 |
 |
Thanks George, If I am to understand you correctly, there is a ton of 'abstract only' content in to the repository, which you would rather not have there. Research administrators sometimes can have the mistaken assumption that the repository should be a definitive index of all works produced by an institution. Was this the case with you? I used to think a bit like this, but I now think that such a definitive list should be managed through the CRIS. As you indicated, you can drown a good repository under a deluge of empty abstracts. Do you use ORCID, with your CRIS in any way? David. David Kane Systems Librarian [Waterford Institute of Technology Logo]<http://irishacademicediting.ie/> [telephone icon] ++353.051302838<tel:0035351302838> [mail icon] [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [Linkedin]<https://ie.linkedin.com/in/davidfkane> [Facebook] <https://www.twitter.com/davidfkane> ________________________________ From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of George Macgregor <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 29 March 2016 16:18 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Repository content Hi David, Yes, it sounds bonkers, doesn’t it?! :) I suppose the most common type of non-institutional content making it into the repository via the CRIS are those items we call, “the greatest hits”. This situation normally occurs when a new member of research staff is appointed at the institution. The first thing the research office makes them do is populate the CRIS with their full publication history, often using derived metadata from Scopus or some other source. Ingesting this metadata enables sophisticated research reporting and analyses, feeds publication pages on the Uni website, etc. The difficulty is that most, if not all, of this content is non-institutional content, and because researchers are highly mobile it is not uncommon to find a new member of staff sucking in 100 publications spanning some five or six different institutions. The nature of the connection between the CRIS (PURE) and EPrints has been unsatisfactory, offering no scope for discretionary validation or vetting about what is deposited in the repository. Thus, everything must be validated if it is to fulfil certain reporting requirements or populate staff web pages but, by doing so, everything also goes to the repository by default – even if doesn’t fulfil our traditional content policies ***. My real concern about this has been the preponderance of metadata. Repositories containing a lot of metadata are not really repositories, nor are they the sort of repositories that academic search services want to visit, index or direct users to – which is why I have been desperate to change it. But it has been difficult to effect change for a number of complex technical and organisational reasons. Sorry, I didn’t mean to hijack Lyn’s original message as we appear to have digressed a little now! Suffice to say, I think greater considerations of content policies by institutions is definitely required, especially where a CRIS is involved. Cheers George ***At this point I notice Anna has also sent a message. St Andrews also use PURE with a connected DSpace repository; however, from my understanding (correct me Anna!), St Andrews are unique insofar as they operate a full-text only repository and - from the point of PURE’s implementation – St Andrews have used a different workflow for validating content. Strathclyde didn’t, and is now paying the price! Although, as I noted previously, I hope to correct this over coming weeks / months. From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kane Sent: 29 March 2016 15:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Repository content Hi George, I don't understand how this works. What kind of non-institutional content makes it into the repository via your CRIS? Does it not all have to be vetted by yourselves before it goes live? David. David Kane Systems Librarian <http://irishacademicediting.ie/>[Waterford Institute of Technology Logo]<http://irishacademicediting.ie/><http://irishacademicediting.ie/> [telephone icon] ++353.051302838<tel:0035351302838> [mail icon] [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [Linkedin]<https://ie.linkedin.com/in/davidfkane> [Facebook] <https://www.twitter.com/davidfkane> ________________________________ From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of George Macgregor <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: 29 March 2016 14:02 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Repository content Hi Lyn, I think Arthur’s “repository content scope” is pretty much on the money. This is essentially how Strathclyde operated before the implementation of our CRIS. The introduction of the CRIS, however, has complicated matters and we often find that we have little discretion over what gets deposited in EPrints. For example, our EPrints repository has been connected to our CRIS for several years. This made sense in the beginning in order to promote deposit; but because the CRIS is designed to manage huge quantities of metadata for research intelligence purposes too, we increasingly have huge volumes of content going to our repository, a lot of which has little or nothing to do with Strathclyde - and a lot of which would never have been deposited had we only been operating EPrints. This creates additional work for the team and, in the longer term, it will have resource implications for preservation, storage, etc. We are actually in the process of modifying the connection between our repository and CRIS in order to revert back to Arthur’s model; but I am acutely aware that many connected repositories simply mirror their CRIS, irrespective of the institutional affiliations associated with the outputs, or their content type. Regards George -- George Macgregor Information Services Directorate | University of Strathclyde Curran Building | 101 St James Road Glasgow G4 ONS Tel: 0141 548 3496 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Web: http://personal.strath.ac.uk/george.macgregor/ [iD icon] orcid.org/0000-0002-8482-3973<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8482-3973> -- Ensure that your research outputs are eligible for submission in the next REF. Authors' accepted manuscripts of journal articles and conference proceedings accepted after 01 April 2016 must be deposited in PURE as soon as possible after acceptance for publication – email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> for further information or visit http://www.strath.ac.uk/openaccess. [twitter logo]<https://twitter.com/StrathclydeOA> -- The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC015263 From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arthur Smith Sent: 29 March 2016 13:01 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Repository content We recently looked at our repository terms of use and updated much of the language: What can be deposited into the Repository Only Research Outputs connected to the University of Cambridge can be deposited in the Repository. By connected We mean Research Outputs authored by current or former University of Cambridge researchers, research students or staff members; Outputs of research conducted at the University of Cambridge; Research Outputs that appear in a journal published, or a conference hosted, by the University; or Outputs resulting from research undertaken using University facilities. Research Outputs can include, but are not limited to, publications, conference proceedings, book chapters, monographs, theses, various forms of research data (video recordings, spreadsheets, images etc.), presentations and others. This is deliberately broad so that we don’t limit ourselves to only certain types of content. The only material we definitely won’t receive is undergraduate works – notice that we specifically mention ‘research students’, i.e. masters and doctoral outputs. However, we’ll accept almost anything else and always try to meet the needs of the research community. We also charge for large* data submissions. So although we haven’t turned anyone away yet, if we were asked to store 1TB of data and the depositor couldn’t afford the £4000 charge, we wouldn’t store the material. Best, Arthur *What is large? Good question… we’re still figuring that out. From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Sarah Sent: 29 March 2016 12:13 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Repository content We’ve certainly tried to accommodate as many content types at as many levels as we possibly can. This includes some of my very random research outputs on the Victorian choral movement! One thing we do here that is possibly slightly unusual – although I’d happily stand corrected! – is we don’t reject student work if it’s come via an academic. Admittedly it hasn’t happened so far that a student has asked to have something deposited themselves. Very early on one of our academics could see a role for our repository in sharing examples of research proposals expected of second year students in preparation for their final year. He was struggling to make the few copies he had at his disposal available to as many students as possible so suggested our repository take them. We don’t have that many but in the department from which they come they are currently the most popular items. We’ve also linked through to an online student poetry/creative writing magazine presented in the form of a blog, and we have included a volume of educational research articles produced by postgrads. Sarah From: David Kane [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 29 March 2016 12:05 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; Taylor, Sarah <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Repository content I'd be interested to know whether anyone on this list does have a strict repository 'admission' policy. How does it affect your efforts at advocacy, and have any researchers complained about being turned down by the repository. Is there any research on this? David Kane Systems Librarian <http://irishacademicediting.ie/>[Image removed by sender. Waterford Institute of Technology Logo]<http://irishacademicediting.ie/><http://irishacademicediting.ie/> [Image removed by sender. telephone icon] ++353.051302838<tel:0035351302838> [Image removed by sender. mail icon] [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [Image removed by sender. Linkedin]<https://ie.linkedin.com/in/davidfkane> [Image removed by sender. Facebook] <https://www.twitter.com/davidfkane> ________________________________ From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Taylor, Sarah <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: 29 March 2016 11:58 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Repository content Hi all, This is more or less our take on things too, but we would probably draw the line at conferences organised by our staff and neither hosted by us nor including our academics’ research. We view our repository as a record of intellectual output and beyond that we don’t dictate what that should. It’s something I’ve had many an argument about in the past, but my counter argument is usually that we don’t refuse to acquire books if we personally think it isn’t ‘good’ enough. I’ve also had conversations with early career researchers who have been told presumably by their Heads of Department that their research isn’t yet of a suitable standard. This both baffles and saddens me to be honest. Best wishes, Sarah Sarah Taylor Electronic Resources Librarian The Peter Marsh Library University of Bolton Deane Road Bolton BL3 5AB 01204 903099 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Working days: Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kane Sent: 29 March 2016 11:38 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [JISC-REPOSITORIES] Repository content Hey, If your metadata is good enough, it is always easy to sift out the wheat from the chaff when it counts. And besides; isn't it a feature of the repository that it should house 'grey literature'? Overweening editorial policy is for proper publications only. Repositories are not publications. David David Kane Systems Librarian <http://irishacademicediting.ie/>[Image removed by sender. Waterford Institute of Technology Logo]<http://irishacademicediting.ie/><http://irishacademicediting.ie/> [Image removed by sender. telephone icon] ++353.051302838<tel:0035351302838> [Image removed by sender. mail icon] [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [Image removed by sender. Linkedin]<https://ie.linkedin.com/in/davidfkane> [Image removed by sender. Facebook] <https://www.twitter.com/davidfkane> ________________________________ From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Laurent Romary <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: 29 March 2016 11:28 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Repository content Le 29 mars 2016 à 12:21, Lyn Gibson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit : Where do repositories draw the line as to what is accepted as a deposit in the institutional outputs repository? This is always a difficult issue, but the more restrictive the editorial policy is the more difficult it is to accommodate scholars’ occasional needs. For example, if a staff member of the institution organises a conference but it is not hosted by the institution would you accept all papers from the conference? This is routine practice for us where conference organized on https://www.sciencesconf.org/?lang=en often lead to the creation of a collection on HAL. What about papers published in an in-house open access journal - do you accept all papers published in the journal or only those generated in-house? I would obviously concur to this. We do even more with Episciences, since any author can deposit a pre-print on HAL (ut also on other publicaiotn repositories) that would then be reviewed by an overlay journal hosted there. Hope it helps, Laurent many thanks, Lyn Gibson Edinburgh Napier University Laurent Romary Inria, team Alpage [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>