1 / 80

Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK

ANKOS Workshop 2006: The institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the institution can do for the repository. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK. Part I. What the repository can do for your institution. Key Perspectives Ltd.

kosey
Télécharger la présentation

Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK

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. ANKOS Workshop 2006:The institutional repository: what it can do for your institution and what the institution can do for the repository Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK

  2. Part I What the repository can do for your institution Key Perspectives Ltd

  3. Why researchers publish their work Key Perspectives Ltd

  4. ‘Old’ paradigms • Use of proxy measures of an individual scholar’s merit is as good as it gets • It is a publisher’s responsibility to disseminate your work • Printed article is the format of record • Other scholars have time to search out what you want them to know Key Perspectives Ltd

  5. ‘New’ paradigms • Rich, deep, broad metrics for measuring the contributions of individual scholarss • Effective dissemination of your work is now in your hands (at last) • The digital format will be the format of record (is already in many areas) • Unless you routinely publish in Nature or Science, ‘getting it out there’ is up to you Key Perspectives Ltd

  6. The digital era “The potential role of electronic networks in scientific publication … goes far beyond providing searchable archives for electronic journals. The whole process of scholarly communication is undergoing a revolution comparable to the one occasioned by the invention of printing.” Stevan Harnad, 1990 Key Perspectives Ltd

  7. Open ‘Access’ (dissemination) The whole process of scholarly communication is evolving … perfectly naturally … with all the constraints and patterns that evolutionary theory would predict Key Perspectives Ltd

  8. Key Perspectives Ltd

  9. Key Perspectives Ltd

  10. Key Perspectives Ltd

  11. And yet … Still only 15% of research is Open Access Key Perspectives Ltd

  12. Open Access: How? • Open Access journals (www.doaj.org) • Open Access repositories (author ‘self-archiving’) Key Perspectives Ltd

  13. Author experience so far • Only 24% of authors have submitted an article to an Open Access journal • Only 22% have self-archived in their institutional repository • Natural selection or genetic drift? Key Perspectives Ltd

  14. Open Access: What is it? • Online • Immediate • Free (non-restricted) • Free (gratis) • To the scholarly literature that authors give away • Permanent Key Perspectives Ltd

  15. Open Access: Who benefits? • Benefits to researchers themselves • Benefits to institutions • Benefits to national economies • Benefits to science and society Key Perspectives Ltd

  16. Why we should have Open Access • Greater impact from scholarly endeavour • More rapid and more efficient progress of scholarship • Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of research • Better information-creation using new and better technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

  17. Open Access increases citations Range = 36%-200% (Data: Stevan Harnad and co-workers) Key Perspectives Ltd

  18. Other impact studies • Lawrence 2001 (computer science) • Kurtz 2004 (astronomy) • Brody & Harnad 2004 (all disciplines) • Antelman 2005 (philosophy, politics, electrical & electronic engineering, mathematics) • Wren 2005 • Eysenbach 2006 Key Perspectives Ltd

  19. “Self-archiving in the PhilSci Archive has given instant world-wide visibility to my work. As a result, I was invited to submit papers to refereed international conferences/journals and got them accepted.” An author’s own testimony on open access visibility Key Perspectives Ltd

  20. Lost citations, lost impact • Only around 15% of research is Open Access…. • ….. so 85% is not • ….. and we are therefore losing 85% of the 50% increase in citations (conservative end of the range) that Open Access brings (= 42.5%) Key Perspectives Ltd

  21. What this means: Ankara University • 2005: 856 articles • Number of citations: 423 • If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 603 citations Key Perspectives Ltd

  22. What this means: Hacettepe University • 2005: 1448 articles • Number of citations: 874 • If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 1246 citations Key Perspectives Ltd

  23. National economies • Since the Turkish Government invested $100m in S&T in 2005 ….. • This means lost impact worth $42.5m to the Turkish economy Key Perspectives Ltd

  24. Science is faster, more efficient Key Perspectives Ltd

  25. Measure, assess, and manage science more effectively • Assess individuals, groups, institutions, on the basis of citation analysis • Track downloads, citations, patterns of use • Trends: predict impact, usage, direction of science and influences on research • Latency, longevity • Hubs, authorities • ‘Silent’ ‘unsung’ authors identified by semantic analysis Key Perspectives Ltd

  26. Navigation and analysis of science output: Citebase • Find researchers • Measure citations to articles (not journals) • Follow the citations through the literature • Measure downloads (and predict citations) • Use citation patterns to analyse science Key Perspectives Ltd

  27. Find a researcher ….. Key Perspectives Ltd

  28. Follow citing articles Key Perspectives Ltd

  29. Measure usage and impact Key Perspectives Ltd

  30. Analyse via the citing trail Key Perspectives Ltd

  31. Key Perspectives Ltd

  32. New knowledge from old • Data-mining • Text-mining (semantic Web technologies) • UK: National Text-Mining Centre • Example: NeuroCommons (www.neurocommons.org) Key Perspectives Ltd

  33. Why Open Access • Greater impact from scientific endeavour • More rapid and more efficient progress of science • Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of science • Novel information-creation using new and advanced technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

  34. Repositories: interoperable • Show their content in a specific form • Harvested by search engines • Form a database of global research • Freely available • Publicly available • Permanently available Key Perspectives Ltd

  35. Institutionally-based repositories • 800+ • Half are institutional or departmental • Growth of 1 per day, but… • Average number of postprints is 297! Key Perspectives Ltd

  36. CERN archive Key Perspectives Ltd

  37. Key Perspectives Ltd

  38. An institutional repository provides researchers with: • The means to disseminate their work, free, to the world • Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress) • A location for supporting data that are unpublished • One-input-many outputs (CVs, publications) • Tool for research assessment Key Perspectives Ltd

  39. Why an institutional repository? • Fulfils a university’s mission to engender, encourage and disseminate scholarly work • Enables a university to compile a complete record of its intellectual effort • Forms a permanent record of all digital output from an institution • Enables standardised online CVs for all researchers (e.g. RAE exercise) • ‘Marketing’ tool for universities • An institution can mandate self-archiving across all subject areas Key Perspectives Ltd

  40. Coffee! Key Perspectives Ltd

  41. Part II What your institution can do for the repository Key Perspectives Ltd

  42. Some statistics • Awareness of Open Access is increasing amongst scholars in all disciplines • The number of repositories has increased at an average of 1 per day over the last year • The rate of increase is rising Key Perspectives Ltd

  43. A few more statistics • There are circa 800 repositories globally • There are 32 documented policies • There are 10 mandates Key Perspectives Ltd

  44. Here’s the problem… • Only 15% of research articles are spontaneously self-archived • The average number of postprints self-archived in institutional repositories is 297 Key Perspectives Ltd

  45. Policies, mandates • There is a difference • Both are being developed at institutional, national and even international level • One is sometimes effective, the other always is Key Perspectives Ltd

  46. Third component: advocacy • Sometimes in the absence of either a policy or mandate; sometimes alongside these • Advocacy – sustained and organised • Advocacy - opportunistic Key Perspectives Ltd

  47. Policies • An almost-mandate from the DFG, Germany • An almost-mandate from the FWF, Austria • Dutch policy for the universities in the DARE network • Exhortations and encouragements from public research funders in Finland, USA • National policy being developed in Sweden (?) • Developments in Australia, Canada, etc Key Perspectives Ltd

  48. Mandates • Proposed mandates:public funders (Canada, Australia, S.Africa, Ukraine, USA and EU) • Real mandates: • Wellcome Trust • RCUK (Research Councils UK) Key Perspectives Ltd

  49. USA • NIH: Strengthening now very likely Require not request • CURES: 6-month delay to provide OA permitted but deposit must be at acceptance • FRPAA: Mandatory deposit: all research funded by the largest agencies Key Perspectives Ltd

  50. UK • Wellcome Trust ($750m) • Research Councils UK 4 out of 8 have a mandate and 1 has a strong encouragement Key Perspectives Ltd

More Related