välkomna till chals 2003 24 sep 2003 e-print repositories for research visibility : a journey from...

Välkomna till ChALS 200324 Sep 2003

e-Print Repositories for research visibility : a journey from there to

here

Pauline SimpsonSouthampton Oceanography

CentreUniversity of Southampton

England

Scholarly Communication and OAI

Välkomna till ChALS 2003(Chalmers Annual Library

Seminars)

24 Sep 2003


University of Southampton• Research led multidisciplnary

university:

• 20,000 students• 5000 staff (1500 researchers)

• Restructured Aug 2003: from 5 faculties, 65 departments

• 3 Faculties– Law, Arts and Social

Sciences– Medicine, Health and Life

Sciences– Engineering, Science and

Math

• 20 Schools• Education• Humanities• Law• Management• Social Sciences• Winchester School of Art• Biological Sciences• Health Care Innovation• Health Professions & Rehab• Medicine• Nursing & Midwifery• Chemistry• Civil Engineering & Environmental

Engng• Electronics and Computer Sciences• Engineering Sciences• Geography• Institute Sound & Vibration• Mathematics• Ocean and Earth Sciences (SOC)• Physics and Astronomy


Southampton Oceanography Centre

SOC is one of the world’s leading centres for research and education in marine and earth sciences, for the development of marine technology and for the provision of large scale infrastructure and support for the marine research community.


Road map

• Guide us through:

– Scholarly Communication– Open Archives Initiative– e-Print Archives

• Subject and institutional

– TARDis – Targeting Academic Research for Deposit and Disclosure


Information space : building a global ‘collaboratory’

• The academic world is increasingly global and collaborative and needs the tools to support this

• …..center without walls, in which researchers can perform their research without regard to geographical location – interacting with colleagues, accessing instrumentation, sharing data and computational resource, and accessing information in digital libraries

Kouzes et al 1996 Collaboratories – doing science on the internet Computer, 29(8), 40-46


How to get there

• Developing an infrastructure for data – the GRID– Other people will wish to use the same data so we

need tools to preserve and access it

• Developing an infrastructure for documents through ‘hybrid’ libraries:– Traditional and digital holdings– Commercial and open (free and interoperable) access– Bibliographic and full text


PUB

SUB

LIB

A R

Primary channel - Scholarly Communication –

present model

Bibliometrics – citation analysis, impact factors

Evaluation – RAE, Tenure, Promotion

Research funding proposals


1774 %


‘Crisis in Scholarly Communication’

alternate models

• Open Access Journals

• Open Archive Initiatives

•‘Open’ = freely accessible - ‘open access journals’•‘Open’ = interoperable - Open Archives Initiative

The Case for Institutional Repositories: a SPARC position paper – prepared by Raym Crow July 2002

Supplemented by:SPARC Institutional Repository Checklist and Resources Guide October 2002

http://www.openarchives.org/index.html


Changing Publishing Paradigm

Authors Readers

OAI data providers OAI service providers

PUB

SUB

LIB

Authors Readers

PublishArchive/

access

Hybrid

roles

Information flow through Open Archives model

Citation analysis


What are Open archives?

• Electronic repository of e-Prints, usually internet based for free access and dissemination

• Both Institutional and discipline based archives that allow public access to content and employ the Open Archive Initiative Metadata Harvesting Protocol

• nb. e-Print archives non OAI registered but still ‘open’


e-Prints : variable definitions• e-Prints are electronic copies of any research

output (journal article, book section, conference paper, technical report etc.)

– preprints – unpublished papers before they are refereed

– postprints – papers after they have been refereed

• Also narrower and broader definitions:

– Peer-reviewed articles – original definition - Stevan Harnad

– Broad output – research + learning + datasets + multimedia + internal admin documents etc


Variable definitions - spelling and what’s in a name?

• Eprints ; ePrints ; eprints• E-Prints ; e-prints

• e-Prints (Oxford English Dictionary)

• Archive - wrong connotations?

– repository – depository – service -


e-Print origins

– ‘ invisible university’ culture» Exchange draft publications paper – high energy

physics : 50 – 1000 authors – needed electronic transmission

– Evolving digital environment» ARPA Internet 1970’s – Web 1990’s

– Culture + technology fix = the first archive

– Electronic preprints archives - Author self-archiving systems ArXiv (Los Alamos now at Cornell) (1991) set up by Paul Ginsparg for high energy physics community ( now physics (incl Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, Math, Computing Science and nonlinear science).


Subject based archives

• Early e-Print services were subject based and hosted by a single institution. Relied on distributed researchers remotely depositing their papers using the self archiving protocol

• Despite success of Los Alamos (now arXiv) - cautious uptake by other subject communities -

• Successful examples : Cogprints(1997), Chemistry Preprints Server, RePEc WoPEc (economics), etc

• Many of the subject based archives started by individual enthusiasts


arXiv recent weekly usage

Red - Average number of connections.

Blue - Average number of hosts connecting (divide by 10 for correct number).

Green - Average number of new hosts. (divide by 10). Growing by 30,000 articles per month


Major e-Print Drivers

– Crisis in scholarly publication

– Growing Call for Open Access

• Budapest Open Access Initiative http://www.soros.org/openaccess

• Launched 14 Feb 2002 by George Soros’s Open Society Institute• Worldwide coordinated movement dedicated to freeing online

access: OAI based self archiving and alternative journals• Open societies need open access• Scholars should be able to deposit their refereed journal articles

in open electronic archives which conform to OAI standards


Support…

• Stevan Harnad, Univ Southampton ; leading advocate self archiving and now institutional model

Cogprints – September98 email list

• International Scholarly Communications Alliance– Worldwide organisations collaborate with scholars and publishers to establish equitable access to scholarly and research publications

• Funding …• Mellon Foundation $1.5m for seven USA OAI projects

• Budapest Open Access Initiative - Soros Foundation Open Information Society - $1m /3yrs

NSF funding grants for OAI projects (NSDL) $7M Focus—interoperability infrastructure (OAI)


Origins of the Open Archive Initiative

• Oct 1999 – 1st meeting Santa Fe Convention• Universal Preprint Service – prototype –

renamed Open Archive Initiative• Dienst Protocol Metadata Harvesting Protocol• Early 2000 –the Cambridge Meetings• Aug 2000 - Support from Digital Library

Federation, Coalition for Networked Information and NSF

• Steering Committee Formed• Late 2000 Mission statement


The OAI defines two participants

• Data Providers adopt the OAI technical framework as a means of exposing metadata about their content (held in repositories)– OAI conformant– OAI registered– OAI namespace-registered

• Service Providers harvest metadata from Data Providers using the OAI protocol and use the metadata as the basis for value added services

• Conceptually different but in reality Data Providers can offer both a service directly to users and also metadata for automated harvesters data providers need to offer value added services as well


Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting :

OAI-PMH• Based on• HTTP Carrier protocol • Responses are encoded in XML• The Open Archives Metadata Set = Dublin Core

Metadata Element Set (unqualified)– Data providers must supply Dublin Core data via

OAI, so that all harvesters can use their data.• Question whether harvesting simple DC = loss of rich

metadata from the original record.

but• Now have a significant solution for open

(interoperable) archives• Laid down rules which make search services for many

distributed archives possible


OAI Archive Model

Author

Open Repositories

Data Providers

Value-added Services

Service Providers

Reader

Institutional Servers

Disciplinary Servers

Journals(e.g., PLoS model) In

tero

per

abil

ity

Sta

nd

ard

sWorkflow

Applications

Integratedscholarly

communities

Search tools

OAI-PMH


Supporting software

• Many enabling technologies, standards, and protocols to support institutional repositories already exist e.g. the OAI-PMH protocol to enable interoperability

• The World Wide Web is taken for granted as part of the infrastructure

• archiving software

• Initially one software freely available to implementers:• Eprints.org


eprints.org GNU EPrints

• Software from IAM group University of Southampton is free

• Pioneered by Prof. Stevan Harnad to further the cause of self-archiving

• EPrints 2 (GNU Eprints) developed

by Chris Gutteridge


Other e-Prints software emerging

• DSpace -Joint project of MIT Libraries and Hewlett Packard Company (Nov 2002) http://www.dspace.org

• CDSWare – CERN Document Server software http://cdsware.cern.ch

• ARNO – Academic Research in the Netherlands Online, Tilburg, Amsterdam, Twente http://www.uba.uva.nl/arno

• bPress – Univ California (eScholarship) http://www,cdlib.org

• Other own software (arXiv, Max Planck etc)


CogPrints

(GNU EPrints)

1600 Records

www.orgprints.org

(GNU EPrints)

264 Records

arXiv(custom software)230,000 Records

D-Space @ MIT(D-Space Software)

769 Records

Harvester #1(Psychology Service)

500 Cogprints169 D-Space

Harvester #2(Physics Aggregator)

150,000 arXiv162 D-Space

Harvester #3(General Service)

230,000 arXiv769 D-Space264 OrgPrints

1600 CogPrints150,162 “Improved” records

from physics aggregator

Institutional repositories


Service Providers (some)

• Arc Search engine• Callima Search engine• citeBaseSearc Search engine with citation ranking• CYCLADES Search engine• DP9 Search engine – deep web• iCite Citation indexing system for physics• My.OAI Search engine• NCSTRL Unified access computer sciences• OAIster Search engine• Perseus Search engine in humanities• Scirus Search engine – Elsevier• TORII Unified access physics-computer

» Ack: David Prosser


Service provider - find the pearls


Entering another phase : Institutional repositories

• In 2000 - Complementary model to the subject

archives e-Print archives based on research output from one

institution.• Reawakening to value of greater access to an institution’s

research

• Essential increase in visibility of our intellectual output

• A preservation role (like our traditional archivists)


Institutional repositories - early adopters

• Australian National University

• Aalborg University• Humbodlt-Universitat• Lund Universitet• National University of

Ireland• University of Glasgow• California Digital Library• MIT• University of

Southampton• Univerity of Cambridge• University of Tilberg

• Universite de Montreal• LMU Munchen• Utrecht University• CERN• University of Bath• University of Nottingham• Caltech• Academy of Sciences

Belarus• Hong Kong University• Netherlands (DARE)

Ack David Prosser


Benefits of an Institutional Repository

•Provides Institutional information asset management

•Defines Institutional sources of research

•Identifies Institutions value to funding sources

•Raises the profile of the Institution

• Institutional research more visible, more impact and available in electronic form – cited more (Lawrence: Nature)

•Contributes to national and global initiatives which will ensure an international audience for Institution’s latest research.

• (Other universities are developing their own archives which, together, will be searchable by global search tools)


Information community – taking a lead role – (1)

• Professional skills and expertise map to e-Print support and maintenance profile:

– Positioned in the scholarly communication process • Recorders of institutional scientific output• Publishers on behalf of institution

– Collection and dissemination of scholarly resources– Deliverers of seamless systems, e-resources etc– Resource discovery mechanisms in digital

environment (eg Z39.50)


Information community – taking a lead role – (2)

– Database expertise– Records management – Work with metadata and preservation– Apply standards uniformly– IPR issues– Central service provider – Interact at all levels of the institution– Network culture– End user of free research corpus


UK Programme

• 2002 UK Higher Education Funding Council– JISC FAIR Programme (Focus on Access to Institutional

Resources)

• Inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) that digital resources can be shared between organisations based on a simple mechanism allowing metadata about these resources to be harvested into services

• To support the disclosure of institutional assets: To support access to and sharing of institutional

content within Higher Education and Further Education and to allow intelligence to be gathered about the technical, organisational and cultural challenges of these processes…


FAIR Programme

• £3 million on 14 projects starting August 2002– Museums and Images; e-Prints; e-theses; IPR; Institutional portals

• TARDis: Targeting Academic Resources for Deposit and dISclosure

• SHERPA: broader - Consortium of Research Libraries – filling archives and joint infrastructure

• HaIRST: A testbed for Scotland• ePrints-UK :harvesting UK e-Print archives also

investigating automated subject indexing using Dewey classification (with OCLC software in USA)

• eFAIR Cluster – exchange of experiences and work- includes e-Theses projects overlap in work areas


Univ of Southampton e-Print Archive

• Project funding 30 months Aug 2002-2005:

Targeting Academic Research for Deposit and dISclosure (TARDis)– Project Manager, Research Assistants x 2,

Admin Officer• Implement a university e-Print archive –

sustainable product – e-Prints Soton• Evaluate self and mediated archiving measured

against discipline culture• Document the technical, organisational and

cultural issues of archiving• Feedback into the eprint software design


TARDis Work Plan

• Early institutional e-Print archives have had problems with acquisition of content possibly because of self archiving protocol and discipline culture– Investigate the barriers

• Technical – hardware and software• Discipline culture• Depositors concerns

– Implementation• Policy considerations• Advocacy• Sustainability


Barriers – hardware and skills set

Hardware and software requirements – GNU Eprints

– Apache WWW server– Unix / RedHat Linux

• Any computer capable of running GNU/Linux or similar operating system

– Perl programming language and modules– MySQL – public domain software

• Different skill sets needed for other software• eg. DSpace - requires Java skills


Software Configuration (GNU EPrints v2.3) Everything should be made as simple as

possible

But not simpler. Albert Einstein • GNU Eprints - originally intended for self archiving – re- engineer for

institutional repository

• Simplify the deposit process– Reflect the look and feel of host web interface– Additional metadata fields for institutional structure:

• Faculties, Schools, Departments, Research Groups• Language• ISBN/ISSN?• Coporate author• On screen help

• Information management standards– Citation formats– Metadata fields to describe all document types – presented - logical

order– Global subject classification – or thesaurus– Deposit types & Document formats


GNU EPrints requested software development

• Batch import• Export to personal bibliographic software –

EndNote• Authentication• Non Techie configuration• Automated subject classification• Automated metadata quality control• Automated metadata from full text• Full text searching• OpenURL compliant• etc


Document Formats – multidisciplinary needs

• Defaults : HTML, pdf, Postscript, ASCII• May want to subtract

– HTML• Unless carefully checked HTML output from

Word unsatisfactory• Add :

– Special document preparation formats: LaTex or common formats such as RTF

• Accept all formats – all research output, including imagery, Powerpoint, streaming videos etc

• Open source utility programs available to convert from non supported to supported formats

• Must ensure we have the viewers for users to download – eg postscript viewer


Subject Classification / Thesaurus

• Early survey showed that all archives used either LoC or cut down version, or their own categories or published thesaurus JEL

• GNU EPrints Version 2 – installed Library of Congress as Default subject classification

– Established global scheme often used in University Libraries

– Top Level Headings• Subheadings to third level• Sufficient granularity?• Not a deposit friendly tool

• Possible to load additional classification or Subject based thesaurus?

• None at all – rely on title, keywords abstract or faculty structure as retrieval? But how can broad subject areas be harvested from a multidisciplinary archive without classification?


Barrier – University cultureSurvey

– No central database record of University research output is maintained.

• Retrospective central research publications listings collated from individual departments and made available on the web (University Research Report)

• In interviews - researchers want from an archive– To enter a record only once and use for multiple

purposes– Export from e-Print repository for multiple purposes –

listings, web pages, University Research Report! etc – Import of existing School databases and listings– Definitive bibliographic records not just full text– Own branding


E-Publishing on the University Web

Department

Total number of publications

Full text

Percentage of full text

Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences

Archaeology 252 2 1% English 243 3 1% Modern Languages 160 0 0% Music 280 5 2% Politics 138 6 4% Economics 357 89 25%

Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences

Biology 796 24 3% Medicine 1603 247 15% Health Professions and Rehabilitation Sciences

332

0 0%

Nursing and Midwifery

439 0 0%

Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics

Chemistry 1128 111 10% Electronics and Computer Science

7008 866* 12%

Maths Education 170 34 20% Mathematical Studies

849 310 37%

Ocean Circulation and Climate Group, SOES

286 9 3%

James Rennell Division, SOC

792 68 9%

* - personal web sites not counted

•Survey: researchers attitude to e-Publishing on the web.

–Snapshot–looked at web sites – personal and schools


Addressing authors concerns

• Work load – (central bureacracy, new systems to learn (change overload), file format conversion)– Assisted submission – the library will do it! (medium

term)

• Quality control – loss of peer review. • Authors continue to submit articles to high impact

traditional journals and also contribute to e-print archives

• Undermining the status quo– Some editors paid by publishers– Reputations made within the present system– Dislike of anti-publisher stance– Self archive complements status quo


Addressing authors concerns

• Visibility – compared with web pages– Standard search engines do pick up metadata from

archive but search must be specific eg Hall agent technology will be found but finding a paper from a subject search presents thousands of results (not efficient yet) - DP9 OAI Gateway Service for Web Crawlers to mine the deep web

• Ingelfinger rule - prior publication– Publishers gradually changing

• Authentication – probity (Life Sciences)– JISC project using TARDis as testbed

• Preservation– Implicit, Secure storage, migration

• Copyright!


IPR particularly Copyright• Traditionally authors sign over copyright, whether they

own it or not!• Univ Southampton does not claim copyright on authored

works other than course material.

• We need to encourage/assist authors:– Place articles with open access publishers– Negotiate agreement with publisher to retain e-Print right – Deposit postprint (pre journal version in archive (Harnad-

Oppenheim strategy)

– FAIR Project ROMEO Copyright Transfer Agreement List http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/index.html


Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving

Project ROMEO


Publishers attitudes changingNature Publishing Group 19 Sep 2003

To ensure the continued success of our titles, and in recognition of the changing priorities of our authors, we have initiated a range of new policies and projects. Since early 2002, NPG no longer requires authors to transf er copyright. I nstead, we ask only f or an exclusive licence to publish. I n return, authors are f ree to reuse their papers in any of their f uture printed work and have the right to post a copy of the published paper on their own websites and in course packs. Further, we are introducing Advanced Online Publication (AOP) on all journals hosted by nature.com, allowing authors to distribute their papers more rapidly than ever before.


Publishers making themselves OAI compliant

Institute of Physics: We are pleased to confirm that we have adopted this standard here at Institute of Physics Publishing and metadata records for our article abstracts are now available in Dublin Core. They can be ‘harvested’ from our server on request. August 2002

?How many library catalogues are OAI compliant?


Archive Implementation - Policy decisions

• Software• Centralised or distributed databases - document type,

university grouping• Collection policy (research output from whom ?) • File formats • Deposit agreements • Authentication of depositers• Metadata quality control - level• Administrative/operational load • Sustainability• Copyright / IPR institutional policy of non transfer or

negotiate– Retain the right to distribute it for free for scholarly scientific purposes in particular,

the right to self archive it publicly online on the www.

• Long term archiving / preservation– Global problem- not just e-Prints – digital assets– UK – Digital Preservation Centre– Stanford USA - LOCKSS – investigating international federated preservation facility


Implementation - Advocacy “if you build it they will come.” Costner: Field of dreams

• The biggest challenge is encouraging user participation:– Contribute content– Search/use the respository

• Leaflets• e-Print archive - demonstrator• Advocacy web site• Briefing paper to management – buy-in• Literature e.g. SPARC leaflet• Institutional magazines• Presenting at departmental meetings and university

committees• Special advocacy events• Carrots! – USB stick, pens etc


Where are we now?• E-Prints Soton –new configuration pre trial with ‘friends’

• feedback– Font, colour, school names, cut and paste, LoC!, Unix systems

browsers etc

• Pilot two Schools– Ocean and Earth Sciences (60 papers already)– Social Sciences

• Researchers’ buy in - biggest challenge

• Demonstrate real value (save them time)• Build bibliographic database of university research

output not just full text!• School branding (Lund example but from a central

database)


TARDis e-Prints Soton


Information space - a national vision:e-Prints + data + e-learning

e-Banks UK

End of the journey?

When data and documents will be linked and easily accessible

They will be an integral part of the academic work space just as the World Wide Web is today

But the Web will acquire meaning and become the Semantic Web

Open Archive protocols and metadata standards are a part of this journey

Thank You

Implementing e-Prints is an emerging challenge for the information community

Pauline SimpsonSouthampton Oceanography Centre,

University of Southampton, [email protected]


To keep up to date

Peter Suber keeps up to date with all these activities with the Free Online Scholarship Movement

Read his Open Access News blog (previously FOS Newsletter)

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/aboutblog.htm#namechange

Produced a Timeline to record the real momentum of archiving!

välkomna till chals 2003 24 sep 2003 e-print repositories for research visibility : a journey from...

Documents