bringing the emphasis back to open access bill hubbard rsp autumn school, miskin manor 9 th november...
TRANSCRIPT
Bringing the emphasis back to Open Access
Bill Hubbard
RSP Autumn School,
Miskin Manor
9th November 2011
In the beginning was the Repository
Repositories were about Open Access to research results
OA benefits for researchers, authors, institutions, funders, the public
Objective was to reach the tipping point
Key was to get content
Vision was Open Access to the world’s research
But then . . . .
Compromise and growth
First compromise was weak OA
When we built it, they didn’t come . . .
Content became a driver in itself
RAE horse and the IR cart
TARDIS and add the full-text later . . .
What happens when a researcher finds “access denied” from an Open Access repository?
Institutional integration
Links to RPD, RAE, staff information pages, staff web pages, departmental web pages, research management systems, virtual learning environments, eTheses collection, etc
Does integration mean a loss of identity?
Does that matter if goals are achieved?
Does integration bring a loss of focus?
Too many goals for too few resources?
Open Access eTheses
Open Data
Open Educational Resources
Grey literature
Open Peer Review, Web2.0, Open Science
Open Access Journals advocacy and support
Open Access Journals on campus start-up
Too many goals . . . #2
RAE and now REF
CRIS and research management
Staff data records and management
Funders’ policy compliance
Institutional mandate compliance
Metadata enhancement
Dare I say . . . Preservation?
Multiplicity of goals
Reflection of maturity or of adolescence?
What has happened to Open Access to research?
What is our priority? Or has it become individual priorities within each institution?
Do our advocacy messages match our priorities? Does a mismatch cause any problems?
Infrastructure is in place . . .
Repositories• 2132 worldwide, 201 UK-based
Journals• 7288 journals worldwide - plus hybrids
Funder policies• Publications: 55 - Data: 25 - Journals: 22
Institutional policies• 135 policies reported, plus etheses
Services and processes
source: OpenDOAR, DOAJ, JULIET, ROARMAP, 09/11/11
What is available?
Is your repository full-text only or do you also accept metadata only records?• Full-text only 18 24%
• Metadata only and full-text 56 76%
• TOTAL responses 74
Percentage full-text in repositories: • Average across all institutions 57%
What percentage of output is Open Access?
Source - RSP Wiki Summary:http://www.rsp.ac.uk/pmwiki/index.php?n=Institutions.Summary
IR USP
Do repositories get lost among other services?
Mendeley
129,692,213 Papers
1,319,469 People
112,949 Groups
30,529 Institutions
IR USP
Infrastructure is in place and links have been made . . . time to reclaim an identity around Open Access to research?• Could be as OA service cf OA repository• Strong vs Weak OA - use rights• “Moral” argument gets traction with academics
Can CRIS systems help in this?
CRIS as bib records, IR as full-text OA
CRIS + Repositories at UK Universities
Aberdeen Pure + DSpace
Bournemouth Symplectic + EPrints
Brighton Converis + EPrints
Brunel Symplectic + DSpace
Cambridge Symplectic + DSpace
City U London: Symplectic + EPrints
Cranfield Converis +DSpace
DundeePure + DSpace
Edinburgh Pure + DSpace
Exeter Symplectic + DSpace
Glasgow Cldn Pure + Digital Commons
Glasgow Bespoke + EPrints
Heriot-Watts Pure + DSpace
Hertfordshire Pure + DSpace
Hull Converis + Fedora
ImperialSymplectic + DSpace
Keele Symplectic + intraLibrary
LancasterPure + EPrints
Leeds Met Symplectic + intraLibrary
Leeds Symplectic + EPrints
Leicester Symplectic + DSpace
Oxford Symplectic + Fedora
Plymouth:Symplectic + DSpace
Queen Mary Symplectic + DSpace
Ryl Holloway Pure + Equella
Sheffield Symplectic + EPrints
St Andrews Pure + DSpace
Stirling Converis + DSpace
Strathclyde Pure + EPrints
Surrey Symplectic + Eprints
UCL Symplectic + Eprints
York Pure + EPrints
Source - modified from
Google Doc: http://bit.ly/v6A6TJ
. . . to conclude . . .
Do you feel a loss of focus with the repository?
Does Open Access to research papers as an aim still resonate with you, with colleagues?
Would there be a benefit to re-evaluation and re-focussing?
Jackie’s session may address these ideas - for now, can CRIS bring the emphasis back to Open Access?
