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


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


‘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


‘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


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


Open ‘Access’ (dissemination)

The whole process of scholarly communication is evolving

… perfectly naturally

… with all the constraints and patterns that evolutionary theory would predict


And yet …

Still only 15% of research is Open Access


Open Access: How?

Open Access journals (www.doaj.org)

Open Access repositories (author ‘self-archiving’)


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?


Open Access: What is it? Online Immediate Free (non-restricted) Free (gratis) To the scholarly literature that

authors give away Permanent


Open Access: Who benefits?

Benefits to researchers themselves Benefits to institutions Benefits to national economies Benefits to science and society


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


Open Access increases citations

0 50 100 150 200 250

% increase in citations with Open Access

BiologyEconomics

Political SciHealth SciBusiness

EducationManagement

LawPsychology

SociologyPhysics


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


“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.”


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%)


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


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


National economies

Since the Turkish Government invested $100m in S&T in 2005 …..

This means lost impact worth $42.5m to the Turkish economy


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


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


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


Find a researcher …..


Follow citing articles


Measure usage and impact


Analyse via the citing trail


New knowledge from old

Data-mining Text-mining (semantic Web

technologies) UK: National Text-Mining Centre Example: NeuroCommons

(www.neurocommons.org)


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


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


Institutionally-based repositories

800+ Half are institutional or

departmental Growth of 1 per day, but… Average number of postprints

is 297!


CERN archive


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


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


Coffee!


What your institution can do for the repository


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


A few more statistics

There are circa 800 repositories globally

There are 32 documented policies

There are 10 mandates


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


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


Third component: advocacy

Sometimes in the absence of either a policy or mandate; sometimes alongside these

Advocacy – sustained and organised

Advocacy - opportunistic


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


Mandates

Proposed mandates: public funders (Canada, Australia, S.Africa, Ukraine, USA and EU)

Real mandates: Wellcome Trust RCUK (Research Councils UK)


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


UK

Wellcome Trust ($750m) Research Councils UK

4 out of 8 have a mandate and 1 has a strong encouragement


Funder / institutional policies and mandates

Policies Mandates

Funders 8 4

Institutional repositories

24 6


Author readiness to comply with a mandate

0 20 40 60 80 100

% respondents

Would complywillingly

Would complyreluctantly

Would notcomply

81%

14%

5%


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 …


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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”


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.”


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


Author readiness to comply with a mandate

0 20 40 60 80 100

% respondents

Would complywillingly

Would complyreluctantly

Would notcomply

81%

14%

5%


Publisher permissions (by journal)

79%

13%

8%

'Green' (postprints) 'Pale green' (preprints) 'Grey' (neither yet)


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


http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

Linking UK repositories User requirements – what

services are needed? Roles and responsibilities

involved Technical architecture Business models



Services built onto repositories

Patterns for repositories


Purdue University’s model


Thank you for listening

[email protected]

www.keyperspectives.co.uk

www.keyperspectives.com


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/

http://www.keyperspectives.com/

ankos workshop 2006: the institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the...

Documents

science key perspectives

impact key perspectives

open access key perspectives

work key perspectives

institution key perspectives

efficient key perspectives

permanent key perspectives

society key perspectives