Hi there,

This thread provoked some good thoughts and questions.. 

Are we not in the open access 'game'?  

If so, then perchance that is the #1 aim, and it is good to be reminded
of that when other business requirements are expected and being met by
the collection of research outputs.  

For example: 1. serve administrative services for the university, that
is, publication lists for university reporting purposes; 2. support
human resources or funding requirements by enabling CV generation.  How
much can be made of this primary purpose, that is collecting research
outputs to enable access to scholarly research, that will also serve
other purposes? 

But, I've a few questions milling around in my head: 

-Is the assumption that academics all want CVs with a full listing of
their publications correct?
-Do academics actually have to deposit their works in the institutional
repository in the institution they work at so that they can generate a
full (or partial) CV?  
-Are there other information systems in the institution that serve this
purpose already? 
-Is it not feasible to expect repository software to enable exports (or
data exchange) of metadata to import into other software? 
-Is not feasible to expect CV or publication list generating software to
be able to import that metadata package?
-Does CV or publication list generation necessarily have to be part of
the repository application? 
-Does repository software need to change to accommodate more than an
open access purpose?  
-Does repository software need to be more amenable to interoperate
easily with other systems to enable CV or publications list metadata
collection?  

I tend to toward the KISS principle: system interoperation and
efficiency are 'good things'.  

But; how much is expecting too much from repository software (in terms
of serving individual and institutional needs) and business operations
without undermining the primary aim of maintaining open access
repositories?  What other systems are available in institutions that can
manage these other requirements?  

Sorry no simple answers - and just a gentle nudge to the 'faithful but
weary and fast-aging archivangelist' - don't give up.  

Cheers, Ingrid 


Ingrid Mason
Digital Research Repository Coordinator
ResearchArchive@Victoria 
Victoria University of Wellington
 
ph: 64-4-463 6844
em: [log in to unmask] 
 
Location: Kelburn Campus, Rankine Brown, RB501A
 
- - research deposited in in ResearchArchive@Victoria can be found
within 1 day via the national research hub nzresearch.org and within 2-3
days via the search engine Google - - 


-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 7:40 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new faculty and IR publications

This is an interesting thread. It opens yet another can of worms (if 
that is not over stating it). To me, it justifies the JISC (and others) 
funding of this area. There are endless questions, and we can feel very 
alone when we try and answer them.

On the one hand, "it's the full-text stupid" so keep the metadata simple

(like fickr), on the other, we want to hold an academic's full output 
(for their CV) and at the same time, be able to limit it for just their 
output while at this institution, for the REF and the management 
reports, satisfying both will require good metadata. (argh!)

We talk about new academics now, bud what happens in five years time 
when they move job again. How will they get their full CV then? by 
re-entering it all? by exporting/importing? Do we allow this? Is it 
allowed by those who claim copyright ownership?

I want to be a sheep. I want to follow what the rest are doing. I want 
to take advice from RSP/SHERPA. JISC take note!

Regards
Chris

Piegza, Amanda M. wrote:
> Thank you all for your replies regarding this topic. I didn't state
this 
> in my initial post but, I DO want to put up the full text for faculty,

> even when their research was done elsewhere, I was just unsure if 
> publishers would consider that self-archiving. However, your responses

> have given me a lot to think about. One of the reasons I really do
want 
> new faculty to put up all of their works is because of what one of you

> stated, that if we don't, then they'll not find the repository as 
> beneficial and just want their faculty pages up instead. Plus that 
> initial rapport we establish with new faculty will be hard to change
if 
> they think we're 'hard to work with' or otherwise non-helpful. Thanks 
> again for all the posts, your thoughts are appreciated!
> 
> -Amanda
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Repositories discussion list 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Delasalle,
Jenny
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: new faculty and IR publications
> 
>  
> 
> Indeed: and the danger of saying to authors that we only want works
they 
> have written whilst in employment at our own institution is that they 
> won't bother to deposit with us but will continue to maintain their
own 
> lists on webpages and sites external to the University, because at
least 
> there they can be comprehensive about their own careers... and where 
> they can presumably continue to forget about the copyright agreements 
> they are signing as their pages will be part of the anarchic web
rather 
> than a structured resource. (Which will make little difference to 
> Google's ability to find their pages, particularly for those with 
> prestigious reputations, whose work we particularly want in the
repository.)
> 
>  
> 
> I think the crux is that it depends on what resources you have to 
> mediate deposits and add the metadata yourselves (asking authors to do

> it on deposit is not going to encourage them to deposit) and what 
> purpose you want your repository to serve. If it is meant as a place
to 
> showcase full text items by your authors, does it really matter where 
> they were working at the time they wrote them? But if you want a 
> repository as something to record what has been written by your 
> employees during their term of employment (a management tool), well 
> that's a different purpose that might require different processes and 
> resourcing.
> 
>  
> 
> Jen
> 
>      
>