1 / 22

INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES UPDATE

INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES UPDATE. Joan K. Lippincott, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) Simon Fraser University June 26, 2009. Coalition for Networked Information (CNI). Founded in 1990 by ARL and EDUCAUSE

janina
Télécharger la présentation

INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES UPDATE

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. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES UPDATE Joan K. Lippincott, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) Simon Fraser University June 26, 2009

  2. Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) • Founded in 1990 by ARL and EDUCAUSE • Mission: accelerate progress in digital information related to research and education • 200+ member institutions • Executive Director Clifford Lynch • Headquarters in Washington, DC • www.cni.org • Fall and Spring Task Force (membership) meetings

  3. Highlight Three IR Issues • Revisiting the mission • Strategies for increasing content submission • Inclusion of new types of content

  4. IR: Mission Possible? • Is the mission to provide stewardship for all types of digital products being produced at an institution? • Focus on stewardship role of library/archives • Focus on gray literature produced at the university • Is the mission to provide a place for published faculty output, possibly supplemented with other materials like research data? • Focus on Open Access policies • …or something else? • (credit: Clifford Lynch, 2009)

  5. IR: Mission Possible? • Do you have a strong mandate or incentive to provide this service? • Clear signal from administrators/faculty • Dedication to fulfilling the library mission • How motivated is the library to provide resources for the IR? • “If you build it, they will come” is generally not working in this arena

  6. Who should be involved in establishing or revisiting the mission? • Librarians • Academic administrators • Faculty • Faculty governing body • Graduate students • Others?

  7. Repositories • What serves your constituency best and for what content? • Institutional • Disciplinary • National • Regional (EU, etc.) • How do the levels of repositories interrelate and interoperate? • How can you explain this issue to researchers?

  8. Strategies for Content Submission • There is no substitute for understanding your user population • Interviews • Observation of workflow • Speaking at faculty meetings and getting feedback • Surveys or other data collection • Identify target departments/institutes

  9. Observation/Interview at U. Rochester

  10. Strategies for Content Submission • The “Special Libraries solution” – do it for them • The build a tool(s) to make it easy solution • The institutional Open Access faculty resolution solution • The requirement solution, e.g. for ETDs or institutional reporting • The “payoff” solution – make the IR something that enhances faculty’s research dissemination and visibility

  11. Faculty Motivation and Compliance “Although self-archiving is ‘so simple that a child could do it,’ sometimes a child is not available…” Therefore, the library does the work for faculty, even reformatting preprints for the IR. Paul Royster, U. Nebraska

  12. Motivation Strategies

  13. Researcher Interest and Motivation • Disciplinary differences • University mandates • Personal reputation; evidence of use • Dissemination of information to developing countries • Concern about digital information curation after retirement

  14. Motivation Strategies • European Economics Portal NEOO • Open access to economics information • Peer status

  15. Compliance Strategies • 95% researchers say they would add content to IR if required by institution or funder, and in test cases around 90% complied • Alma Swan, American Scientist listserv, 8/06 • Canadian Institutes of Health Research Mandate • NIH Deposit Mandate in the US

  16. IRs and Publishing Programs • What are the goals of each • What is the relationship between programs • Clarify relationships for the library and for researchers

  17. Inclusion of New Types of Content • What are your institutional goals for moving beyond text/PDF? • Data related to science, humanities, etc. research • Multi-media objects • Learning objects • What claims can you make about stewardship?

  18. Data in Repositories • Storage needs • Formats • Updating • Migrating • Subject and tool expertise • Authenticity/tampering

  19. Research Data in Repositories

  20. Moving Forward • Continue to build understanding of your users • Clarify the relationship between institutional/national/regional and subject repositories • Do something important for your institution • Share results of your initiatives with others

  21. Resources • Lynch, Clifford. “Revisiting Institutional Repositories” • Will be available at http://www.cni.org/tfms/2009a.spring/abstracts/PB-revisiting-lynch.html • “Increasing Use and Content through Creative Service-Repository Bundling,” U. Nebraska • http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/media-pubs/index.shtml

  22. Contact Joan Lippincott joan@cni.org

More Related