The New Frontier of Institutional Repositories

1. The New Frontier of Institutional Repositories Three Different Libraries, Three Different Plans, One Common Goal CNI Fall 2003 Project Briefing Monday December 8, 2003 http://www.sedlc.org/presentations/cni2003

2. Institutional Repository Collaboration @ UTK Anthony D. Smithadsmith1@utk.eduDigital Initiatives Coordinator,Systems DepartmentUniversity of Tennessee Libraries

3. Outline • What’s UTs interest in an institutional repository • Some of the strategies being explored • What’s next

4. Why the Interest • A central archive service. • Department Slide Collections • Grey literature • Student Projects • etc. • A possible solution to help address the scholarly publishing crisis.

5. Book Journal Article Art original Grant proposal Art catalog introduction Map Preprint Radio/TV interview Motion picture Music score Pamphlet Photograph/slide Consulting (technical) report Screenplay/script Tech Drawing Newspaper column Poster session display Some Types of Faculty Scholarship

6. “We believe that institutional repositories are a practical, cost-effective, and strategic means for institutions to build partnerships with their faculty to advance scholarly communication.” Richard K. Johnson, Enterprise Director, SPARC

7. Some Strategies • Information Alliance Meeting • UT, Vanderbilt, and University of Kentucky Libraries • Panel presentations on IRs • Oct 2003 • Provide a forum for a discussion http://www.lib.utk.edu/~alliance/agendafall2003.html

8. Excerpt from Optics & Photonics News (Oct 2003) by Dennis Hall, Associate Provost for Research and Graduate Education, Vanderbilt University

9. “Once institutional repositories-turned-journals exist and begin to attract contributions from senior faculty, established commercial and nonprofit journal publishers will find themselves facing an expanding number of new competitors whose names are even more recognizable than there own.” Excerpt from Optics & Photonics News (Oct 2003) by Dennis Hall, Associate Provost for Research and Graduate Education, Vanderbilt University

10. Some Strategies • The University Libraries e-Forum series presents electronic issues for the academic community • DAVID HAMRIN, Technical Information Officer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory • EXPOSING TECHNICAL REPORTS: Why are they valuable? Why are they so elusive? • Dec 3, 2003 http://www.lib.utk.edu/announce/eforum2003_Dec3.html DOE Information Bridge: http://www.osti.gov/bridge

11. Some Strategies • A few interesting points that came from the discussion: • The engineering community relies heavily on technical reports. • Most technical reports result in a published article. • Technical reports usually contain much more detail than published articles. • Technical reports are usually available for use well before the published article. http://www.lib.utk.edu/announce/eforum2003_Dec3.html DOE Information Bridge: http://www.osti.gov/bridge

12. Some Strategies • Scholars Archive • UT Digital Library Center and The Association for Evolutionary Economics • Pilot project to create a journal repository and provide free access to back issues of the Journal of Economic Issues. • Began in 2002 http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/utj/

13. Some Strategies • Electronic Theses and Dissertations • UT Libraries, Graduate Office, and Office of Information Technology • Collection contains nearly 300 ETDs with a growing participation each semester. • Began in 1999 http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?c=etd-bib;cc=etd-bib;page=index

14. Some Strategies • DSpace • UT Sunsite and the Classics Department • Pilot test of DSpace • DSpace for Dummies • Began in Summer 2003 DSpace for Dummies - http://sunsite.utk.edu/diglib/dspace/ Testbed - https://dspace.sunsite.utk.edu/index.jsp

15. Some Strategies • NDIIPP (Informed Creation Aids Preservation, ICAP)Proposal - facilitates the preservation of born-digital objects by including the document creator in the preservation architecture • A focus on grey literature • UT Center for Information Studies, UT Libraries, Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Office of Scientific Technology and Information (DOE), UT Office of Information Technology • Award Announcement: Spring 2004 • GOAL TWO: Identify and assess systems that allow for the capture and collection of electronic documents.

16. ICAP Objectives • To explore knowledge of preservation issues among each of the three study populations. • To determine current methods of document creation employed. • To determine what barriers may exist that make it more difficult for document creators to create preservation-friendly documents. • To study document creator use of the existing systems and produce suggestions about how it may be improved. • To explore what can be done to facilitate informed creation. • To conduct usability testing to suggest tools that may be created to encourage informed creation. • To design an informed creation preservation intervention to increase awareness of preservation issues among document creators and to encourage adoption of informed creation principles for born-digital documents.

17. Some of What’s Next • Get NDIIP grant (partnership) and begin digital preservation research. • Continue promoting institutional repositories throughout the campus environment every chance we get. • Explore the issues of long-term stewardship. • Conduct system comparative analysis. (DSpace, E-Prints, etc.) • Demonstrate the practical utility of an IR system to faculty and students.

18. Acknowledgements • Chris Hodge and Jason Simms, University of Tennessee SunSite. • Linda Phillips, Collection Development Manager, University of Tennessee Libraries.

19. Institutional Repository Development @ Georgia Tech Tyler Walterstyler.walters@library.gatech.eduAssociate Director,Digital and Technical ServicesGeorgia Institute of Technology Library and Information Center

20. IR @ GT – Context & Planning • Organizational commitment to Digital Initiatives in Library strategic plan, 2002 • A major objective: “digital publishing program to promote open standards for faculty and students, resulting in durable, functional digital works accessible worldwide.” • Funding allocated to hire Digital Initiatives Managerand Assoc. Director, Digital and Technical Services. Hired Jan. 2003 and Dec. 2002 respectively

21. IR @ GT – Context & Planning: 2003 • DTS divisional and DI Dept. strategic plans completed • IR based on information needs of users • Systems/policies - capture, dissemination, access, preservation • Campus digital initiatives, promote open source approaches • Capture “at-risk” digital intellectual output • Create digital resources from existing library resources • Staffing “moves” in Digital Initiatives and Systems Depts…

22. IR @ GT - Drivers • Technology development and “born-digital” prevalence concern: losing information found on unit web sites, not “sent” to Library • Library budget growth: $1.2 mill (fy04) and $750,000 (fy03) vote of confidence, Library can deliver on managing digital information • GT mission: knowledge creation, transfer, and library’s role • Interdisciplinary research and cross-disciplinary data mining (Digital Repository, YES and “Silos” - NO)

23. IR @ GT – Drivers, cont’d • Campus initiatives: learning objects (7 major projects) • Acceptance / interest in ETD @ GT program • Growth in papers, reports, lectures – units creating “online libraries” (but not really) • GTRI, other research centers reports and paper series • Depts.’ working papers series, conference papers • i.e. Sam Nunn Policy Forum – speech videos and transcripts • Ca. 50 examples inventoried (found on a GT web site)

24. Promoting value-added library services in a digital context: • Adding value to academic depts.’ disparate attempts to share information through… • Standard metadata to discover resources inter-institutionally • Digital preservation schemes and approaches • Online access over time, across technologies (open source) • Searching/knowledge mining (cross-disciplinary discovery)

25. IR @ GT: “Fast-tracking” • Why? Because despite users telling us they would like to have an IR, they, and we, don’t really know how they will interact with it. • Response to this dilemma? We will build a “pilot” IR asap to observe users’ interaction with it and gain their feedback re: their needs

26. IR @ GT: “Fast-tracking, cont’d • Pressure to fast-track? You bet. We need to produce and show the value of Digital Initiatives program. With $1.95 million added to library budget in 2 years, we need to show ROI to resource allocators

27. IR @ GT: Software Selection • Formed library team to review, assess, select IR software, and review “functional issues”: • Preservation/administrative metadata handling • Subject headings / controlled vocabulary use, and end user utility or need • Submission process (user friendliness) • Policy issues, i.e. who has rights regarding access, submission, review, etc.

28. IR @ GT: Software Selection, cont’d • Some more functional issues under review: • Searching, basic vs. advanced • Fiscal costs • Open source as a mission, a driver • Long-term preservation, i.e. formats and migration approaches. Preservation Network possibilities.

29. IR @ GT: Software Selection cont’d • Reviewing DSpace and EPrints more closely • GT ECE / Library: DSpace explorations of learning object mgmt. …Projecting pilot implementation in Spring, 2004…

30. IR @ GT Overall Objective: • Not to achieve perfection, but rather to start down the “IR road.” Adjust along the way. • Our goals must be obtainable within the ability, energy, and time available from our programmers and managers.

31. D-Scholarship @ FSU Robert H. McDonaldrmcdonal@mailer.fsu.eduAssistant Director of Libraries,Division of Library TechnologyFlorida State University Libraries

32. D-Scholarship @ FSU • Why a Fast Track Initiative? • Modular Framework • Cost Analysis • Participants • Future Growth

33. Why a Fast Track Initiative? • Our program is a relatively new Digital Library Program (March 2003) • Core Directive is to capture born digital output of the university • IR is one path toward this directive • Wanted to capture the momentum that comes with the Fall Semester of the typical academic year.

34. Modular Framework • Chief goal was to create metadata scheme that was mappable to all areas of digital initiatives. • FSU MD was born • Regardless of System we wanted pristine copies of metadata and digital objects that could work with out-of-the-box solutions.

35. digital document collection discovery metadata repository xslt stylesheet display control layer digital multimedia collection “fsumd” common metadata mapping xml metadata ingestor access management & discovery layer uses “fsumd” metadata standard digital data collection digital rights admin. tools & processes preservation admin. tools & processes administration & data mgmt. tools partnership 1 (example: ETDs) partnership 2 (example: dept. publications) digital content ingestor digital object repository partnership 3 (example: instructional objects)

36. Modular Framework • Metadata Repository • Digital Object Repository • Resource Discovery Module (User Interface) • Distributed Ingest Module (extranet for partners) • Administrative Module • Digital Rights Management • OAI-PMH Provider

37. Modular Framework Phase I • Out-of-the-Box Solutions • Metadata Repository • Digital Object Repository • Application Service Provider (BE Press) • Resource Discovery Module • Distributed Ingest Module • Administrative Module • Digital Rights Management • OAI-PMH Provider

38. Cost Analysis • First Year Costs (Startup) • Hardware $6000.00 • Software (ASP) $6000.00 • Personnel $18,500.00 • Total Startup Costs $30,500.00

39. Participants • At first we thought no one… • Resistance from Physics (…waste of money) • Resistance from editorial board members (response could have come verbatim from a license agreement) • Not So Fast My Friend… • Oceanography Turkey Point Research Station Report Series (Undergraduate Research Initiative) • Mathematics Pre-Prints • SEDLC White Papers (Southeastern Digital Library Coalition)

40. Future Growth • Ongoing discussion with the Honors Program • Future discussion with Oceanography • Growth area • Interested in a Pre-Print Site for Oceanography • Showcase for Undergraduate Research

41. Questions? This powerpoint and handouts are online at: http://www.sedlc.org/presentations/cni2003/ CNI Fall 2003 Project Briefing Monday December 8, 2003