institutional repositories: here, there … and not (yet) everywhere alma swan key perspectives ltd,...

Institutional repositories: Here, there … and not (yet) everywhere

Alma SwanKey Perspectives Ltd, Truro, UK

TICER Summer School, Tilburg, August 2005

Key Perspectives Ltd

A little bit of history…

Computer scientists started self-archiving their articles decades ago

Citeseer (almost 725,000 articles)

Physicists followed

arXiv (300,000 articles)

‘Centralised’ archives (subject-based)


What are institutional repositories?

Electronic archives

Institutional, school or departmental

Depot for:o research articleso datao researcher informationo institutional information


Advantages to an institutionFulfils a university’s mission to engender, encourage and disseminate scholarly workEnables a university to compile a complete record of its intellectual effortForms a permanent record of all digital output from an institutionEnables standardised online CVs for all researchers (e.g. RAE exercise)‘Marketing’ tool for universities


Advantages to researchers

Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress)A location for supporting data that are unpublishedA location for all digital objectsOne-input-many outputs (CVs, publications)


How many institutions have them?Over 400Most are institution-wideSome are departmentalSome are cross-institutionalSome are nationalSome are subject-specificSome contain only specific types of article (e.g. theses/dissertations)


How do you build a repository?

Repository software EPrints (University of Southampton)

CDSWare (CERN)

FEDORA (Cornell U and U of Virginia)

DSpace (MIT)

Server

Technical expertise


What goes into a repository?PostprintsPreprintsSupporting dataConference papersBook chapters (or whole books/monographs)Working papersTechnical reportsTheses/dissertationsCourseware


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

re

spo

nd

en

ts

Postprint

Conference paper

Preprint

Technical report

Working paper

Book chapter

Dissertation or thesis

Courseware

Discussion paper

Software

Monograph

Manual

Video file

Audio file


Electronic survey

Supported by ISI – 25,000 addresses

Report-writing funded by JISC, UK


Respondent profiles I (n=1296)Region Percentage of total respondents

Australia/New Zealand 7

Asia (except China and Japan) 4

China 3

Japan 1

Canada 4

USA 21

Central/South America 6

European union (except UK) 17

Other European countries (exc EU or UK) 10

UK 18

Middle East 4

Africa 4


Respondent profiles II (n=1296)Subject Percentage of total respondents

Agriculture & food science 5Business & management 4Chemistry 6Computer sciences 12Earth & geographical sciences 3Engineering, materials science 8

Humanities 8Law & politics 1Library & information science 6Life sciences 17Mathematics 6Medical sciences 17Physics 7Psychology 9Social sciences & education 10


Why researchers publish

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Communicateresults to peers

Advance career Personal prestige Gain funding Financial reward


Citations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% r

es

po

nd

en

ts

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 Morethan 10

Don'tknow


Are they using OA archives?Not much!

30% respondents

Computer scientists use them most

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

% r

espo

nden

ts Scirus

Citebase

OAIster

OAIIECSP

PKP


Do they do this often?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% r

espondents

Several timesper week

At least onceper week

At least onceper month

< once permonth


Compared with bibliographic databases…

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% r

espo

nden

ts

OA search services Bibliographic searchservices

Several times perweek

At least once perweek

At least once permonth

< once per month


Overall proportion of people using these

‘Traditional’ bibliographic services: 98%

OAI search services: 30%


Though this is hardly surprising…Total number of postprints in UK archives is certainly <10,000 and probably nearer 6,000-7,000

Books and theses <2000

When the content is there – and KNOWN to be there – researchers will use institutional repositories


Ways to self-archive

Place article on web page

Place article in institutional repository

Place article in subject-based repository


Overall self-archiving activity level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% r

espo

nden

ts

Preprint onweb page

Postprint onweb page

Preprint inIR

Postprint inIR

Preprint insubjectarchive

Postprint insubjectarchive


Self-archiving by subject area

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ag

ricu

lture

& fo

od

sci

en

ce

Bu

sin

ess

& m

an

ag

em

en

t

Ch

em

istr

y

Co

mp

ute

r sc

ien

ces

Ea

rth

& g

eo

gra

ph

ica

l sci

en

ces

En

gin

ee

rin

g, m

ate

ria

ls s

ci,

tech

no

log

y

Hu

ma

niti

es

La

w &

po

litic

s

Lib

rary

& in

form

atio

n s

cie

nce

Life

sci

en

ces

Ma

the

ma

tics

Me

dic

al s

cie

nce

s

Ph

ysic

s

Psy

cho

log

y

So

cia

l sci

en

ces

& e

du

catio

n

Preprint on web page Postprint on web page Preprint in institutional archive

Postprint in institutional archive Preprint in subject archive Postprint in subject archive


Self-archiving activities of the 1296 respondents

Carried out 1303 individual acts of self-archiving631 individuals were involved (49% of total)Number of self-archiving acts per person is 2.1Average number of S-A acts is 1.01


Time series data (i)Open access provision method Earlier

surveyPresent survey

Preprint on personal web page 23 18

Postprint on personal web page 22 27

Preprint in departmental or institutional OA archive

4 15

Postprint in departmental or institutional OA archive

10 20

Preprint in a centralised subject-based open archive

7 9

Postprint in a centralised subject-based open archive

7 12


Time series data (ii)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Preprint on webpage

Postprint on webpage

Preprint in IR Postprint in IR Preprint insubject archive

Postprint insubject archive

Earlier survey Present survey


Relationship between self-archiving activity and publishing activity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% r

esp

on

den

ts

Postprint on web page Postprint in IR Postprint in subject archive

0 or 1papers peryear



>5 papersper year


Length of self-archiving experience

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% r

es

po

nd

en

ts

>5 years 3-5 years 2-3 years Last year only


Awareness of self-archivingOf those who have not self-archived any articles:29% are aware of the possibility of providing open access this way71% are notNon-archivers = 51% of the population36% of researchers are not aware of the possibility of self-archiving


Awareness of self-archiving by subject area

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ag

ricu

lture

&fo

od

sci

en

ce

Bu

sin

ess

&m

an

ag

em

en

t

Ch

em

istr

y

Co

mp

ute

rsc

ien

ces

Ea

rth

&g

eo

gra

ph

ica

lsc

ien

ces

En

gin

ee

rin

g,

ma

teri

als

sci

,te

chn

olo

gy

Hu

ma

niti

es

La

w &

po

litic

s

Lib

rary

&in

form

atio

nsc

ien

ce

Life

sci

en

ces

Ma

the

ma

tics

Me

dic

al

scie

nce

s

Ph

ysic

s

Psy

cho

log

y

So

cia

l sci

en

ces

& e

du

catio

n

Yes No


How did they learn about self-archiving?

0

5

10

15

20

25

% r

es

po

nd

en

ts

From peers Followed OAdebate

Institution orlibrary

Field has subject-based archive

Dept or school Co-authors


What discourages self-archiving?

“ I worry about copyright infringement”


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


CopyrightAuthor 35%

Publisher 37%

Other (e.g. employer) 6%

Don’t know 22%

Permission required 17%

Not required 47%

Don’t know 36% Permission sought 16%

Permission not sought 84%



“I worry about copyright infringement”

“It will be too difficult”


Ease of depositing an article

Easy28%

Very difficult

1%

Somewhat difficult

8%Very easy

44%

Neither easy nor difficult

13%

Article archived by

someone else6%

Easy32%

Very difficult

4%

Somewhat difficult

16%

Very easy22%

Neither easy nor difficult

20%

Article archived

by someone

else6%

First deposition Subsequent depositions





“It will take too long”


Time taken to deposit an article

Under an hour36%

More than a day7%

3-4 hours5% A few minutes

30%

1-2 hours11%

Article archived by

someone else11%

Under an hour23%

More than a day3%

3-4 hours2%

A few minutes52%

1-2 hours8%

Article archived by

someone else12%

First deposition Subsequent depositions





“It will take too long”

“My society may suffer”


Learned societies who publish physics research

American Physical Society

Institute of Physics Publishing Ltd


Learned societies publishing physics journals in areas covered by arXiv

American Physical Society:Physical Review DPhysical Review CNuclear Physics

Institute Of Physics Publishing (UK):Classical & Quantum GravityJournal of High Energy PhysicsJournal of Physics GJ. Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics


arXiv

In 2003, 116,723 physics articles were published in 421 journals

arXiv receives 3,500 postings per month (i.e. 42,000 per annum):

High energy physics: 800 per month (flat)

Condensed matter: 800 per month (growing)

Astrophysics: 600-7– per month (flat)


“How many subscriptions have you lost as a result of arXiv?”

APS: “None”

IOPP: “None”


“How have subscriptions to the titles most affected been going over the last decade?”

APS: “We have had an overall decline of an average of about 3% a year (less lately) across all our journals since the 1960s.”

IOPP: “The general attrition slope has not changed.”


“What do the download figures show?”

APS: “Physical Review D and Physical Review C are a bit below the average for our other journals.”

IOPP: “Download figures [for those journals] are not as high as average, because people are downloading from arXiv.”


“Do you view arXiv as a threat?”APS: “We don't consider it [arXiv] a threat.

We expect to continue to have a symbiotic relationship with arXiv. As long as peer review is valued by the community (and it seems to be), we will be doing peer review.”


What can encourage self-archiving?

Highlighting the increased visibility and impact


Open access increases citations

Lawrence 2001 (computer science)

Kurtz 2004 (astronomy)

Brody & Harnad 2004 (all disciplines)

Antelman 2005 (philosophy, politics, electrical & electronic engineering, mathematics)


“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 testimony




Requiring authors to self-archive


The mandates are appearingNIH

Wellcome Foundation

CNRS

INRA

RCUK

Individual institutions – QUT, CERN, Southampton, Minho….


Authors say…

“I publish because it is a professional responsibility, and demanded by my employment contract.”

“It is a requirement of my job.”


Author readiness to comply with a mandate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% r

esp

on

de

nts

Would complywillingly

Would complyreluctantly

Would notcomply

81%

14%5%


That mandating question….

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% r

esp

on

de

nts

Whole population Self-archivers Non self-archivers

Wouldcomplywillingly

Wouldcomplyreluctantly

Would notcomply

81%

13%

5%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Au

stra

lia/N

ew

Ze

ala

nd

Asi

a (

exc

ep

t Ch

ina

, Ja

pa

n)

Ch

ina

Jap

an

Ca

na

da

US

A

Ce

ntr

al/S

ou

th A

me

rica

Eu

rop

ea

n U

nio

n (

exc

ep

t UK

)

Oth

er

Eu

rop

ea

n c

ou

ntr

ies

(exc

ep

t EU

/UK

)

UK

Mid

dle

Ea

st

Afr

ica

All

resp

on

de

nts

% r

esp

on

de

nts

Comply willingly Comply reluctantly Would not comply




Requiring authors to self-archive

Requiring them to self-archive in an institutional repository

Why?


Why an institutional repository?Fulfils a university’s mission to engender, encourage and disseminate scholarly workEnables a university to compile a complete record of its intellectual effortForms a permanent record of all digital output from an institutionEnables standardised online CVs for all researchers (e.g. RAE exercise)‘Marketing’ tool for universitiesAn institution can mandate self-archiving across all subject areas


An institutional repository provides researchers with:

Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress)


An author said…

“This is a very handy way to keep all of one’s work together and findable, which helps me as much as anyone else.”




A location for supporting data that are unpublished

Key Perspectives LtdKey Perspectives Ltd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

re

spo

nd

en

ts

Postprint

Conference paper

Preprint

Technical report

Working paper

Book chapter

Dissertation or thesis

Courseware

Discussion paper

Software

Monograph

Manual

Video file

Audio file




A location for supporting data that are unpublished

One-input-many outputs (CVs, publications)


Increasing author awareness

Make them AWARE:of the citation advantage of open access workof the existence of IRs and what is in them that THEY can self-archive too and reap the benefits (peers, word of mouth, statistics)of the issues involved:

easy to dodoesn’t take long – just a few minutes, just a few keystrokescopyright

of moves on the official requirement to self-archive officially require them to self-archive!


What to do to help

Build an archiveTeach them how to deposit (do it for them if necessary)Advocate: tell authors the advantagesReassure: the consequences are not disastrousInsist they do it (impose a mandate)


Positive reinforcement

Providing ‘hit’ statistics

Demonstrating the citation advantage

Showing authors how to find citation counts


Thank you for listening

[email protected]


Previous studies on Open Access

Authors and Open Access publishing:

www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAReport1.pdf

Model for a UK national eprints delivery system:

www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF1E88.pdf

All reports on OA, including articles published in journals:

www.keyperspectives.co.uk

Funded by JISC and OSI: www.jisc.ac.uk/


An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two conditions: The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,

irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship,[2] as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

[1] Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers. [2] Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper

attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.

institutional repositories: here, there … and not (yet) everywhere alma swan key perspectives ltd,...

Documents

uk key perspectives

universities key perspectives

publications key perspectives

citations key perspectives

alma swan key perspectives

uk archives

archives subject

institutional repositories