I like all these ideas for how to deposit in a repository. It's great
that people are trying them out and I look forward to finding out if
they become popular.

Since WRAP went live in July, we've had a single, simple form for people
to submit to our repository, along the lines of "attach a document or
paste a URL" and "paste reference details" and "tell us which version it
is"... We ask for a few other pieces of information but it's all
optional. This goes into a spreadsheet and we then go through lots of
processing and checking to create the actual repository record. 

As of yesterday we've had another deposit mechanism enabled: there is
already a system here at Warwick for our academics to record information
about their work, which is InfoEd. It has a clunky mechanism for authors
to record what they are publishing and we have been making sure that
work deposited to us in the repository updates Warwick's InfoEd profile
for the author. Now we have added a section to the InfoEd journal
recording form for authors to upload an article and "inform the
repository". Again, we will heavily mediate this deposit.

It does concern me slightly that our academics won't know which system
they should be updating with what. I want our message to be clear about
how to deposit to the repository, because I have enough of a job
explaining why!

I worry that the multiple mechanisms, whilst meeting the needs of those
who use Facebook or whatever other environment already, will alienate
those who don't understand the technology or what the repository is
trying to achieve and don't want to bother to try. It could and
complicate the repository's message about deposit.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to lose authors who might be keener
to deposit if they could manage the data and do fancy things with it for
themselves. 

We've had e-mails from academics with a load of files attached and a
copy of their CV: that's probably the ideal scenario for most academics,
if they really MUST deposit. So my asking them to upload the files one
at a time is an imposition, even! I want to keep on asking them to do
that, sticking to the same message until they begin to hear me and see
the basic benefits for those who have been sending us content, before I
try to change my message to say, yes and you can do this, that and the
other as well.

But of course, WRAP is a new repository. We're just finding our feet: I
will see what happens with our second deposit mechanism and consider all
collection methods that I can use if enough people turn out to want
them...

Kind regards,

Jen

Jenny Delasalle
E-Repositories Manager
Research & Innovation Unit
University of Warwick Library
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44) (0) 24 765 75793
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/repositories

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Antony 
> Corfield [awc]
> Sent: 19 November 2008 09:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Perform repository deposits from within Facebook 
> using SWORD
> 
> Personally, I think it would be far too easy to loose track 
> of the deposit work-flow during an email conversation with a 
> repository. Fine if it can be done in a single email with an 
> attachment otherwise far better to deposit via a commonly 
> used publication or authoring or tool such as Word as Simeon 
> points out. 
> 
> Regards,
> Antony
> --
> Antony Corfield
> ROAD Project
> http://road.aber.ac.uk
> tel. 01970 628724
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC- 
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
> > Sent: 18 November 2008 20:27
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Perform repository deposits from within Facebook using 
> > SWORD
> > 
> > On 18 Nov 2008, at 15:02, Stuart Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > > Within the repositories community we often talk about how to
> > encourage
> > > faculty to self-archive their works. We also sometimes talk about
> > the
> > > problems with repositories, and how repositories are not yet part
> > of
> > > the
> > > daily toolkit of faculty. In an attempt to see whether bringing 
> > > these two problems together by allowing faculty to deposit from 
> > > within a tool that many do use on a daily basis, as part 
> of the JISC 
> > > funded 'SWORD 2' project I have now created a Facebook repository 
> > > deposit application.
> > 
> > I think this is a great example that responds to the challenge of 
> > going out to where the researchers are.
> > 
> > Personally, I don't use facebook, but Stuart has made me 
> think about 
> > what I environments I do use and where I spend all my time. To be 
> > honest, the answer is "email". If I had a repository deposit that 
> > worked by email then that would be very natural for me. I 
> could email 
> > my documents as an attachment to "[log in to unmask]", and 
> > the repository would mail back an email form for me to fill 
> out with 
> > the metadata. This conversation could go backwards and forwards - 
> > perhaps the first form would be very brief, asking me what kind of 
> > deposit it was (journal article? conference paper? lecture slides?) 
> > but then a subsequent (highly tailored) form might be sent 
> asking me 
> > for further details. I don't mind doing this in bite-sized chunks, 
> > especially if each message doesn't require too much of my time.
> > 
> > So if not facebook or email, what other computing environments do 
> > people spend all their times in? What program should be 
> adapted to do 
> > repository deposits?
> > --
> > Les Carr
>