Southampton Institutional Research Repository

University Medical School Librarians Group (UMSLG) 7-8 July 2005

University of Edinburgh

Pauline Simpson

National Oceanography Centre, Southampton

NOC is one of the world’s leading centres for research and education in marine and earth sciences, for the development of marine technology and for the provision of large scale infrastructure and support for the marine research community

Joint Venture between Natural Environment Research Council and the

University of SouthamptonResearch-led multidisciplinary university:20,000 students5000 staff (3000 researchers)

Multidisciplinary University

(20 schools)

• Engineering, Science and Mathematics

• Law, Arts and Social Sciences

• Medicine, Health and Life Sciences

• Centres/Institutes• Joint Ventures• Professional Services

Faculty of Medicine,Health and Life Sciences

• School of Biological Sciences• School of Health Professions and Rehab

Sciences• School of Medicine• School of Nursing and Midwifery• School of Psychology• Health Care Innovation Unit.

Outline

• Open Access Context

• OA Routes : publishing and repositories

• Southampton case study

Open Access

• Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.

• OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and OA should applyto the full-text, not just to abstracts or summaries.

• OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions).

See JISC briefing paper on Open Access April 2005 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_openaccess

Historical Context: Subversive Proposal (1994)

• 27 Jun 1994 Stevan Harnad’s ‘Subversive Proposal’ leading tothe open access vision for scholarly material

( “Faustian Bargain” with publishers – a price tag barrier to research)

– Harnad, S. (1995) A Subversive Proposal.In: Ann Okerson & James O'Donnell (Eds.) Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: a Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing.Washington, DC., Association of Research Libraries, June 1995.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/subvert.html

http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html

– In an ideal world of scholarly communication – all research should be freely available

But journals become more and more expensive (serials crisis)

• journals are the primary research publication channel• journal publishing is dominated by commercial ventures

• Researchers write papers for journals (free or page charges!)• Researchers transfer copyright to publishers (free)• Researchers on Editorial Board (free)• Researchers review papers (free)

BUT

• Libraries pay huge subscriptions to publishers to access the paper(and electronic) and universities pay more than once: subscription, photocopying license and for study packs

• Or possibly they cannot afford the subscription

The Global Journals Problem

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01

Journal price index

Current serials

Journal expenditure

Book price index

Books acquired

Book expenditure

Retail Price index

• Dissatisfaction with the current scholarly communication model

• Even the wealthiest institution cannot purchase access to all the information that all of its researchers require

• Site-licenses and consortia deals have helped, but mainly in the richest countries; though good examples of deals for developing countries (INASP)

• Many commercial publishers charge extra for online access – so causing more pressure on budgets

PROJECTED

PERIODICAL

PRICE

INCREASES

TO

2020

(Blixrud 2002)

1774 %

1986-2000Journal price inflation +291%Retail price index + 70%

1986-2000Journal price inflation +291%Retail price index + 70%

The Situation Today –Dissatisfaction at All Levels

• Authors• Their work is not seen by all their peers – they do not

get the recognition they desire• Despite subscriptions, they often have to pay page

charges, colour figure charges, reprint charges, etc.• Often the rights they have given up in exchange for

publication mean there are things that they cannot do with their own work

• Readers• They cannot view all the research literature they need

– they are less effective• Libraries

• Cannot satisfy the information needs of their users• Society

• We all lose out if the communication channels are not optimal.

Solution –alter the research landscape

Open Access to Researchfreely accessible, more visible, immediately available, free at the point of use

2 complementary routes– Open access journals

• No payment by author = open access or subscription• Publishing model – author pays = OA

– Open access archives or repositories• Author deposit of full text of articles, conference papers,

reports, theses, learning objects, multimedia etc. -Scoped by need

Open Access –gaining high level support

Political Interest:

– UK Science and Technology Committee Inquiry: Scientific Publications: Free for all? Jun 2004

(82 recommendations)

• Require that authors deposit a copy of their articles in theirinstitution’s repository within one month of publication.

• Review copyright and, provided it does not have a negative impactmake it a condition of grant that authors retain copyrightin their papers.

• Provide as part of research grants, monies to allowpayment of charges for publication in Open Access journals

Institutional Repositories– UK HEIs to set up IRs– Response – up to institutions– British Library to be supported to provide digital preservation

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm

Open Access –gaining high level support

US Congress working with National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop new access policy (Feb 2005)

– Copies of all papers reporting research funded by NIH ($28 billion) will be deposited in PubMed Central by date specified by the authoras soon as possible after acceptance of final peer reviewed manuscript (and within 12 months of the publisher's official date of final

publication)

Approximately 60,000 papers each year will be made freely available

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html

Open Access –gaining high level support

• The Wellcome Trust announced (May 2005) that from 1st October 2005, all papers from new research projects must be deposited in PubMed Central or a UK PubMed Central – once it has been formed -within 6 months of publication.

• Looking for partners to set up UK PubMed Central

• £400 million producing 3500 papers per year

• (PubMed Central Feb 2000 - )

Reflects the view of 8 research councils (28 Jun 2005)

Mandate

• Research Grants awarded from 1 October 2005 will requiregrant holders to copy any resultant published journal articlesor conference proceedings in an appropriate e-print repositoryeither institutional or thematic

• Subject to copyright and licensing arrangements• Wherever possible at or around the time of publication• No obligation to set up a repository where none

exists at present

• Will allow applicants to include predicted cost of publication in author-pays journals in fEC project costings

RCUK

Next steps

RCUK Position Statement published on the RCUK website on 28 June 2005

Remains a consultative document until 31 August 2005 while:

• The remaining HEI responses are collected • Formal comments from the British Library are awaited• RCUK engages in detailed dialogue with the Learned

Societies on a possible future role for them in the peerreview process

• Continue in a wider grouping to address otherconcerns eg Preservation

Open access –gaining high level support

Funders indicate commitment to open access through endorsement

• Howard Hughes & Andrew Mellon Foundations in USA fund OA/IR Projects

– Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access 2003

Germany: Fraunhofer Society, Wissenschaftsrat, HRK, MaxPlanck Society, Leibniz Association, Helmholtz Association,German Research Foundation, Deutscher BibliotheksverbandFrance: CNRS, INSERMAustria: FWF Der WissenschaftsfondsBelgium: Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek –

Vlaanderen)Greece: National Hellenic Research Foundation

Open Access –gaining high level support

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

‘Promoting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social Development ‘

‘…an optimum international exchange of data, information and knowledge contributes decisively to the advancement of scientificresearch and innovation’ and ‘…open access will maximise the value derived from public investment in data collection efforts.’

http://dataaccess.ucsd.edu/Final_Report_2003.pdf

*** 30+ nations have signed

Declarations on Open Access

• Peter Suber - Timeline of the Open Access Movement -http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

• The IFLA Statement on Open Access to Scholarly Literature and Research Documentationhttp://www.ifla.org/V/cdoc/open-access04.html

• Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (Max Planck) (Oct 2003) Now nearly 50 signatories

• Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (Jun 2003)• Buenos Aires• British Columbia• Scotland (2005) 16 Universities and Research Orgs• Russell Group (UK Universities) 2005

• Budapest Open Access Initiative Feb 2002 (Soros Open Society)

Budapest Open Access Initiative2002

Open Society Institute (George Soros) offered funding to achieve

Two complementary strategies:

• Self-Archiving: Scholars should be able to deposit theirrefereed journal articles in open electronic archives whichconform to

Open Archives Initiative standards - OAI Metadata Harvesting Protocolwhich creates potential for interoperability between Repositories by enablingmetadata from a number of archives to be collected together in one searchabledatabase.

• Open-Access Journals: Journals will not charge subscriptions or fees for online access. Instead, they should look to other sources to fund peer-review and publication(e.g., publication charges)

Open Access Journals

Ideally

• Peer reviewed articles• Accessed online without charge• No author/page charges

• Publisher’s model– No Author payment = subscription (‘toll’) access– Author pays – open access

• BioMed Central - $500 per article• Public Library of Science - $1500• National Academy Of Sciences - $1000• American Institute of Physics - $2000• European Geosciences Union - $20 per page

Theory Into Practice -Open Access Journals

• PLoS Biology (launched October 2003)and PLoS Medicine (launched October 2004)

• BioMed Central (published 4500+ papers) and nowcited in ISI journals building Impact Factors

• New Journal of Physics• Indian Academy of Sciences (Learned Society) has

made their 11 journals available free online

• Lund Directory of Open Access Journals – over 1641 peer review open access journals

(http://www.doaj.org/)

The alternative :Repositories (open archives, e-Print archives)

JISC Report ‘Delivery, Management and Access Model for e-Prints and open access journals … (Jul 2004) makes distinction - e-Print Archives = material in journals; e-Print Repositories = grey literature and other data as well as published journal materials

• Digital collections of research output placed there by their authors, either before or after publication:

What are the essential elements?• Institutionally , subject or nationally defined: Content

generated by the community• Scholarly content:, published articles, books, book sections, preprints

and working papers, conference papers, enduring teaching materials, student theses, data-sets, etc.

• Cumulative & perpetual: preserve ongoing access to material• Interoperable & open access: free, online, global

Repository benefits

• For the IndividualProvide a central archive of their workIncrease the dissemination and impact of their researchActs as a full CV and research reporting tool

• For the InstitutionIncreases visibility and prestigeActs as an advertisement to funding sources, potential new faculty and students, etc.

• For SocietyProvide access to the world’s researchEnsures long-term preservation of institutes’ academic output

Repository Choices

• Institutions• Departments• Disciplines• Long term projects• Funding Agencies• Conferences• Publishers• Personal• National• International (Internet Archive – ‘Universal’ )• Data Archives

Institutional Archives Registry http://archives.eprints.org/Directory of Open Access Repositories –

Lund University and Nottingham University UK

Discipline based repositories

• Early e-Print services subject based and hosted by a single institution. Rely on distributed researchers remotely depositing their papers using the self archiving protocol

– ArXiv (Los Alamos now at Cornell) (1991) set up by Paul Ginsparg and Richard Luce for high energy physics community( now physics incl Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, Math, Computing Science and nonlinear science).

• Despite success of Los Alamos and others - RePec(Economics), Cogprints (Cognitive Psychology), Mathematics, etc – varying success by other subject communities (Chemistry Preprints Server finished)

Institutional Repositories

contents of these archives are created and stored locally in an archive specific to and limited to one institution.

• 2000 - Complementary model - Offering both self archiving and mediated archiving to researchers

– Institutions can provide the supporting technical, organisational and cultural infrastructure

– Direct interest in exposing their research output

– Promote the institutions research profile

National Repositories

• Service Provider (national aggregator)

• EPrints UK – harvesting from all UK repositories (enhancing metadata using OCLC Automated Subject Classification protocol and name authority service)

Centralised: regionally- or nationally-organised, orsubject-based contents are created in individual

member institutions which upload to one centralised one

• DARE, the Dutch Digital Academic Archives This is a collaborative venture between all Dutch universities (http://www.surf.nl).

• ODINPubAfrica = National, Subject repository for the ocean data and information community in Africa. Deposits to one central repository https://doclib.luc.ac.be/odin )

OAI Gateway Specification –Static Repository

• Institutions that do not have an OAI repository can utilise the newly developed OAI gateway specification.

• This development is intended to lower the barriers to making metadataavailable through the OAI. It works on the basic principle that metadata can be encoded in an XML file (conforming to a specific schema) and mounted of a standard web site, e.g. an author’s or institution’s home page. This file is known as a static repository.

• The URL of the static repository can be registered with an entity known as a ‘static repository gateway’. The gateway reads the metadata file and incorporates it into a fully compliant OAI-PMH service that can subsequently respond to OAI requests.

• The idea is that metadata can be made available from standard web sites and Incorporated into an OAI environment.

Repositories: a truly global movement

• Australian National University ARROW Project - Au$12 million

• Canada – CARL Project (DEST)• Netherlands – DARE Project (SURF)• Hong Kong University• Humboldt University in Berlin• Max Planck Society• Utrecht, Lund,• MIT, CalTech, Library of Congress

• UK – JISC FAIR Project - UK – Glasgow, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol …..

nb. Led by Librarians

UK Context

• HEFCE / JISC Focus on Access to Institutional Resources (FAIR) 2002 - 2005

– To support the disclosure of institutional assets:To support access to and sharing of institutional content within Higher Education and Further Education and to allow intelligence to be gathered about the technical, organisational and cultural challenges of these processes…

Inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)that digital resources can be shared between organisationsbased on a simple mechanism allowing metadata aboutthese resources to be harvested into services

? why INSTITUTIONALRepositories

• Subject or project repositories often linked to an individual or a group – can be transitory - collection at risk eg. Paul Ginsparg to Cornell

• Institutions take responsibility for– Centralising a distributed activity– Framework and Infrastructure– Permanence that can sustain changes– Stewardship of digital assets– Preservation– Provide central digital showcase for the research, teaching and

scholarship of the institution

UK Context - FAIR

JISC FAIR Programme August 2002 -

• £3 million on 14 projects

• Clusters:• Museums and Images• e-Prints• e-theses• IPR• Institutional portals

(New Call for Digital Repositories Proposals in Feb & Jun 2005)

FAIR - ePrints Cluster

• Sharing experiences :• SHERPA: broader - Consortium of University Research Libraries – filling

archives and joint infrastructure ( some 20 universities led by Nottingham University)

• HaIRST: A testbed for Scotland for harvesting Institutional resources led by Strathclyde University (includes 10 FE colleges)

• Daedalus : Glasgow University

• ePrints-UK :harvesting UK e-Print archives

• (E-Theses led by Robert Gordon University & Theses Alive led by Edinburgh University and RoMEo worked within this cluster)

• TARDis: Targeting Academic Resources for Deposit and Dissemination

TARDis built on Southampton visions

• EPrints software had been created at School of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS), Southampton to enable the self archive vision

• ECS already used the software for a publications database –now a sustainable repository

• National Oceanography Centre was an early adopter of e-Prints culture

• Resulting TARDis Project is the collaboration of The University Library, School of Electronics and Computer Science, and Information Systems Services alongside academics as one institution

TARDis : Targeting Academic Resources for Deposit and Dissemination – activities

Investigating practical ways in which university research output can be made more freely available - more accessible, more rapidly – as a fundamental building block of e-Research

• Creating an IR model- Southampton University Research e-Prints (e-Prints Soton)

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk

• Refining Software- feeding back into pioneering EPrints software, good citation and

information management practice experimenting with best balance of assisted deposit and fast track (functionality, fields, interface)

• Supporting ease of use for depositors of different backgrounds with a wide variety of research output

– essential ingredient, working closely with ‘schools’(found that depends so much on publication culture and working practices )

– identifying barriers

TARDis evolution to e-Prints Soton

• Original intent to provide secure storage for the full text of Southampton research output (including post refereed pre published versions of papers deposited by researchers)

• Feedback: from our advocacy, pilot and full service was that e-Prints Soton would provide maximum benefit if the service also assisted researchers with time consuming research metrics

• Evolved to ‘hybrid’ publications database for all research output with full text where available

e-Prints Soton evolution: aiming for full moon at midnight

•Target – academ ic research•Creation of e-Prints Soton•In itia l Advocacy•Environm ental audit•Softw are redesign for IR•M ediation offered•Project cluster collaboration

Institutional ResearchRepository

Full tex t only

Institutional Research R epository w ith full text

w here possible

Institutional Research Repository

w ith RAE m anagem ent

Full Texte-Print Research Archives

•Pilot and Feedback:O ne record – m any outputsSaving academ ics’ tim e

•Policy and strategy change•Redirection to Southam pton University Publications Database•Targeted Advocacy

O pen Access V isionEPrints Softw are

JISC FAIR Program m e

Research Policy Com m itteesUniversity, Faculty and Schools

P ilot Schools

Research ReportingRequirem ents:

University, National, International

•Dem onstrate potential of IR as R AE tool

•Im port existing m etadata•Collaborate w ith researchers

to encourage proactive input•Address authentication and

branding issues•Develop extra functionality

•M oving tow ards sustainableopen access institutionalrepository

•Proactive open accessculture

•Integrated research discovery

– enriched resources:m ultim edia, datasets

O pen Access Paradigm ShiftO ther Institutional Repositories

e-Research

3

4 1

2

Environmental Audit - assessing current practice

Department Total number of publications listed on Web

Full text on Web

Percentage of Publications with full text

Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences Archaeology 252 2 1% English 243 3 1% Modern Languages 160 0 0% Music 280 5 2% Politics 138 6 4% Economics 357 89 25% Maths Education 170 34 20% Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Biology 796 24 3% Medicine 1603 247 15% Health Professions and Rehabilitation Sciences 332 0 0%

Nursing and Midwifery 439 0 0% Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics Chemistry 1128 111 10% Electronics and Computer Science 7008 866 12%

Mathematical Studies 849 310 37% Ocean Circulation and Climate Group, SOES 286 9 3%

James Rennell Division, SOC 792 68 9%

Institutional Repository –Advocacy

• Advocacy needs to be intensive, constant : enthusiast with network and presentation and debating skills, sensitive to organization/school culture

• Medicine– Already use web pages– Already use PubMed– Already have their own publications database– Download– Require sophistication of software before depositing

• Authentication, versioning– Only refereed articles

• Open access journal article discussion (BioMed)– RAE driver

• Nursing and Midwifery– Keyed in 4 years data within a month

Institutional Repositories –author surveys

• JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey (3000 researchers)

– 69% would deposit in IR if required by employer– 3% would not be prepared to do so– 66% thought archiving in IR important– 60% thought publishers should allow it– 75% authors not familiar with IRs – advocacy needed!

SOUTHAMPTON SURVEY– 93% prefer mediated deposit!!

• Researchers have many concerns :• Discipline differences• workload, status quo; content quality control;

authentication, versioning control and of course Copyright

Institutional Repository –Copyright (incl IPR)

Rapidly changing publishers attitudes - moving goalposts!

• Traditionally authors sign over copyright, whether they own it or not!

• As a guide traditional copyright agreements have not allowed authors to:

– Reuse an article as a chapter in a book – Revise or adapt an article – Distribute an article to colleagues – Reproduce copies of an article for teaching purposes– Self archive/make available an article in an repository

– But now 76% of journals allow deposit in institutional repositories – places to check

• Publishers Copyright policies databasehttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

– Publishers who permit self archiving – dynamic search http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?colour=green

• Journals Copyright Policieshttp://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php.

Policy into Practice (1)

• The Name!

• Mandatory Use – dovetailing with present working practices

• Scope - What to deposit - all Research Output, excluding learning objects or administrative documents (at present). Current research or legacy?

• Who can Deposit – what size of footprint?

• Database - one for ease of maintenance (Nottingham x 2; Glasgow x 3)

• Software – multiple choices - OSI Directory of IR SoftwareEssential technical support : customization, functionality

• Deposit Options – we offer choice : self, assisted and fast track deposit

• Mandatory Metadata fields – document dependent - sufficient for citation but too many = barrier to deposit

• Metadata quality – all data is validated. Institutional responsibility requires quality data. QA is labour intensive – what level? Submitted data often poor

Policy into Practice (2)

• Value Added – e-journal URL and abstract

• Full Text v Record – policy linked to Southampton needs, requests for copies

• Import Records – from subject repositories - arXiv, PubMed Central• - from in house publication databases

• File Formats – accept a variety – discipline specific, but thinking about easy dissemination versus preservation.

• File Conversion - Word into pdf, but wish to add conversion tools to interface with guidance for depositors

• Digitization – offer scanning for illustrations not held electronically if text deposited

• Preservation - secure storage is offered.

Legal Issues

• Deposit Agreement and User AgreementLegal documents?Acceptance by click or proceeding through

- Withdrawal of records- Quality assurance - not of content

appoint editors within research groups- IPR

• Important to link with your Legal Affairs Office

Policy into Practice - lessons

• Choose optimum time to introduce- Southampton restructuring

• Interface aesthetics - look and feel is important• Metadata quality is a huge issue• Assisted deposit is time consuming• Sophisticated software functionality expectations

by researchers• Need Champions within your organization …..• Dedicated Technical, Advocacy & Admin support

Institutional Repository –support

• Staff Support / Maintenance (2-3 FTE)- Technical

• Upgrades, interface, functionality

– Information Managers• Advocacy, copyright advice, metadata

guidance (School Liaison Librarians)

– Administrative• Metadata validation, workflows,

documentation, quality assurance ( Institutional Repository implies guarantee of quality)

Nb. Researcher self deposit is the goal

Feedback: Perceived benefits to University, Schools and Researchers

• University profile• School and

discipline visibility• Researcher profile• Full text content

freely accessible• link to learning and

teaching• Increased citations

• Secure storage ofpublications– including also theses

and dissertations, technical reports

• Links to projects and web pages

• Research reporting• Interdisciplinary

research Articles freely available online are more highly cited. For greater impact and faster

scientific progress, authors and publishers should aim to make research easy to access Nature, Volume 411, Number 6837, p. 521, 2001 Steve Lawrence “Online or Invisible?”

Achieving a slower but more sustainable model – the TARDis road

•Target – academic research•Creation of e-Prints Soton•Initial Advocacy•Environmental audit•Software redesign for IR•Mediation offered•Project cluster collaboration

Institutional ResearchRepository

Full text only

Institutional Research Repository with full text

where possible

Institutional Research Repository

with RAE management

Full Texte-Print Research Archives

•Pilot and Feedback:One record –many outputsSaving academics’ time•Policy and strategy change•Redirection to Southampton University Publications Database•Targeted Advocacy

Open Access VisionEPrintsSoftware

JISC FAIR Programme

Research Policy CommitteesUniversity, Faculty and Schools

Pilot Schools

Research ReportingRequirements:

University, National, International

•Demonstrate potential of IR as RAE tool

•Import existing metadata•Collaborate with researchersto encourage proactive input

•Address authentication andbranding issues

•Develop extra functionality

•Moving towards sustainableopen access institutionalrepository

•Proactive open accessculture

•Integrated research discovery

– enriched resources:multimedia, datasets

Open Access Paradigm ShiftOther Institutional Repositories

e-Research

3

4 1

2

•To achieve the original vision we are moving around the clock face

•Collaborating with academics to provide tailored valued services for different disciplines (needing extra functionality)

•Aided by a fast moving shared international movement

All rising to great place is by a winding stairFrancis Bacon

Southampton Press Release 15 Dec 2004

University funded service managed by the University Library

'We see our Institutional Repository as a key tool for the stewardship of the University's digital research assets,' said Professor Paul Curran, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University. 'It will provide greater access to our research, as well as offering a valuable mechanism for reporting and recording it.’

Researchers want to provide one record

• For many purposes …..

• External and internal visibility

Showing benefit of high profileGlobal Web Search Engines -indexed by Google and Google Scholar and SCOPUS …

Global repository search –OAIster now partnered with Yahoo

Link to personal web pages –auto update

Share the glory (interdisciplinary papers) and sell your book too

Secure storage and visibility –branding for a research group

Adding more functionality with ‘Latest feeds’ – by web site and screen at entrance

Screen in foyer – is my paper there?

Hot off the screen

RAE management potential

Simpson, PaulineandHey, Jessie (2005) Forward in time: TARDisand the RAE. JISC Inform, No. 8, p.16.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/14522/

Simpson, Pauline and Hey, Jessie (2005) Forward in time: TARDis and the RAE. JISC Inform, No. 8, p.16. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/14522/

Select your Research Assessment Exercise choices

Add measures of esteem

Data available to Head of School

New JISC Project to design RAE module for use within EPrintsand DSpace software

Then (2002) and Now (2005)

• Open Access little known–High level support–Open access publishing–Open access repositories

• Authors non acceptance–surveys

• Copyright transfer–License to Publish

• Publishers–Changing policies–New publishing models

• Software, few options–Multiple, open source

• Funders no support–Mandate deposit

Scholarly knowledge cycle –a national vision - today:

Learning & Teaching workflows

Research & e-Science workflows

Aggregator services: national, commercial

Repositories : institutional, e-prints, subject, data, learning objects

Data curation: databases & databanks

Institutional presentation services: portals, Learning Management Systems, u/g, p/g courses, modules

Validation

Harvestingmetadata

Data creation / capture / gathering: laboratory experiments, Grids, fieldwork, surveys, media

Resource discovery, linking, embedding

Deposit / self-archiving

Peer-reviewed publications: journals, conference proceedings

Publication

Validation

Data analysis, transformation, mining, modelling

Resource discovery, linking, embedding

Deposit / self-archiving

Learning object creation, re-use

Searching , harvesting, embedding

Quality assurance bodies

Validation

Presentation services: subject, media-specific, data, commercial portals

Resource discovery, linking, embedding

Linking

e-Prints + data + e-learning

When data and documents will be linked automatically and easily accessible

They will be an integral part of the academic work space just as the World Wide Web is today

The Web will acquire meaning and become the Semantic Web

Open Archive protocols and metadata standards are a part of this journey

Next phase includes building on TARDis (sequel)

•TARDis completed its transition to invisibility early in 2005

–PRESERV (Preservation Services for EPrints) - partnering with National Archives File Format Registry (PRONOM) and the British Library

–CLADDIER (Citation, Location and Deposition in Discipline and Institutional Repositories) Linking e-Research. – partnering CCLRC, Reading, NERC

–GRADE (Geospatial Repositories …) – partnering EDINA

Back to the Future !!

•

THANK YOUPauline Simpson

TARDis Project Manager

(ps @noc.soton.ac.uk)