Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Literature Review: Embedding repositories in research management systems and processes

Overview of project:

The project was undertaken to identify ‘successful models for embedding repositories in research management systems and processes’. The initial project was intending to identify examples of integration of computerised systems, but it found none that had succeeded in a complete integration, with many still relying on separate systems or a mixture of automated computerised systems and manual processes. Five case studies are reviewed, with the following outcomes.

The integration of repositories with research management systems and processes:
  • needs to ensure that all stakeholders are identified, in particular research managers and administrative staff
  • offers an opportunity for combined advocacy between the academic community and supporting services, linking to core strategic aims of the university
  • should have a demonstrable usefulness for academics and other stakeholders
  • needs to be deeply embedded into research publications processes and/or cycles

Advocacy tools: none identified

1Linton, H (2008). Embedding Repositories in Research Management Systems and Processes [online]. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/digitalrepositories2007/reposrmsystems.aspx [accessed 02/08/2010]

Posted by: Sarah Molloy (QMUL)


  1. Thanks, Sarah. I'm interested to know more about the background situations for the five case studies you mention. Were there any similarities with where our five HEIs are at now?

  2. The institutions were mainly anonymous, however the background is as follows:

    Institution 1 - has a 'well established' Research Management System containing information about researchers and their activities. The repository is partially integrated, and contains public outputs from research.

    Institution 2 - has a Research Management System, built in-house, oriented towards RAE 2008 submission, and a repository. It does not appear that these are linked in any way.

    Institution 3 - has widely distributed information stores and no centralised collection of bibliographic data. There is also a newly established institutional repository. These systems are not linked.

    Institution 4 - has a highly developed publications database, helping to populate some departmental web pages. There is a separate repository, but this is not linked to the publications database.

    Institution 5 - is actually an inter-institutional initiative from Norway called 'Frida. I think Richard reviews this project in a later post. The RMS is linked to each individual institutional repository.

    As you can see there are definitely some similarities with our various situations. Personally, I'm particularly interested in the Frida project since it seems to be very successful and very organised.

    There are two in-depth case studies in this report, one for University of Southampton and one for Imperial College.

    Both have integrated systems, and it is largely from these two that the outcomes in my original post come.

    Hope that clarifies things

    Sarah Molloy (QMUL)