1 / 16

CPD25 Building Open Access Institutional Repositories

Learn about the SHERPA project, its development partner institutions, and the implications and issues of building institutional repositories for open access. Explore the different stakeholders, including academics, administrators, librarians, funding agencies, publishers, media, and the public. Discover the challenges and choices involved in creating, populating, and advocating for repositories, and the cultural change required for successful implementation. Contact Bill Hubbard at bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk for more information.

timothysimmons
Download Presentation

CPD25 Building Open Access Institutional Repositories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPD25Building Open AccessInstitutional Repositories Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

  2. SHERPA - • Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access • funding: JISC (FAIR programme) and CURL • duration: 3 years, November 2002 – November 2005

  3. SHERPA • development partner institutions • Nottingham (lead), Leeds, Sheffield, York, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, British Library and AHDS • associate partner institutions • Birkbeck College, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Imperial College, Kings College, Newcastle, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African Studies, University College London

  4. Installing is not building • software choice is (fairly) unimportant • installation is (fairly) straightforward • building is (fairly) tricky . . . • people, politics, perception, procedures • . . . choices, advocacy and cultural change

  5. Institutional Repositories • e-Prints as research outputs • hold multiple subjects • part of institutional information service • long-term existence • . . . implications of these choices

  6. Implications and issues • research cultures vary across subject-disciplines • integrated into institutional information service • repositories have a public face and responsibilities • long term preservation commitments

  7. Differentiate stakeholders • three internal constituencies • academics, administrators, librarians • four external constituencies • funding agencies, publishers, media, public

  8. Academics • as producers • disseminate material • get recognition • as consumers • find material • get ready access • as individuals • they do not want more work • things work ok • involves cultural change . . .

  9. Administrators • inward management • practical issues of information service • ownership of IPR • exposing and recording activities • outward presentation • who represents research? • legal liabilities • new possibilities as a public face

  10. Librarians & information professionals • concerns of curation • long-term preservation, long-term commitment • additional work! • creating, populating, advocating repositories • impact on serials • prices, changes

  11. External constituencies • funding agencies • publishers • media • public consumers

  12. Academics and cultural change • things seem ok . . . • affects working habits and reward structures • centrally-driven initiatives vs. local developments • monoscopic analysis is not enough . . . • when to push and when to stop • what makes cultural change?

  13. Choices and possible paths • academic-archiving vs. mediation • back-catalogue vs. future output • academic’s web-page • departmental web-page • . . . the emergent repository

  14. repositories set up in each partner institution test papers being added negotiations with publishers discussions on preservation of eprints work on IPR and deposit licences advocacy campaigns starting sharing experiences and formulating strategies SHERPA - progress

  15. Summary • identify stakeholders • identify their needs and viewpoints • differentiate potentials, goals, returns • differentiate change • upgrading, process and cultural • support needs, appeal to aspirations

  16. http://www.sherpa.ac.ukbill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk

More Related