Just a brief further comment below.
Quoting "Jonathan Bell [jpb]" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Amber, Jessie
> A few more thoughts from another coal face...
>
> As an academic I would be less than enthused if I was to be invited to
> submit the same item several times to different repositories. However,
> experience with the Repository Bridge suggests that automated sharing of
> items between repositories is feasible. In our case we are exporting
> materials by type (theses) into a national (archival?) repository (to
> support preservation) but I don't see why it should not be done by
> subject to a subject based repository such as ArXiv. Admittedly, our
> approach that uses OAI-PMH for metadata harvesting and so identification
> of item files might be less appropriate. This might need some thought as
> to how IRs can capture sufficient metadata for any receiving
> repositories and if and how authors can be asked to fill any gaps, but
> there seems to be grounds for hope here. We see no difficulty in using
> our system to allow the National Library of Wales (the receivign
> institution) to import theses from throughout Wales.
>
> Surely one of the aims of investigations into interoperability of
> repositories, infrastructure integration and machine to machine services
> should be to investigate the feasibility of allowign a submitted item to
> eb shared with appropriate subject based and archival repositories to
> support search, dissemination and preservation?
This work with export is very valuable and fits in with wider visions, for
example, of aggregating oceanography publications from various IRs
internationally. However, the well established Physics arXiv is slightly
different and also has a long tradition of different ways of dealing with some
of their metadata eg abbreviations of journals and using corporate authors. We
are more likely to want good tools for individual export and translation from
arXiv to IRs. Local authors are going to deposit in arXiv first - and you
need to be trusted by the repository to deposit. They may then check their
local IR to complete their own full publications list and ideally want to
press a button and see it populating that perfectly too.
In France, the labs have actually managed to persuade arXiv to allow deposit
from their systems but it is unlikely to be appropiate to our more fluid
academic environment.
Jessie
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessie Hey
> Sent: 31 March 2006 11:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Concern of longevity and lack of active engagement from
> researchers with institutional repositories
>
> Amber, some thoughts from the coal face.
>
>
> Quoting Amber Thomas <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > I'm following this thread with interest ...
> >
> > In terms of longevity in business models, do we think that potential
> > depositors concerns are
> > a) I need to know content will be kept safe over time
>
> As an example, this was significant for our Southampton Statistical
> Sciences Research Institute working papers http://www.s3ri.soton.ac.uk/.
> They are deposited in the central repository for long term storage and
> continuity but can be exported and given their own branding for the
> Institute as well. A combination of simple deposit and effective
> services is incentive.
>
> > b) I need to know that my effort now is one-off and I won't have to
> > deposit this again in a another service later down the line
>
>
> It is likely that there will be duplication with new demands such as UK
> PubMed
> Central and experience has shown that subtly different requirements
> make
> attempts at simple export non-trivial at present. However, we hope that
> our
> TARDis work to provide good citation elements will help with the many
> demands
> on academics in their jobs as well as giving the opportunity of more
> people
> reading their work. Keeping publication lists up to date (and finding
> the full
> text) was seen as a real chore for both individuals and
> departments/groups.
>
> > c) I want to see my senior management show commitment and invest in
> this
> > service before I spend my time on it
>
> Having a real pilot to demonstrate was important in getting
> institutional
> commitment. Institutional commitment is then important to activity on
> the
> scale of a whole university and also helps sway other researchers. Real
> success may come from an accumulation of enthusiasm on all fronts!
>
>
> >
> > ... they are subtly different concerns ...
> >
> > I also think Stevan is right that there are different interests at
> stake:
> > "Let us hope that their institutions and funders will have the good
> sense
> > to
> > adopt policies that require (and reward) their researchers for doing
> what
> > is
> > in their own best interests (as well as the best interests of their
> > institutions and funders)"
> >
> > Maybe preservation policies serve a need at an institutional level,
> and a
> > sector-wide level, whereas there is much less of a need from an
> individual
> > depositor: they might see preservation of their content as "added
> value"?,
> > but it doesn't service as an actual incentive to deposit?
>
> If the deposit process can really fit in with the working practices of
> the
> researchers (not entirely straightforward with an IR with many
> departments and
> local practices) then, to some extent, preservation becomes a natural
> consequence of its constant usage by large numbers of people. This, in
> essence, is what happened in the arXiv community (with the background
> support
> of the HEP library community). When everyone cites all their papers by
> reference to the arXiv then it is likely that some business model will
> be
> found to sustain it long term. If we have a sustainable repository we
> can
> simply ensure we include preservation features to enable the repository
> to do
> its job more effectively.
>
> Jessie
>
> >
> >
> > Amber
> >
> >
> > Amber Thomas
> > Programme Manager, Information Environment / Repositories
> > JISC Executive, University of Bristol
> > 2nd Floor, Beacon House, Queens Road, Bristol, BS8 1QU
> > Mobile: 07920 534933
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Repositories discussion list
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Theo Andrew
> > Sent: 31 March 2006 09:19
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Concern of longevity and lack of active engagement from
> > researchers with institutional repositories
> >
> > Peter, Helen
> >
> > When we were initially setting up our repository and looking for early
> > adopters to populate content (Early 2003) one of the intial barriers
> we
> > hit
> > was the fact that we did not have a long-term business model. Because
> the
> > repository was set up with short-term project money we found that it
> was
> > hard to persuade researchers to change their research publication
> habits
> > to
> > deposit papers with us.
> >
> > So, although we found there was generally **very little or no concern
> > about
> > digital preservation** from researchers, Helen is entirely correct
> when
> > she
> > says that 'longevity here also applies to the financial sustainability
> of
> > the repository itself as a business operation, in addition to its
> > content'.
> >
> > It's a simple fact bourne out by experience- however good it's
> cultural or
> > technical benefits are, people will not wholeheartedly adopt a new
> > innovation (like repositories) if there are doubts over the long-term
> > viability.
> >
> > Much as I hate analogies - think about next generation DVD players -
> are
> > you
> > going to buy a Blu-Ray DVD (OA archives?) or HD-DVD (OA journals?) in
> the
> > next couple of months, or are you going to stick with the present DVD
> > format
> > until the dust settles? (I know this analogy is not perfect because OA
> > archiving is perfectly compatible with OA journals and even
> 'toll-access'
> > journals, but the basic point about technology still remains true)
> >
> > This is why it is important to get central funding for the repository
> > service, like Southampton, Edinburgh, Glasgow etc.
> >
> > Theo
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Repositories discussion list
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Peter Nix
> > Sent: 30 March 2006 22:47
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Concern of longevity and lack of active engagement from
> > researchers with institutional repositories
> >
> > Helen,
> >
> > Is it that you have already looked for, and found, a great deal of
> > evidence
> > that suggests the falsity of the statement?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On 30 Mar 2006, at 21:09, Helen Hockx-Yu wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I should be grateful if anyone can provide me some evidence to back
> > > the following statement:
> > >
> > > "Concern of longevity has contributed to the lack of active
> engagement
> > > from many researchers [with institutional repositories]. Guarantee
> of
> > > long-term preservation helps enhance a repository's trustworthiness
> by
> > > giving authors confidence in the future accessibility and more
> > > incentives to deposit content"
> > >
> > > I guess longevity here also applies to the financial sustainability
> of
> > > the repository itself as a business operation, in addition to its
> > > content.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Helen Hockx-Yu
> > > Programme Manager
> > > JISC Office, Kings College London
> > > Strand Bridge House (3rd Floor)
> > > 138-142 Strand
> > > London WC2R 1HH
> > > Tel: 020 7848 1803
> > > Mobile: 07813 024633
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Nix, AHRC CentreCATH, School of Fine Art, History of Art &
> Cultural
> > Studies, Old Mining Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
> > http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cath/ http://www.leeds.ac.uk/fine_art/
> > Eml: [log in to unmask] Tel: 0113 343 2580 Fax: 0113 343 1628
> >
>
>
> --
> Jessie Hey
> Research Fellow PRESERV http://preserv.eprints.org/
> University of Southampton Research Repository
> http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/
> see also TARDIS eprints project http://tardis.eprints.org/
> Dr. JMN Hey ([log in to unmask])
> Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax +44 (0)23 8059 2865 mob: +447900584204
|