CRIS + Open Access Report from the 2nd euroCRIS seminar, Brussels, 2004 Anne Asserson University of...

CRIS + Open Access

Report from the 2nd euroCRIS seminar, Brussels, 2004

Anne Asserson

University of Bergen

Budapest, November 2004 Anne Asserson, University of Bergen 2

2nd Seminar, Palace of the Academies, Brussels20-21 September 2004

CRIS + Open Access =

The Route to Research Knowledge

on the GRIDInformation exchange through institutional repositories and

the European Research Area (ERA)


Background

• OA (Open Access) and GRIDs are two of the hottest topics in IT at the moment.

• Both are extremely relevant to CRISs (Current Research Information Systems)

• euroCRIS took this opportunity to bring together a group of experts in all aspects of the subject area to share experiences and produce both insight and a way forward.


Background

– ESF– EARMA– ALLEA– CODATA– ERCIM

And, of course, the EC


We believe the topics has an interest to our strategicpartners as follows:

(1) ESF: publication quality of scholarly work in Europe;(2) EARMA: evaluation of research, league tables,

bibliometrics and scientometrics;(3) CODATA: publishing metadata standards and the

interfacing to original scientific datasets;(4) ALLEA: publishing through and for learned societies;(5) ERCIM: IT to support the process, intersection with the

DELOS network and associated projects


The rationale behind the OA + CRIS• will open access publishing be acceptable to researchers to make

their work and themselves known, and to encourage scholarly dialogue;

• will open access publishing be acceptable to research evaluators forming ‘league tables’ of research organisations;

• will the open access archives be – personal (self-archiving), – institutional (knowledge of an organisation) or – maintained by a scientific community (a learned society or a

publisher acting for the community)• will the open access material be available toll-free or charged;• will reviewing be continued as now • will access be through websearch and harvesting or through

controlled metadata with thesauri;


• The seminar addressed the relationship between CRISs (Current Research Information Systems) and OA (Open Access) Systems;

• bringing together systems for managing R&D with systems for providing open access to scholarly publishing – the major visible output of R&D – on the emerging European GRIDs infrastructure.

• The debate over OA is very active with ‘green’ (institutional repository self-archiving) and ‘gold’ (author / institution pays publishing) as competing but also complementary processes.

• The major publishers are experimenting with ‘gold’ services while ‘green’ institutional repositories are growing fast.


Key discussion points arising from the sessions

• Open Access (OA) and the threat to Publishers • Peer Review and Evaluation• The Scientific Process as a Workflow• CRIS, OA and GRIDs• Conclusions• Roadmap for the partners and ……


• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• The Value Chain• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer• The Way forward• Recommendation• Issues for discussion


Open Access In whose interest?• Author

– Wider access, citation– But maybe less prestigious than traditional route– Effort to deposit

• Institution– Collection of intellectual property– Check on IPR/patenting– Quality of publication (reputation)

• Reader– free and electronic

‘scientific freedom versus institutional management’


Open Access The threat to Publishers

• The cost of library subscriptions rises inexorably and faster than inflation;

• Libraries are forced to cancel journal subscriptions• However, researchers have two potentially conflicting

requirements: – to have their work disseminated as widely as possible

(which favours OA) and – to have their work published through channels with

prestige (which favours conventional or ‘OA gold’ publishing)

.


Open Access Barriers

• Copyright– Licence to use / publish

• Peer review• Journal colleges• Learned societies• Free annotation


Open Access Repositories

• Subject based E.g. ArXiv– Community building

• Institutional– IPR– Curation– Public relations


Open Access Publication Quality

• ISI and its use– Problems by area (e.g. social science)– Problems by coverage within area

• Other approaches– citeseer


Open AccessCRIS

• Linkage CRIS + OA– CRIS associative scientific management data– Access to R&D primary data– OSS (Open Source Software)– DC (Dublin Core) and its problems, not formalized

enough– Formalised DC to form bridge


Open AccessMetadata

• Fundamentally important– E.g. for OAI-PMH, Open Archives Initiative Protocol

for Metadata Harvesting• Dublin Core

– Simple– Qualified– Formal

• Link to the Semantic Web/the GRID• Link to CRIS


Open AcessAccess

• Distributed query access– E.g. Z39.50

• Harvesting to ‘catalog’ then query on catalog and link to object of interest– E.g. Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata

Harvesting (OAI-PMH) plus query system– (and in CRIS world ERGO)


CRIS + Open Access and GRIDNew Technologies

• GRIDS – How to use GRID for CRIS and Open Access– High capacity network– Massive compute power– Massive data stores / databases


• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• The Value Chain• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer• The Way forward• Recommendation• Issues for discussion


CRIS + Open Access and GRIDHow can a CRIS facilitate OA?

• GRIDs, especially through the NGG (Next Generation GRID) Reports ( www.cordis.lu/ist/grids ) has emerged as a vision for a European IT ‘surface’ now being implemented progressively.

• CRISs provide both a context for evaluation of - and understanding the background to – scholarly publication.

• CRISs also provide a management framework for R&D in institutions from funding agencies through national laboratories to universities, as well as a mechanism for interoperating research and development information

http://www.cordis.lu/ist/grids


CRIS + Open Access and GRIDCRIS+OA= The Route to Research Knowledge on the GRID

The GRID

OA Repositories(the knowledge)

CRISs(the management tool)


CRIS + Open Access and GRIDCRIS+OA= The Route to Research Knowledge on the GRID

• CRIS: management of R&D activity through information – better decisions– better technology transfer / innovation / exploitation

• Open Access: open access to R&D knowledge – easy knowledge availability– Improved R&D quality

• GRID: A universal computation, information and knowledge surface– The basis for the future of Europe


CRIS + Open Access and GRIDCRIS + OA

• Linkage CRIS + OA– CRIS associative scientific management data– R&D primary data– OSS – DC and its problems– Formalised DC to form bridge


• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer• The Way forward• Recommendation • Issues for discussion


The Scientific Publishing process Science as a process within a Grids environment

Submit proposal

Prepare experiment

Generateresults

Analyseresults

Write report

Provenancemetadata + access

conditionsdata

description ++ +datalocation

Related material

Collecting the metadata can then become part of the experimental support environment

CRISDA IR

(Matthews, Brussels 2004)


The Scientific Publishing process Will Researchers Accept?

• Traditional freedom of researchers• Institution might have different interest

– IPR – exploitation– Quality - reputation

• Retention of copyright• Workflow in institution

– researcher has to trade freedom for institutional management objectives


The Scientific Publishing process Peer review

• Both ‘gold’ and ‘green’ maintain existing peer review mechanisms. • However, there is evidence that the system is not working optimally;

there is the well-known pattern of one good, one bad and one neutral review from three referees, making it difficult to decide on publication.

• There was discussion of ‘free annotation’ peer review – possible given widely-used OA institutional repositories - but this found no favour and the present ‘peer review college’ system was preferred – at least until a better process is found.

• On evaluation there was much concern that funding organisations might utilise the ISI system in an unsophisticated way – e.g. to partition funding among institutions - when it is known to have uneven coverage both across and within disciplines.


The Scientific Publishing processCitation

• There was interest in a European equivalent of ISI which could correct these imbalances.

• There was support for automated citation systems over open access publications as pioneered by citebase/citeseer. It was further noted that accesses to OA publications are measured conveniently and provide some evidence of quality.

• The key role played by CERIF-compliant CRISs in linking publications to persons, organisational units, projects, events, facilities, equipment, patents and products was recognised.


• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• The Value Chain• Options and Offerings of Open Access• The Way forward• Recommendation • Issues for discussion


The Value Chain

• Concept introduced by Hans Roosendaal at University of University

• A method to describe the publishing process


Value chain Scientific Publication

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88

1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4:

5:5:6:6:7:7:8:8:

authorauthorpublisherpublisherreviewer reviewer publisherpublisher

agentagentuniversityuniversitylibrarylibraryreaderreader


Value ChainTotal availability

11 88

1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4:

5:5:6:6:7:7:8:8:




Value ChainUse

11 22 33 44 88

1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4:

5:5:6:6:7:7:8:8:




Availability

11 66 33 66 88

1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4:

5:5:6:6:7:7:8:8:




• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• Options and Offerings of Open Access• The Way forward• Recommendation from the seminar• Roadmap for the partners• Issues for discussion


What does Open Access offer?Gold and Green

• ‘gold’ : via commercial publishers– e-journals, work free at point of delivery– Author (or author institution) pays to publish– Copyright transferred but author right to ‘self archive’

• ‘green’ : via OA repositories– Author deposits work in OA repository

• In parallel with ‘gold’ or conventional publishing (paper or e-)• Only in repository

– Copyright retained by author



• Change the Business Model GOLD

– Author creates the work and sends to journal charge– Peer review

• Conventional, e- or paper no charge– Published by placing in proprietary OA repository (each publisher

/journal different) no charge

– Accessed in proprietary repository (each publisher /journal different) no

charge



• Change the Business Model GREEN– Author creates the work and deposits in institutional repository

no charge– Peer review

• Online by using annotation no charge• Learned Societies kitemark charged

– Published by harvesting repositories directly on query or via subject-based repository catalogues

no charge– but repository has to be set up/maintained

cost



• And just to confuse, a different version of GREEN• OA repositories but NOT institutional• Based on subject / community

– E.g. ArXiv



• A little history– Original idea of OA– Budapest OAI Declaration 200202– Bethesda Declaration 200306– Berlin Declaration 200310– OECD Declaration 200401


• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer?• The Way forward• Recommendation • Issues for discussion


The Way Forward

• ‘green OA’ – Does not prejudice any business model

• It can exist alongside any of them– Provides a record of organisational IP– Problems

• Copyright– But now 50% - 80% of publishers allow

• Peer review– Could pay learned societies (kitemark)– Or use annotation


The Way Forward

• OAI: Open Archives Initiative• Provides a protocol for metadata harvesting (OAI-PMH)• Harvests metadata from repositories to provide catalogs• Protocol messages in XML

– Header– Metadata (in DC) describing resource– About (e.g. rights, provenance)


Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)

<header> <identifier>oai:arXiv.org:cs/0112017</identifier> <datestamp>2002-02-28</datestamp> <setSpec>cs</setSpec> <setSpec>math</setSpec> </header>

<metadata> <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"> <dc:title>Using Structural Metadata to Localize Experience of Digital Content</dc:title> <dc:creator>Dushay, Naomi</dc:creator> <dc:subject>Digital Libraries</dc:subject> <dc:description>With the increasing technical sophistication of both information consumers and providers, there is increasing demand for more meaningful experiences of digital information. We present a framework that separates digital object experience, or rendering, from digital object storage and manipulation, so the rendering can be tailored to particular communities of users. </dc:description> <dc:description>Comment: 23 pages including 2 appendices, 8 figures</dc:description> <dc:date>2001-12-14</dc:date> <dc:type>e-print</dc:type> <dc:identifier>http://arXiv.org/abs/cs/0112017</dc:identifier> </oai_dc:dc> </metadata> <about> <provenance xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/provenance" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/provenance http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/provenance.xsd"> <originDescription harvestDate="2002-02-02T14:10:02Z" altered="true"> <baseURL>http://the.oa.org</baseURL> <identifier>oai:r2.org:klik001</identifier> <datestamp>2002-01-01</datestamp> <metadataNamespace>http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/</metadataNamespace> </originDescription> </provenance> </about>


The Way ForwardMetadata

– DC too informal – machine readable not machine understandable

– Even ‘qualified’ DC– Proposal for ‘formalised’ DC (1999, 2004)


The Way Forward(DC compared with) Formalised DC

<TITLE> A Distributed Architecture to Provide Uniform Access to Pre-Existing Independent, Heterogeneous Information Systems </TITLE>

<TITLE> <language> en </language> <title> A Distributed Architecture to Provide Uniform Access to Pre-Existing Independent, Heterogeneous Information Systems </title> </TITLE>

<CREATOR> Naldi F, Jeffery K G, Bordogna G, Lay J O, Vannini-Parenti I</CREATOR>

<PERSON> <role>author</role> <person> Naldi F </person> </PERSON> <PERSON><role>author</role> <person> Jeffery K G </person> </PERSON><PERSON><role>author</role> <person> Bordogna G </person> </PERSON><PERSON><role>author</role> <person> Lay J O </person> </PERSON> <PERSON><role>author</role> <person> Vannini-Parenti I </person> </PERSON>



<SUBJECT>Current Research Information Systems; legacy; heterogeneous; distributed; protocol; communications; data; exchange</SUBJECT>

<SUBJECT><language>en</language> <scheme> RALClassification </scheme> <subject> Current Research Information Systems </subject> </SUBJECT>

<KEYWORDS> <language> en </language> <scheme> UKThesaurus </scheme> <keywords> legacy; heterogeneous; distributed; protocol; communications; data; exchange </keywords> </KEYWORDS>

<DESCRIPTION>A system named EXIRPTS has been built which demonstrates access over distributed multilingual information systems of R&D projects. The system resolves problems of resource location and utilises a catalog technique for metadata which allows the end-user to have a homogenous view over heterogeneous information</DESCRIPTION>

<DESCRIPTION> <language> en </language> <description> A system named EXIRPTS has been built which demonstrates access over distributed multilingual information systems of R&D projects. The system resolves problems of resource location and utilises a catalog technique for metadata which allows the end-user to have a homogenous view over heterogeneous information </description> </DESCRIPTION>



<PUBLISHER>Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX UK </PUBLISHER>

<ORGUNIT> <role>publisher</role><orgunit> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX UK </orgunit> </ORGUNIT>

< CONTRIBUTOR> Wright, L, Daniels,T </CONTRIBUTOR>

<PERSON> <role> contributor </role> <person> Wright, L </person> <role> proofreader </role> <person> Daniels, T </person> </PERSON>

<DATE>1992</DATE> <COVERAGE TEMPORAL> <project> 1988-1991 </project> <publication> 1992 </publication> </COVERAGE TEMPORAL>

<TYPE>Technical Report</TYPE> <RESOURCETYPE> <scheme> RALLibrary </scheme> <language> en </language> <resourcetype>TechnicalReport </resourcetype> </RESOURCETYPE>



<FORMAT>Word2</FORMAT> (note handled by conventional MIME typing)

<IDENTIFIER>RAL 92-003</IDENTIFIER> <RESOURCEIDENTIFIER> <scheme>RALLibrary</scheme> <resourceidentifier>RAL92-003 </resourceidentifier> <scheme>referencelist</scheme> <resourceidentifier>[NaJeBoLaVa92] </resourceidentifier> </RESOURCEIDENTIFIER>

<SOURCE > [null]

Note: done using relationships between resources referenced by UniqueId

<RELATION> [JeLaMiZaNaVa89] </RELATION> <uniqueid> <RAL92-003> </uniqueid> <role> preliminary investigation </role> <uniqueid> [JeLaMiZaNaVa89] </uniqueid>



<COVERAGE> Europe,1983-1991 </COVERAGE>

<COVERAGE SPATIAL> <scheme> LatLong </scheme> <coordinates>10W35N-30E80N </coordinates> <precision> 5degrees </precision> </COVERAGE SPATIAL><COVERAGE TEMPORAL> <scheme> years </scheme> <constraints> [1983<x>1991] </constraints> </COVERAGE TEMPORAL>

<RIGHTS> Copyright Rutherford Appleton Laboratory 1992 </RIGHTS>

(note handled separately with access, privacy security etc)


The Way ForwardExtensions: Rights

WHERE <CHARGEAMOUNT> is extended with sub-elements as follows:<CHARGEAMOUNT> <currency> <amount> </CHARGEAMOUNT>

<UNIQUEID> RAL92-003 </ UNIQUEID >

<RIGHTS> <UNIQUEID> <SECURITYSCHEME> <SECURITYLEVELCONSTRAINTS>

<RIGHTS> < UNIQUEID > <PRIVACYSCHEME> <PRIVACYLEVELCONSTRAINTS>

<RIGHTS> < UNIQUEID > <ACCESSRIGHTSSCHEME> <ACCESSLEVELCONSTRAINTS>

<RIGHTS> < UNIQUEID > <CHARGINGSCHEME> <CHARGEAMOUNT>


A Way ForwardExtension: Quality Assessment


< UNIQUEID > <relation> <ANNOTATION> <PERSON>

Note: this allows multiple annotations

where <ANNOTATION> is extended with sub-elements as follows:

<ANNOTATION> <language> <representation> <format> </ANNOTATION>

and

<PERSON> may be extended with the additional subfield <DSig> for digital signature.


A Way ForwardExtension: Classification


< UNIQUEID > <CLASSIFICATIONSCHEME> <CLASSIFICATIONVALUE>

Where <Classification Scheme> may be ISI SCI (scientific citation index) or Google links to the page or anything else.


A Way ForwardPublications

UniqueIdPerson OrgUnit

Security

Privacy

AccessLevel

Charge

Restrictive

Annotation

Classification

Quality Assessment

OrgUnit

UniqueId

Domain of CERIF

PersonProject

ResourceIdentifier

Subject

Keywords

Description

Resource Type

Coverage Temporal

Coverage Spatial

TitleDescriptive

Navigational


• Background for the September Seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and the GRID• The Scientific Publishing Process• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer• Recommendations• Issues for Discussion


RecommendationsMetadata

• the need to improve quantity (detail) and quality of metadata to assist in retrieving relevant OA scholarly publications;

• a similar need for quality metadata for primary scientific data and associated OSS (Open source software);

• the need to find consensus on a scientific workflow and – within it – a publications workflow with incremental metadata input at appropriate stages;

• ;


Recommendations The Scientific Workflow

• the partners will assist their communities in setting up scientific workflows with incremental metadata collection as an integral part of the process in order to improve the metadata quality associated with scientific products;

• There was interest in a European equivalent of ISI which could correct these imbalances.

• There was support for automated citation systems over open access publications as pioneered by citebase/citeseer. It was further noted that accesses to OA publications are measured conveniently and provide some evidence of quality.


Recommendation the GRID

• the partners will encourage their communities to utilise GRIDs as the general IT architectural surface to assist with interoperable and economic realisations of CRIS + OA

• the partners will encourage the community to utilise GRIDs as the IT surface to assist with CRIS + OA

• the need to utilise GRIDs to improve the CRIS+OA environment with ready access to information, computation and primary scientific data in an easy-to-use environment


Recommendation GREEN and GOLD

• The need to push for ‘pure green’ institutional OA repositories because they do not impact publishers yet make publications freely available and because they encourage institutions to curate their intellectual property;

• the need to evaluate further the true costs and benefits of ‘gold’ publishing; at present not all publisher charges are known and the potential impact in a published ‘gold’ journal may be greater than in a ‘green’ institutional repository with or without conventional publishing;


Recommendations CERIF

• The key role played by CERIF-compliant CRISs in linking publications to persons, organisational units, projects, events, facilities, equipment, patents and products was recognised.

• the partners will encourage the community to utilise CERIF – and particularly CERIF extended with formalised Dublin Core for OA publications – in order to maximise interoperability of CRISs in Europe;


Recommendations Seminar

• The participants concluded that the seminar topic was critically important to Europe and the ERA and that we should continue to cooperate to push forward the infrastructure to assure the future of Europe led by R&D supported by CRISs including linking them with OA institutional repositories.

• the strategic partners will create opportunities for cooperative working to further their joint interests and improve

• annual series will be continued addressing topics of importance to the research community in Europe;


• Background for the seminar• Open Access• CRIS + Open Access and GRID• The Scientific Publishing process• Options of Open Access• What does Open Access offer• The Way forward• Recommendation from the seminar• Issues for discussion


Key discussion points

• Open Access (OA) and the threat to Publishers

• Peer Review and Evaluation• The Scientific Process as a Workflow• CRIS, OA and GRIDs• Roadmap for the partners

Date post:	24-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	josephine-conley
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

CRIS + Open Access Report from the 2nd euroCRIS seminar, Brussels, 2004 Anne Asserson University of...

Documents