COAR presentation by Kathleen Shearer
The scholarly communication field is skewed towards the northern hemisphere, etc – exacerbated by impact factors. Big publishers play the game to make sure we subscribe only to their journals. Open access has arrived – the transition is proving interesting in some cases as organisations try to live up to their open access goals. Germans, Finns and Dutch have all been strong negotiating with Elsevier. Germany’s Elsevier access got cut off – then Elsevier gave them a grace period because they were worried researchers wouldn’t care…
However flipping to APC this doesn’t help the skew [just means the skew is at who can publish rather than at who can read] or long-term sustainability – so another option is to strengthen repositories. MIT Future of Libraries report envision libraries as an “open global platform”. This means a dual mission for repositories: to showcase and provide access (past focus) but now also a node in a global knowledge commons.
Need to create a network supporting global nature of science. Aligning Repository Networks International Accord signed 8 May 2017. To support a distributed system – cross-regional harvesting, interoperability. COAR Controlled Vocabularies v.1.1 coming soon.
Looking at next generation repositories – how do we go beyond just including copies of full-text previously published by Big Publishers? Needs to have distribution of control, be inclusive, be for the public good, intelligently open. And need to think beyond articles: open data, [open code/methods], open notebook science, citizen science. Include services like metrics, comments, peer reviews (not in the repository but in the network layer on top), links between resources, notifications, global sign-on. Need to expose the content, not just the metadata.
“A vision in which institutions, universities and their libraries are the foundational nodes in a global scholarly communication system.”
Q on progress in different regions
A: Europe probably farthest along: South America has a strong network but individual institutions often need support; ŪSA has lots of strong individual repositories but no national network so rather siloed.
[On breaking into group discussions, the New Zealand contingent discussed the possibility of formalising the currently-grassroots New Zealand Institutional Repositories Community to have more impact in this kind of initiative.]
Repository interoperability standards – Australasian Repository Working Group feedback by various
Metadata standards and vocabularies. NISO “Free_to_read” tag and “License_ref” tag (linking to license). Deakin and UNE are using these and Deakin has output both to Trove. rioxx is a metadata profile for the UK to provide guidelines (but there are still people in the UK without standard metadata).
Challenge is lack of national harvester feeding into international harvesters. Harvested by Trove and others but would be good to be linked to an international aggregator and then be able to get data back to enrich our repositories.
Currently we have a well-established community of practice but would be helpful to formalise this as a repository network. Elsewhere there are professional networks; institutional networks; technical service networks. They have governance, terms of reference, membership (either personal or institutional), funding streams (varying models including ad hoc on a project basis). Would allow a defined way to share info between annual events; strength in numbers when talking with government etc; better informed on global developments.
Asked if people present were interested in the group seeking membership of COAR and/or forming a formal group – show of hands showed support for both.
New institutional repository for Curtin by Janice Chan
Wanted sustainability, flexibility, interoperability. Used Atmire for installation and ongoing support (as local IT staff had competing priorities). Decided to delay integration with Elements to take advantage of Repository Tools 2 – so currently doing ad hoc bulk ingest. Don’t use collections for faculty – is in metadata instead so searchable as a facet.
Repository Skill Set Survey 2017 by Natasha Simons and Joanna Richardson
2011 survey was about what training/skills people wanted/needed; advertised via CAIRSS – a response per individual, not per institution. Findings written up as New Roles, New Responsibilities: Examining Training Needs of Repository Staff Reporting and copyright were big themes; time and staffing were common challenges – lots of people only work part-time and there’s a specific skillset. Survey quoted as inspiration for Bepress’s repository manager certification course. Will rerun in November to see how much things have changed, or not….
Research publications workflow at Deakin University by Michelle Watson
Deakin Research Online was created in 2008, using Fez/Fedora – half-half open access/dark archive. Counted as point of truth, and its data is fed into the Research Office. Mostly manual processes:
- Faculty views each publication and adds HERDC classification
- Library adds additional metadata, checks copyright/OA, publishes
Okay for 100 records a week. But late 2014 added Elements and backlog increased dramatically because:
- more records coming in
- no guidelines to prioritise material
- now clear owner of workflow
- same level of checking for all kinds
Researchers unhappy with delays and convoluted workflow process. So working on improvements based on assumptions that Faculty and library vetting is still needed – but non-reportable outputs don’t need the same level of analysis. Value of repository is to preserve research, make it discoverable, and make it openly accessible (to increase citation rates).
New “smart ingest” approach where no additional checking is needed if outputs meet certain criteria – run reports which faculty download and filter so they can confidently assign as C1. Want to work with Symplectic to automate this (eg using the API to add the C1 tag).
Elements is now the source of truth, and feeds data to Research Master and staff profiles. Have developed guidelines, procedures, revamped wiki space to provide guidance to researchers – especially for inducting new researchers but also downloadable infographs to provide an at-a-glance overview.
UWA Research repository: how collaboration contributed to the development of a CRIS by Kate Croker
Looked into whether interdepartmental collaboration helped – discovered it was crucial. Interviewed key participants. Findings:
- built/cemented relationships
- collaboration improved the product – influenced a change in direction
- facilitated better understanding of other sections’ work
- changed views on issues for researchers and potential for research
- collaborating early clarifies business requirements better
- builds a shared vision – asked interviewees what was next and they all answered similarly