1 / 20

A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories Andrew Dorward EDINA

A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories Andrew Dorward EDINA. Talk outline. Background & rationale Who’s involved? The high-level plan Stakeholder analysis Wave One & Wave Two Out there – Open Access Publishing Summary. Background. Original Repository Net 2007-09

andrew-livingston
Download Presentation

A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories Andrew Dorward EDINA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories Andrew Dorward EDINA UKCoRR Member’s Meeting, January 2012

  2. Talk outline • Background & rationale • Who’s involved? • The high-level plan • Stakeholder analysis • Wave One & Wave Two • Out there – Open Access Publishing • Summary

  3. Background Original Repository Net 2007-09 • Depot (continued as OpenDepot.org) • IRS (continued as irs.mimas.ac.uk/) • RSP (still going!) • RRT (ouputs like SWORD still going)

  4. Rationale UK RepositoryNet+: • enable institutions to run their systems more efficiently by providing national shared services • consolidate existing ones  • develop new  services • enable ease of use of shared services provided as part of the infrastructure  • scope new business models for sustainable services

  5. Who’s involved? • JISC and oversight group • EDINA • Services & Innovation Partnership Group • Mimas • Nottingham and Southampton • Other component owners • Innovation Zone (UKOLN)

  6. 2011 2012 2013 Aug Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Mar High-Level Plan Other JISC Programmes (Open Access Implementation Group, Research Information Management, etc.) JISC Service Portfolio Review Preparation: Stakeholder analysis Functional requirements Select components Implementation: Wave One Integrate components into a production environment Sustainability business models Implementation: WaveTwo Service enhancement Integrate new components

  7. Stakeholder analysis • Institutional view • Repository Managers via UKCoRR • Research administrators via ARMA • Researchers via IR managers • Research funders • RCUK, Wellcome Trust • Publishers • Green and Gold

  8. Stakeholder Analysis: what we learned Validated EDINA view of Repository Landscape Proved initial theory correct Assured us there were no gaps we had missed BUT did not provide new feature sets to develop in functional areas How to take this forward? Refocus for final report (March 2012) Concentrate on use cases based on functional areas, eg publisher deposits, PI searches, IR Manager benchmarks, funder requires statistics Defining Wave 2 functionality Define functionality for eg Curation micro-services in parallel Feature set to be built out in integrated platform September 2012 – March 2013

  9. The problem landscape….

  10. Rich Picture: Actors, Agency & Relationships for Report, Deposit & Access UK Research Funder [OA mandate] EU RCUK Wellcome Trust HEFCE, SFC … Academic Licensed/tollgate access to Publisher’s Final Copy (PFC) teacherstudent editorreferee Publisher monograph researcher journal P.I. author(s) Subject Repository Deposit of metadata/text of Authors’ Final Copy(AFC) SWORD reader UKPMC Digital Library Research Award reporting metrics EU Eval Research Outcomes Institutional Repository NORA curationmicro - services CERIF UKCoRR stewardship budgets ARMA Library HEI Institution[OA mandate] CRIS Research Excellence Framework

  11. Supported Activites Monograph Article Journal Teacher Reader Author Publishers Academics P.I. Subject Repository Open Access Institutional Repository Funders Repository Research Information Management CRIS Research Awards Library Faculty Institutions Research Grant Office Funders

  12. Functional requirements • Providing awareness of what is available • Depositing content in an appropriate location • Enhancing the quality of what is held • Making use of what is held • Analysing what is held and how it is used • Protecting what is held over time • Holding content

  13. Components by SIPG and functional Category Search, Aggregation and Text Mining Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking Relevant Registries Deposit Tools OPEN DOAR Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority ROAR REPUK Innovation RoMEO University of Southampton University of Nottingham Juliet UKOLN Open Depot ORI CORE Linked data/mobile IRS IRUS-UK OAR-J Broker Open University NAMES2 EDINA MIMAS

  14. Components Summary Search, Aggregation and Text Mining Deposit Tools Relevant Registries Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority Aggregated set of metadata for development REPUK OPEN DOAR Authoritative, manually curated registry of OA repositories, combined with harvested metadata Search, aggregation, full-text mining for OA repositories CORE ROAR Registry of OA repositories compiled by automatically harvesting metadata Search, aggregation, data-mining for all Institutional Repositories IRS Database containing publisher policies on Open Access RoMEO Organisation and Repository Identification – registry of all IRs ORI Database containing research funders’ policies on Open Access Juliet Virtual OA repository for researchers. Also redirects to relevant OA IR or SR using OAR-J Broker and ORI Open Depot IRUS-UK Centralised service for collection of OA usage statistics Centralised Naming Authority for the UK assigning identifiers to organisations and individuals engaged in research Identifies and directs researchers of multi-authored works to relevant OA repository(ies) NAMES2 OAR-J

  15. SIPG Components showing common/shared functionality OPEN DOAR ROAR REPUK Innovation RoMEO University of Southampton University of Nottingham Juliet UKOLN Open Depot ORI CORE Linked data/mobile IRS IRUS-UK OAR-J Broker Open University NAMES2 EDINA MIMAS • Notes: • Collision Zones’ in 2 areas: Search, Aggregation and Text Mining; Relevant Registries • In Deposit Tools, Open Depot and the OAR-J Broker are developed in tandem, are mutually dependent and can be seen to have complementary functionality

  16. Component selection • Open, accountable, fair process • Evidence gathering now • JISC oversight group • Selection to be made Feb 2012

  17. O A Publishing – PLoS ONE Number of publications each quarter since 2006, when PLoS ONE launched. Capture article metrics: ■ Article usage statistics - HTML pageviews, PDF downloads and XML downloads ■ Citations from the scholarly literature – currently from Web of Science, PubMed Central, Scopus and CrossRef ■ Comments – left by readers of each article ■ Notes – left by readers of each article ■ Blog posts – aggregated from Nature Blogs, Bloglines and ResearchBlogging. ■ Ratings – left by readers of each article

  18. PLoSOne: article usage metrics

  19. OA going mainstream….

  20. Summary • UK Repository Net+ building sustainable shared services for you • Scoping stage completed • Services delivered March 2012 onwards Questions?

More Related