So long as the CRIS archive is also OAI-PMH compliant... And the metadata standards are considered.
Jenny
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kane
> Sent: 22 June 2010 16:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Citation - a good CRIS, or Open Access policy?
>
> Thanks Talat,
>
> I think that it stands to reason that each shall develop the
> functionality of the other. It is much more likely in the
> near term for CRISs to start offering archiving
> functionality. It just makes sense to me. If I were a
> research director, would I not want to manage one system
> rather than two? I see the repository functionality becoming
> obsolete/subsumed into the CRIS.
>
> For the large number of institutions that do not yet have a
> CRIS, some kind of push in the direction of CERIF-compliance
> from the main repository developers would seem to be
> essential for them to hold their own. I realise that it
> would need funding.
>
> David.
>
> On 22 June 2010 15:21, Talat Chaudhri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I've seen two broad opinions on this:
> >
> > (1) CRISs and repositories offer different yet related
> functionality,
> > and are thus complementary. (Clearly, not all information in a CRIS
> > that is used to manage research from project inception to
> publication
> > and other outputs needs to represent the institution in the
> > public-facing repository, and some might be inappropriate
> or sensitive
> > in some cases: commonly so in the case of financial and staffing
> > information, personal details and so on, that would be kept for
> > internal purposes.)
> >
> > (2) CRIS systems could/should be able to offer granular
> control over
> > what the public sees. Thus they effectively can or could
> incorporate a
> > repository already, hiding all of the other information that should
> > not be displayed on the Web. This is a more integrated
> approach than
> > the previous one, and perhaps a more "ideal" approach.
> >
> > I'd suggest that an institution that already has a working
> repository
> > will naturally have a different perspective to one that has
> not, since
> > the CRIS debate is comparatively newer than the repository
> question.
> > All of these are specialist content management systems of
> one kind or
> > another, in this case limited to publications but elsewhere
> addressing
> > the needs of other types of resources too. It very much
> depends, from
> > a purely practical perspective, on what systems are already
> being maintained, and on the costs involved.
> >
> > One ultimately needs to look at the needs of the institution in
> > question, as they serve different parts of the sector and
> > correspondingly have certain differences in terms of
> managing funding
> > and research. Ultimately, however, the same overall processes are
> > occurring everywhere. There are a number of valid ways that systems
> > can be usefully put in place to support these in practice.
> The point
> > has already been made by Stevan and Anna that what CRIS
> systems do for
> > research should not replace a policy/strategy approach on
> the part of
> > individual institutions in making sure that their research
> outputs are
> > provided to the public who fund them. This is what funding bodies
> > increasingly ask for, and is therefore what institutions
> will need to provide, irrespective of the approach chosen.
> >
> >
> > Talat
> >
> > On 22/06/2010 14:02, David Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> If we ourselves are unclear as to the relative merits of
> CRISs and/or
> >> OA repositories, then it is likely that university research
> >> departments may be the same.
> >>
> >> I can see a time when the functionality of the OA
> repository will be
> >> offered by CRIS vendors, managed by the research offices in all
> >> universities.
> >>
> >> Am I wrong?
> >>
> >> David.
> >>
> >> On 22 June 2010 13:05, Robin
> Beecroft<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why CRIS value "as opposed to an OA policy"? Surely the most
> >>>> telling figure will be CRIS value *in conjunction with an OA
> >>>> policy* (as Keith Jeffery has been advocating for years)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I did not mean 'opposed' in the sense of 'either/or'...
> >>> I meant to ask about the relative value. If the consensus is that
> >>> the two are equally valuable and equally important, that is
> >>> instructive. If the opinion is that one is not really
> important if
> >>> it comes without the other, or one will have a very significant
> >>> impact with or without the other, that is also interesting. I am
> >>> interested if the community feels that one is more
> crucial than the
> >>> other. I do not see them as being in opposition.
> >>> Robin
> >>>
> >>> -------
> >>> Robin Beecroft - Research Communications Consultant
> >>> www.linkedin.com/in/robinbeecroft
> >>>
> >>> Searchlighter - enlightened thinking on information environments
> >>> www.searchlighter.org
> >>>
> >>> 17 Nicholas Road, Bristol BS5 0LX, UK.
> >>> Tel/Fax: +44 (0)117 902 4506. Skype: searchlighter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 22 June 2010 12:28, Anna Clements<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolutely, Stevan .. the two are not in opposition but need to
> >>>> work together .. the CRIS puts the content in the IR in
> a richer context.
> >>>>
> >>>> As can be demonstrated by our own setup in St Andrews ..
> we've had
> >>>> the link between CRIS and OAR for several years .. but without a
> >>>> push from Senior Management [whether mandate, resource, or
> >>>> whatever] have seen little full text content [although
> over 17000
> >>>> bib only records].
> >>>> That is now changing .. both because of funder mandates but also
> >>>> from the ground up as academics begin to see their peers
> elsewhere
> >>>> quoting download stats etc for their papers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anna
> >>>>
> >>>> Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Robin Beecroft wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anna poses an interesting issue with regard to
> Denmark's place at
> >>>>>> the tip of the citation league.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&st
> >>>>>> orycode=41
> >>>>>> 2083
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does anybody have any thoughts concerning the relative
> value of a
> >>>>>> CRIS as opposed to an OA policy with regard gaining a
> high impact
> >>>>>> rating for an institution's research?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why CRIS value "as opposed to an OA policy"? Surely the most
> >>>>> telling figure will be CRIS value *in conjunction with an OA
> >>>>> policy* (as Keith Jeffery has been advocating for years).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stevan Harnad
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -------
> >>>>>> Robin Beecroft - Research Communications Consultant
> >>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/robinbeecroft
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Searchlighter - enlightened thinking on information
> environments
> >>>>>> www.searchlighter.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 17 Nicholas Road, Bristol BS5 0LX, UK.
> >>>>>> Tel/Fax: +44 (0)117 902 4506. Skype: searchlighter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22 June 2010 08:59, Anna Clements<akc --
> st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> Has anyone else seen this week's THE with a
> league table for
> >>>>>> most cited nations [based on TR Data]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&st
> >>>>>> orycode=41
> >>>>>> 2083
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not sure what all the factors are but I do find it very
> >>>>>> interesting that Denmark tops the rankings but,
> as we heard
> >>>>>> at
> >>>>>> the euroCRIS conference at beginning of the month Denmark
> >>>>>> has
> >>>>>> only recently agreed a national strategy on OA ..
> although
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> have had a CRIS [Pure] at their Institutions for several
> >>>>>> years
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anna
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> ______
> >>>>>> Anna Clements
> >>>>>> Project Manager and University Data Architect
> >>>>>> University of St Andrews
> >>>>>> Business Improvements
> >>>>>> Butts Wynd Building
> >>>>>> St Andrews
> >>>>>> Fife KY16 9AD
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> akc -- st-andrews.ac.uk
> >>>>>> 01334 462761
> >>>>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/business-improvements
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> >>>> ____
> >>>> Anna Clements
> >>>> Project Manager and University Data Architect University of St
> >>>> Andrews Business Improvements Butts Wynd Building St
> Andrews Fife
> >>>> KY16 9AD
> >>>>
> >>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>> 01334 462761
> >>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/business-improvements
> >>>>
> >>>> The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in
> Scotland :
> >>>> No
> >>>> SC013532
> >>>> The University of St Andrews is committed to sustainable
> practices
> >>>> and the preservation of the environment ñ please do not
> print this
> >>>> email unless absolutely necessary!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Dr Talat Chaudhri
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Research Officer
> > UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
> > Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105 Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> > E-mail: [log in to unmask] Skype: talat.chaudhri
> > Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Kane
> Systems Librarian
> Waterford Institute of Technology
> Ireland
> http://library.wit.ie/
> [log in to unmask]
> T: ++353.51302838
> M: ++353.876693212
>
|
