This year's Repository Fringe event is taking place this week (2nd to 3rd September) in Edinburgh, and the RePosit project will be there. Sarah Molloy, project partner from Queen Mary, is giving a Pecha Kucha talk about RePosit. For anyone unfamiliar with the Pecha Kucha format, this is a fast-paced way to give an overview of a topic, where the speaker has exactly 20 slides, with just 20 seconds per slide. We hope that the audience at the Repository Fringe will be interested in hearing about what the project hopes to achieve, and will read this blog, give us plenty of feedback and sign up to our user community Google group for in-depth discussions. Good luck, Sarah!
Posted by: Lizzie Dipple
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Literature Review: EM-Loader project
The EM-Loader project demonstrated a new workflow for batch deposit of a researcher's publications to an institutional repository using the SWORD interface, with a sample implementation connecting PublicationsList to the Depot's installation of ePrints.
As well as the investigation, and development, of the SWORD interface, resulting in a new API and improved user workflow, the project also addressed two key problems:
As well as the investigation, and development, of the SWORD interface, resulting in a new API and improved user workflow, the project also addressed two key problems:
- the motivation problem, by focussing on providing tools to save researcher time in maintaining their personal publications list on the web;
- the usability problem, by importing metadata in batch mode where possible (from online data services) and submitting the items to the repository in batch mode too.
Key findings that may be relevant to RePosit
Benefits - the project identified the need to sell the likely benefits of an institutional repository to the academic as part of any advocacy for tools, and noted the use of both carrots (improved search index rank, longer term storage, etc.) and sticks (research assessment exercise, open access mandate).
Non-engagement - it is just as important to consider the reasons why a researcher would not want to use their repository, e.g. an early bad experience, the effort required to populate metadata and so on.
Web page as the focus - the project identified the advantages of making the researcher's web page as the focus of deposit, noting the possible rewards and likely engagement, especially if the workflow reduces effort on the academic's behalf.
Usability - as part of this section of the final report, several concerns were raised that should be addressed as part of any future advocacy, namely:
- Copyright permission - the need to re-assure and educate researchers about publisher policies and copyright permissions;
- Multiple copies - the requirement for any technical solution to address the possibility of co-authors uploading multiple copies of the same paper to the repository;
- The actual upload - making sure that it is made clear whether full text or just metadata is being uploaded.
Motivation - the project, in its conclusion, identified the motivation issue as critical. It noted that 'researchers are just not motivated to populate their local repository, but they do usually care about their public web page and getting more citations'. The provision of a tool to help the researcher maintain that web presence integrates the deposit process into their own normal activities.
Push/pull - to close, the project looked forward and suggested an ultimate goal of 'zero click deposit', where the repository would PULL items rather than expecting the user to PUSH their items into the repository. The extension of EM-Loader to support a PULL model was seen as a natural follow-on for the project.
Project Documentation: http://publicationslist.org/em-loader/emloader-report-intro.html
Literature Review: IncReASe project
The project aimed to increase content in White Rose Research Online by improving deposit options and embedding the repository within researcher workflows. It looked at researcher self-archiving behaviour and awareness of open access (web site analysis/questionnaire/interview), identified issues around bulk import of metadata (import from various sources) and looked at interoperability between the EPrints repository and other internal and external IT systems. The appearance of Symplectic shortly after the project started required us to rethink the project, the ongoing role of the repository and the sort of services we’d assumed the repository might offer (e.g. feeding data to web pages).
• Authors: low awareness of repository and OA in general, including funder OA requirements. Deposit barrier: deposit not seen as relevant to their academic discipline. Copyright checking the most valued aspect of the repository service. Usage statistics most desired add on service. Fewer academics spontaneously archive on their own web pages than we thought (16%); much of this material is grey literature. Maths and Computing had strongest self-archiving profile. A large cultural and behavioural shift will be required for widespread self-archiving; targeting early career researchers and PhD students may help cultural change. (Questionnaire summary document).
• Versioning / file capture: project concluded version confusion was a barrier to deposit and this was best addressed by routinely asking for the “accepted version” of the work at the point of acceptance for publication. Possible model to investigate (i) initial capture of file and skeleton metadata (ii) subsequent post-publication metadata completion.
• “Proxy” depositors: local administrators are well placed to “champion” and support the repository in ways that more “remote” central repository staff are not; this advantage needs to be balanced against the need to provide training and support for departmentally based staff.
• Manual metadata: varied hugely in quality and improvement was resource hungry. Services need to weigh benefits of improvement against cost. Dealing with legacy data is challenging! There is scope for further automation of quality control processes e.g. reporting tool run against agreed metadata quality criteria.
• Sharing data: we need to work out the relationship between institutional repositories and subject / funder repositories (arXiv, RePEC, PMC, ESRC) to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort - and for more powerful advocacy.
• Funders: linking research grant details to output is necessary to (i) show compliance with funder open access requirements and (ii) flag the requirement for onward deposit to (or harvesting from) a subject repository. ESRC collaborated on the IncReASe project; in principle, ESRC were open to the idea of accepting deposits directly from SWORD compliant repositories. There is further scope to explore this function. Would be a strong selling point for both depositors and research administrators.
Project web site: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/
Advocacy tools - poster and leaflet: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/publicity.html
Key findings which may be relevant to RePosit
• Authors: low awareness of repository and OA in general, including funder OA requirements. Deposit barrier: deposit not seen as relevant to their academic discipline. Copyright checking the most valued aspect of the repository service. Usage statistics most desired add on service. Fewer academics spontaneously archive on their own web pages than we thought (16%); much of this material is grey literature. Maths and Computing had strongest self-archiving profile. A large cultural and behavioural shift will be required for widespread self-archiving; targeting early career researchers and PhD students may help cultural change. (Questionnaire summary document).
• Versioning / file capture: project concluded version confusion was a barrier to deposit and this was best addressed by routinely asking for the “accepted version” of the work at the point of acceptance for publication. Possible model to investigate (i) initial capture of file and skeleton metadata (ii) subsequent post-publication metadata completion.
• “Proxy” depositors: local administrators are well placed to “champion” and support the repository in ways that more “remote” central repository staff are not; this advantage needs to be balanced against the need to provide training and support for departmentally based staff.
• Manual metadata: varied hugely in quality and improvement was resource hungry. Services need to weigh benefits of improvement against cost. Dealing with legacy data is challenging! There is scope for further automation of quality control processes e.g. reporting tool run against agreed metadata quality criteria.
• Sharing data: we need to work out the relationship between institutional repositories and subject / funder repositories (arXiv, RePEC, PMC, ESRC) to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort - and for more powerful advocacy.
• Funders: linking research grant details to output is necessary to (i) show compliance with funder open access requirements and (ii) flag the requirement for onward deposit to (or harvesting from) a subject repository. ESRC collaborated on the IncReASe project; in principle, ESRC were open to the idea of accepting deposits directly from SWORD compliant repositories. There is further scope to explore this function. Would be a strong selling point for both depositors and research administrators.
Project web site: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/
Advocacy tools - poster and leaflet: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/publicity.html
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Project Plan post 7: Budget
The project budget will be managed by the Project Director, not the Project Manager, as the Project Manager resides in a commercial organisation, and the project funds have been paid to the lead institution (Leeds University).
The budget has been reworked since the proposal to allocate £3000 for dissemination events.
| Apr10 – Mar11 | Apr11 – Mar 12 | TOTAL £ | |
| Directly Incurred Staff | |||
| Total Directly Incurred Staff (A) | £72,094 | £0 | £72,094 |
| | | | |
| Directly Incurred Non-Staff | | | |
| Travel and expenses | £7,000 | | £7,000 |
| Hardware/software | £5,000 | | £5,000 |
| Other (Advocacy Materials) | £4,000 | | £4,000 |
| Consultancy (Project Management) | £21,600 | | £21,600 |
| Consultancy (Data Analysis + Final Report) | £9,600 | | £9,600 |
| Consultancy (Development of Training Materials) | £6,000 | | £6,000 |
| Consultancy (Workshop Support) | £4,000 | | £4,000 |
| Dissemination events | £3,000 | | £3,000 |
| Total Directly Incurred Non-Staff (B) | £60,200 | £0 | £60,200 |
| | | | |
| Directly Incurred Total (C) (A+B=C) | £132,294 | £0 | £132,294 |
| | | | |
| Directly Allocated | | | |
| Project Director | £4,459 | | £4,459 |
| Estates | £10,682 | | £10,682 |
| Directly Allocated Total (D) | £15,141 | £0 | £15,141 |
| | | | |
| Indirect Costs (E) | £54,659 | £0 | £54,659 |
| | | | |
| Total Project Cost (C+D+E) | £201,094 | £0 | £201,094 |
| Amount Requested from JISC | £111,553 | £0 | £111,553 |
| Institutional Contributions | £66,341 | £0 | £66,341 |
| Symplectic Contributions | £24,200 | £0 | £24,200 |
| | | | |
| Percentage Contributions over the life of the project | JISC, X % | Partners, X % | Total |
| | 54.47% | 44.53% | 100% |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)