancing IRs the RepNet is working on will be delivered at the joint RepNet/RSP WS to be held in London next Jan 21st. After useful discussions last November at Teesside University, the RepNet will again be eager to promote discussion and to collect feedback and suggestions from the wider IR manager community.
I’m on the train, on my way back to Leeds from the 7th International Open Repositories Conference at the University of Edinburgh and though I’m disappointed not to be able to stay longer and for the céilidh this evening, I’m still able to participate remotely in the conference via Twitter and various blogs albeit on a rather slow 3G connection via my phone….which rather illustrates two of the themes of Cameron Naylon’s opening keynote yesterday; connectivity and low friction. And also, to some extent, his third theme of demand side filters in that I can tweet a link to this post tagged #or2012 and know that I am sharing with the colleagues I’ve met over the past few days.
I had volunteered to be a member of the blogging team for the conference answering a call from @OpenRepos2012 but in the end only managed to post one attempt at a live blog from the RSP Workshop on Monday “Building a National Network”. I’m afraid I can’t quite type or think fast enough for live blogging (though I did tweet a lot!) so apologies and kudos to Nicola for her detailed live blogs from various sessions and, in the spirit of Open, I’ll use verbatim / adapt exerpts from http://or2012.ed.ac.uk/category/liveblog/ to help jog my memory, fill in some of the gaps and report on the sessions that I attended with no further attribution (I hope this is OK, let me know if not, preferably not through your lawyer.)
I enjoyed Cameron Neylon’s keynote “Network Enabled Research” http://or2012.ed.ac.uk/2012/07/10/opening-plenary-cameron-neylon-network-enabled-research-liveblog/ though did notice one or two voices on Twitter sighing that it wasn’t terribly cutting edge and that we’d perhaps heard most of it before. May be so (for the record I think this is unfair) but Cameron himself acknowledged that he was preaching to the choir and more interesting to me are the vast swathes of heathens not yet (formally) converted to the Church of Open, to of whom Cameron’s ideas and those of the conference as a whole were, and continue to be, amplified through Twitter and other social media. I myself have over 600 followers on Twitter which is peanuts to some of the big Twitter hitters, and though I wouldn’t blame some of them for muting my conference output there is still a considerable amplification outside a specialised community to the global public. i.e. the customers of Open. And they want outcomes; not research outputs per se but meaningful outcomes from publicly funded research.
Another excuse for not blogging more during the conference itself was that I was somewhat preoccupied with my own Pecha Kucha that I delivered in the afternoon session on Tuesday and though I received a lot of positive (possibly polite) feedback I am by no means a conference veteran and was glad to get through my 20 slides without too much fuss, though I did wander off with the mic still pinned to my shirt, fortunately called back before I got to the loo (a la Frank Drebbin in The Naked Gun.) My PK was on “Open Metrics for Open Repositories” and the slides and associated paper are available at http://www.slideshare.net/MrNick/open-metrics-for-open-repositories-at-or2012 and http://opus.bath.ac.uk/30226/ respectively. I’ve learned a great deal more about metrics than I knew before the conference and will certainly be following up on IRUS-UK, for example, and one or two posters and relevant Pecha Kucha presentations. COUNTER compliance is certainly important and something that I think ukcorr should be advocating and, I believe, is all the more important since the Finch report.
I was particularly interested to learn about UK RepositoryNet+, based at EDINA, which is aiming to create a socio-technical infrastructure to manage the human interaction that helps make good data happen, and ultimately to justify the investment that JISC has made into open access and repository infrastructure by mediating between open access and research information management and differentiating between evolving models of open access and between various technical standards. Wave 1 is focussing on deposit tools (SWORD, RJ Broker), benchmarking, aggregation (RepUK, CORE, IRS) and registries (OpenDOAR, ROAR) to underpin Green, though, post Finch, it will also be necessary to consider Gold OA mechanisms more fully. Wave 2 will focus on “micro-services” (N.B. I don’t fully understand what this means…)
I participated in a break-out session on deposit and learned more about RJ Broker from Ian Stewart and was interested to hear the level of engagement from publishers though I’m not sure I’m entirely clear of the advantages over WoS / Scopus APIs increasingly implemented by CRIS (and repositories) though appreciate it could be a valuable alternative especially where institutions don’t subscribe to the commercial providers (it was pointed out though that CRIS aren’t generally compatible with SWORD which is the mechanism that RJ Broker utilises). There was an interesting and less formal discussion around some of this with JISC’s Balviar Notay, James Toon and others in the pub later and Balviar did convince me of the importance of RJ Broker in terms of cultural change.
This morning before I rushed off I attended a session on Augmented content, I confess to not fully understanding the technicalities of first presentation on “Augmenting open repositories with a social functions ontology” but it was interesting nevertheless and made me consider just how static and unsocial many of our repositories still are. “Microblogging Macrochallenges for Repositories” was good fun and I might even have a go at implementing it myself though did make me wonder whether there would be any issues with Twitter’s ToS. The 3rd and final presentation of the session was “Beyond Bibliographic Metadata: Augmenting the HKU IR” a very impressive CRIS like implementation of DSpace at Hong Kong University.
A cup of tea and half an hour’s networking brought us to my final session of the conference, another round of Pecha Kucha presentations collectively organised around “National Infrastructures” and including a presentation from UKCoRRs very own Paul Stainthorp. Paul’s slides are available at http://paulstainthorp.com/2012/07/11/oa-the-noo-my-ukcorr-pecha-kucha-slides-from-or2012-in-edinburgh/
All in all a hugely enjoyable and informative couple of days and with plenty more to come for those still in Edinburgh, the full programme is available at https://www.conftool.net/or2012/sessions.php and I for one will be keeping at least one eye on the #or2012 hashtag.
I’m very excited to be attending the 7th, though my 1st, International Conference on Open Repositories next week in Edinburgh – http://or2012.ed.ac.uk/. All four members of the committee will be there and I expect to bump into more than a few UKCoRR folk along the way. Jackie (Secretary) is also there in her role as Open Access adviser at the Repository Support Project and Gareth (Chair), Dominic (External Liaison Officer) and me (Technical Officer), along with several UKCoRR colleagues, are helping to facilitate the RSP workshop on Monday, “Building a successful national network: how we did it in the UK and where we’re going”. The workshop is very well subscribed with delegates from all over the world. Later in the week, on Wednesday, Paul (Web & Publicity Officer) and Dominic are presenting a Pecha Kucha on UKCoRR and I’m doing one on Tuesday on “Open Metrics for Open Repositories”.
For the full conference programme see https://www.conftool.net/or2012/sessions.php and to connect with delegates, whether you are attending or not, you can join the crowdvine at http://or2012.crowdvine.com/ or follow the hashtag #OR2012 on Twitter. I also plan to blog here and at http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/
Remember too that Gareth and Jackie are moving on to new things very soon so if you do see them perhaps buy them a drink!
See you in Scotland!