1 / 16

Bringing the emphasis back to Open Access

Bringing the emphasis back to Open Access. Bill Hubbard RSP Autumn School, Miskin Manor 9 th November 2011. In the beginning was the Repository. Repositories were about Open Access to research results OA benefits for researchers, authors, institutions, funders, the public

keaton-morin
Download Presentation

Bringing the emphasis back to Open Access

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. Bringing the emphasis back to Open Access Bill Hubbard RSP Autumn School, Miskin Manor 9th November 2011

  2. In the beginning was the Repository • Repositories were about Open Access to research results • OA benefits for researchers, authors, institutions, funders, the public • Objective was to reach the tipping point • Key was to get content • Vision was Open Access to the world’s research • But then . . . .

  3. Compromise and growth • First compromise was weak OA • When we built it, they didn’t come . . . • Content became a driver in itself • RAE horse and the IR cart • TARDIS and add the full-text later . . . • What happens when a researcher finds “access denied” from an Open Access repository?

  4. Institutional integration • Links to RPD, RAE, staff information pages, staff web pages, departmental web pages, research management systems, virtual learning environments, eTheses collection, etc • Does integration mean a loss of identity? • Does that matter if goals are achieved? • Does integration bring a loss of focus?

  5. Too many goals for too few resources? • Open Access eTheses • Open Data • Open Educational Resources • Grey literature • Open Peer Review, Web2.0, Open Science • Open Access Journals advocacy and support • Open Access Journals on campus start-up

  6. Too many goals . . . #2 • RAE and now REF • CRIS and research management • Staff data records and management • Funders’ policy compliance • Institutional mandate compliance • Metadata enhancement • Dare I say . . . Preservation?

  7. Multiplicity of goals • Reflection of maturity or of adolescence? • What has happened to Open Access to research? • What is our priority? Or has it become individual priorities within each institution? • Do our advocacy messages match our priorities? Does a mismatch cause any problems?

  8. Infrastructure is in place . . . • Repositories • 2132 worldwide, 201 UK-based • Journals • 7288 journals worldwide - plus hybrids • Funder policies • Publications: 55 - Data: 25 - Journals: 22 • Institutional policies • 135 policies reported, plus etheses • Services and processes • source: OpenDOAR, DOAJ, JULIET, ROARMAP, 09/11/11

  9. What is available? • Is your repository full-text only or do you also accept metadata only records? • Full-text only 18 24% • Metadata only and full-text 56 76% • TOTAL responses 74 • Percentage full-text in repositories: • Average across all institutions 57% • What percentage of output is Open Access? Source - RSP Wiki Summary: http://www.rsp.ac.uk/pmwiki/index.php?n=Institutions.Summary

  10. IR USP • Do repositories get lost among other services?

  11. Mendeley 1,319,469 People 112,949 Groups 30,529 Institutions 129,692,213 Papers

  12. IR USP • Infrastructure is in place and links have been made . . . time to reclaim an identity around Open Access to research? • Could be as OA service cf OA repository • Strong vs Weak OA - use rights • “Moral” argument gets traction with academics • Can CRIS systems help in this? • CRIS as bib records, IR as full-text OA

  13. CRIS + Repositories at UK Universities • Lancaster Pure + EPrints • Leeds Met Symplectic + intraLibrary • Leeds Symplectic + EPrints • Leicester Symplectic + DSpace • Oxford Symplectic + Fedora • Plymouth: Symplectic + DSpace • Queen Mary Symplectic + DSpace • Ryl Holloway Pure + Equella • Sheffield Symplectic + EPrints • St Andrews Pure + DSpace • Stirling Converis + DSpace • Strathclyde Pure + EPrints • Surrey Symplectic + Eprints • UCL Symplectic + Eprints • York Pure + EPrints Source - modified from Google Doc: http://bit.ly/v6A6TJ • Aberdeen Pure + DSpace • Bournemouth Symplectic + EPrints • Brighton Converis + EPrints • Brunel Symplectic + DSpace • Cambridge Symplectic + DSpace • City U London: Symplectic + EPrints • Cranfield Converis +DSpace • Dundee Pure + DSpace • Edinburgh Pure + DSpace • Exeter Symplectic + DSpace • Glasgow Cldn Pure + Digital Commons • Glasgow Bespoke + EPrints • Heriot-Watts Pure + DSpace • Hertfordshire Pure + DSpace • Hull Converis + Fedora • Imperial Symplectic + DSpace • Keele Symplectic + intraLibrary

  14. . . . to conclude . . . • Do you feel a loss of focus with the repository? • Does Open Access to research papers as an aim still resonate with you, with colleagues? • Would there be a benefit to re-evaluation and re-focussing? • Jackie’s session may address these ideas - for now, can CRIS bring the emphasis back to Open Access?

  15. Bill Hubbard bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk

More Related