JOINING SYSTEMS: who owns, administers, and links the systems together?

When planning our discussion topic for the RSP event Working Smartly Together, we assumed that people participating in the discussion group would already have a link between a CRIS and repository system - or be well on with planning the link. We also hoped that people would be further down the line in joining systems and could share their experiences with those still thinking about a potential CRIS/repository link.

In fact, to our surprise, the majority of group members were still at an early stage: some considering a CRIS/repository link, some planning to expand an existing repository to offer CRIS type functions and others just interested in the topic but with no current link plans. Although the CRIS/Repository model is becoming more common, institutions that have followed the process through and achieved full integration between the two systems are still few and far between.

Quickly shifting gears from the initial breakout group plan, we discussed some of the potential benefits and challenges of the new model.

Findings are below (transcribed from flip charts and added commentary):

Benefits

• Potentially greater deposit: whether this is true or not depends on where you are starting from with your existing repository. Some are well embedded, but others have struggled to become part of everyday researcher workflows.

• One stop shop: single place of deposit but also a way to draw together many strands of research information. A CRIS can be enhanced by an OA platform and the high standards of data curation which come with it; the repository can be complemented by the administrative data in the CRIS.

• CRIS+repository may be a good model to support researcher compliance with funder OA and reporting requirements.

• CRIS benefits from repository visibility – research becomes more discoverable.

• Web page feeds may include publication lists with links to repository content - but also grants, expertise, activities, impact etc.

• Repository usage stats could be fed back to the CRIS. As well as usage, stats could show non-OA-depositors what traffic they’re missing.

Risks / challenges

• OA takes a back seat.

• Academics don’t care about the depositing system – it’s just another admin system to them. Maybe this doesn’t matter. And it’s not an issue that’s limited to the CRIS+repository model. But perhaps academics are less likely to engage with OA aspects of a CRIS if they don’t see the relevance to their own subject discipline and research.

• REF – a useful driver - but too much REF focus could lead to fewer OA deposits and more limited engagement with repository systems.

• Why have two sets of metadata? Is the repository just a file store? Does it matter?

• Data quality – building the publication database within a CRIS tends to involve importing data from a number of different sources. E.g. Thomson Web of Science, departmental databases, individual publication lists in EndNote, BiBTeX etc. Inevitably there is duplication and a range of data quality issues. Is it worth tidying the records up? Who does this? Is there any resource to do this? Is surfacing publication data on researcher web pages sufficient incentive for them to rectify any issues with their own data?

Wishlist

• The model helps with research publication and research data curation – funder data is tied in with compliance requirements, depositors are advised on these & there is automatic deposit or notification to required external subject / data repositories.

• Effective data exchange between systems & common data standards – probably CERIF.

• Crosswalks between systems are easy to set up and readily tailorable.

• Relevant support departments work together to create an effective system (Research Office, Library, IT, Staff Training). Effective governance mechanisms are put in place.

• Uptake by some researchers exerts peer pressure on others, raising overall take up.

Conclusion:
So long as you have an effective system to deposit, describe, disseminate and preserve you research information, it may not matter too much what the underlying architecture looks like. However, there are many practical issues to be tackled – particularly if you have pre-existing systems which must be linked or phased out – when introducing a CRIS+repository architecture.

Many thanks to the attendees as the comments provided the project with insights that will be written up in the final project report.

submitted by: Rachel Proudfoot and Jodie Double

Repositories and CRIS / working smartly together - report from conference 19th July

I led the workshops on CRIS/repository advocacy. Do you advocate as separate systems or as one system? If the CRIS and Repository are integrated, do you need to brand the repository, is the focus on the CRIS or is a combination approach best?

The 2 groups all had different CRIS / repository models, some institutions had both and some were integrated/ some not. Other institutions had just a repository or just a CRIS so it was excellent to get a wide variety of views.

Key feedback :

• the concept of the one stop shop so if staff are working in one system, be it the CRIS or repository, then advocacy was focused on the one system as the place to do all the necessary tasks.


• that institutions can often put in artificial barriers between systems, often relating to the organizational unit that manages them and in terms of language and terminology


• researchers don't care which system is doing what, they just need to know what they have to do


• researchers want clarity with support so joint sessions, singe points of contact are key


• repositories can provide real life statistics which can be used in advocacy sessions to promote the repository


• the REF is a key driver for research strategy at many unis and is also having an effect on people's perception of the repository, on submission and Open Access. Some institutions reported that discussions were being had on what is good enough quality to be deposited into the repository and a suggestion that only REFable material should be submitted. Should the repository be for all research or just as a shop window for the highest rated research? Clearly this raises questions around the drivers for submission which may vary according to stakeholder group


• In general, most of the institutions were giving their repository a brand and identity

I then weaved this feedback gained on the day into my presentation which provided a case study of how the questions were approached at Plymouth University.

My conclusion, which was backed up by the conference participants, is that researchers and senior university management want clarity and demonstrations of coherence and of support for individual and university goals.
The branding and advocacy strategy needs to be flexible and responsive to the audience and messages.
It is perhaps not a question of deciding a single focus on CRIS or the Repository or integration but a question of deciding when and how to apply a varying focus, depending on your audience/message.

Nicola Cockarill, Plymouth University

Break-out session on CRIS/repository community at RSP conference

One of the five topics that we covered through smaller group break-out discussion sessions at last week's RSP conference was all about how the CRIS and repository community might want to communicate. This nicely tied in with the end of Simon Kerridge's keynote speech about how linked systems mean that more communication between research office and repository managers is essential. The session's title was 'Community and Communications to Support the CRIS Model' and it was basically a facilitated discussion around whether this new CRIS->repository world requires new thinking and new means to share the knowledge and experience that's out there. Are existing discussion forums or mailing lists sufficient to the task?

I started by asking each of the two sets of people who had chosen to join this topic how they had found out about the RSP event itself, which lead on to an interesting look at which lists different types of people (RO = research office, RM = repository managers/library, IT = technology people) belonged to.

group 1:


group 2:


There was a bit of overlap but no obvious one existing place that all the groups who now are involved when CRIS systems (traditionally coming from the research office) are linked to institutional repositories (usually run by the library) or the link is under consideration - except perhaps for the JISC-repositories list, which is rather wide-ranging and already quite busy.

Then we had some discussions around open vs closed lists (the RePosit Google discussion group is now open to all new members) and the dangers of 'flaming'. We talked about how to avoid list fatigue - perhaps by using technical solutions to join existing lists via keywords into a super-list rather than creating anything new - and heard with interest that ARMA and UKcorr lists may be joining forces. Also, how to maintain the informality of a group - such as that which has helped make the RePosit Google group approachable for queries and discussions? Plus there were those who felt that existing communication was sufficient without needing anything else, using Twitter or Google searches to find individual sources of extra information - or just the willingness to pick up the phone and talk to someone in person.

All in all, some interesting discussion - but how to take this forward? In the absence of one obvious person who is so motivated to set up and run a CRIS/repository community, which is the body to run with the idea? In our discussions, the consensus seemed to be some combination of RSP/JISC and ARMA was our best bet.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

RePosit at yesterday's RSP conference

As has been mentioned in a number of recent posts on this blog, the RePosit project was very much involved in the RSP conference entitled 'Repositories and CRIS: working smartly together', which took place yesterday, Tuesday 19th July, at the East Midlands Conference Centre in Nottingham. We had an hour-and-a-half slot in the morning, during which we facilitated five interactive break-out discussion sessions (as listed below) and gave a series of presentations around those topics to share some of the findings from the project. The audience was a good mix of repository managers/library staff and people from the research office, with a sprinkling of IT and others, and we had some interesting discussions. There will be individual blog posts about each of the discussion topics in more detail - to follow.

1. JOINING SYSTEMS: WHO OWNS/ADMINS/LINKS THE SYSTEMS TOGETHER? In a blended landscape does it matter whether or not you have a separate repository? What are the implications for pre-existing repository services of the CRIS+repository model? How is legacy data handled? How do the two systems complement each other? Who owns the system?

2. CRIS/REPOSITORY ADVOCACY. Do you advocate as separate systems or as one system? If the CRIS and Repository are integrated, do you need to brand the repository, is the focus on the CRIS or is a combination approach best?

3. ENGAGING YOUR RESEARCHERS. What will motivate researchers to upload to the repository using the CRIS? What is special about it? How do we SELL it? Carrot or stick?

4. DEMONSTRATING THE BENEFITS: ADVOCACY STRATEGY IN A CRIS->REPOSITORY WORLD. Any advocacy strategy begins with identifying stakeholders and advocacy methodology. In a CRIS-to-repository model are there people, issues and tools to consider that are different to other deposit models, and if so, how to we deal with them?

5. COMMUNITY AND COMMUNICATIONS TO SUPPORT THE CRIS MODEL. Does the CRIS->repository world require new thinking? How best do we share the knowledge and experience? Are existing forums sufficient?

posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Busy busy with dissemination preparations

Despite the recent blog silence, in fact there’s quite a lot going on with RePosit at the moment. Next Tuesday is our main project dissemination event for the whole year (although Jodie Double has just agreed to present at the Repositories Fringe in Edinburgh next month too) – at the RSP event in Nottingham. Six members of the project team – Ellie James (Keele), Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary), Nicola Cockarill (Plymouth), Rachel Proudfoot (Leeds), Jodie Double (Leeds) and Lizzie Dipple (Symplectic) – will be there representing RePosit, outlining our project findings so far and sharing our experiences of advocacy planning and in action. Therefore we’re all busily making final changes to presentations, running over organisational details and tying together our sessions. We’ve been using our usual Skype call method of keeping in touch and facilitating necessary discussions. Roll on Tuesday...


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

ARMA presentation

Doesn't time fly! It was a few weeks ago since I presented at the ARMA conference (Association of Research Managers and Administrators), here is my Prezi http://prezi.com/xhxhicyxmo-z/the-repository-rollercoaster/

We had some fantastic discussion about the issues around repositories, with colleagues in the audience at different stages.

Ellie James
Keele University

The Repository Rollercoaster

I'll be at the ARMA conference in Glasgow next week and on the Wednesday morning at 11am I'll be doing my session on 'The Repository Rollercoaster'. The 'prezi' will take the audience on a journey through my repository experience, including some of the advocacy work, and my partipication in this JISC project.

I will post the link to the presentation here afterwards, and also post the discussions.

Ellie James
Keele University

RePosit at Symplectic User Conference

This week saw the annual Symplectic User Conference in London, and a number of the RePosit project team attended. The day was loosely themed around repositories and data storage. Rachel Proudfoot (Leeds), Sarah Molloy (QMUL) and Nicola Cockarill (Plymouth) jointly gave a presentation about RePosit - one of the four talks given by outside speakers. There were a number of questions from the audience for the RePosit speakers, and it seemed that the three case studies - outlining what has been taking place at each of the three institutions represented regarding RePosit activities - struck a chord. We also plugged our involvement with the forthcoming RSP event in Nottingham on 19th July - a major dissemination opportunity for the project.

At the end of the day, making the most of the chance to meet face to face, we had a brief project discussion about progress in various areas. We also talked about how the RePosit presentation had been received that day - and I learned that at least one other institution had made contact to find out about potentially reusing some of our advocacy messages to help them make a case for the CRIS-to-repository model.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

A Queen Mary update

In recent weeks, the repository here at Queen Mary has been having a bit of work done 'under the bonnet'. In preparation for a proposed official launch during this month of 'May-ing', we have upgraded DSpace from version 1.5.2 to version 1.6.2, and upgraded Repository Tools into the bargain. Top marks to the IT guru for having achieved this without a hitch (he was somewhat smug).

Elsewhere in Research Publications world at QM, we have recently launched a public 'shop window' of our research output. Research Publications will eventually link to Queen Mary Research Online, is already automatically updated every day (overnight) and is proving somewhat popular with our academics and administrators alike who want to link to it from department websites. We'll be monitoring the traffic to/through this site over the coming weeks and months to see what impact it has on exposing research outputs more widely, and whether it too could drive engagement with Open Access.

In a related matter, we are now working with departments to provide data from PubLists (our local name for the Symplectic Elements system) to departments to populate their own academic web pages. This is a very big deal here, with lots of academic staff keen to have this set up quickly (no pressure then). Again, this will provide a direct link to full content in QMRO, so this could be an additional driver for engagement but it's early days at the moment.

The major focus for me over May and June is to begin seriously promoting and advocating: Open Access, self deposit, repositories and in particular QMRO, using the model that we've adopted here to demonstrate the ease with which this can be achieved.

Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary, University of London)

RSP winter school

The RSP winter school took place 9-11th February in the Lake District and was my first Repository Support Project event. I wanted to use the opportunity, as a new repository manager, to immerse myself in the repository world, meet other repository colleagues and to inform my work both here at the University of Plymouth and for RePosit.

Some of the main points I took away to reflect on:

• the variety of models eg commercial / in house, CRIS, no CRIS, standalone or connected repository. From one point of view, this means that there are less HEIs, then I thought, to share experience with but on the other hand, it also means that interest should be generated around the RePosit model and others can share and use the project partner's experiences.

• the concept of a shared CRIS, feeding to multiple repositories is another more unusual feature of the UoP setup and again other HEIs may wish to share our experiences

• discussions around the CRIS-repository model changing the concept of the IR (institutional repository) as an entity in itself and what you are promoting and whether that represents a challenge or an opportunity for repository managers. My personal view is that here at UoP, I will be promoting both the CRIS and the IR both in different ways to different stakeholder groups.

I liked the concept of the 3 components of deposit, use and advocacy:

1. Deposit - seamless deposit via the CRIS.
2. Access/preserve/report/feed - Senior management and research administrators - CRIS and IR
3. Discover - via the CRIS via the university's staff profile pages and the IR via search engines

So both the CRIS and IR will be promoted, just in different ways depending on the stakeholder and their interests. I feel, the RePosit model doesn't relegate the IR as an entity, the advocacy programme will communicate the benefits/uses of both the CRIS and the IR but in a targeted way and both will have a strong identity.

• Discussions around self deposit and mediation. UoP is launching with a self deposit model. Most of the HEIs appeared to using a mediated module. For RePosit, this means that the role of research administrators needs to be considered in the survey and advocacy materials

• advocacy themes - a key message was that advocacy needs to be sustained and repeated.

The message about "the researchers want to know what they can get out of deposit" resonated with me, and this echoed what the pilot presentations at Leeds fedback. Personally I feel that maybe the message of pure Open Access may resonate with some committed individuals but I feel that at UoP, I will be starting by advocating OA but badging it more as Open Access Lite so focusing on what depositing means for individuals and access to collaborators, peers and practitioners. This is promoting OA but in a context that researchers respond to. In time, as the IR matures, the message will develop, especially with further developments in OA. I believe that OA Lite is the most effective way to reach researchers to launch deposit whilst starting discussions which look at the full range of the OA concept with senior managers.

The event was very informative and enjoyable and I have returned with lots of contacts, ideas and most importantly, it has confirmed and underpinned the directions that I will take in the advocacy here at Plymouth.


Nicola Cockarill, Senior Subject Librarian, University of Plymouth

RePosit at the RSP Winter School

Three project partners are attending the Research Support Project's 2011 winter school event held at Armathwaite Hall, Bassenthwaite in the Lake District from 9th February to 11th February: Rachel Proudfoot from Leeds, Nicola Cockarill from Plymouth and Sarah Molloy from Queen Mary. Sadly Jill Evans from Exeter is ill and so cannot attend as planned. With backup from Nicola and Sarah, Rachel is presenting one of the four case studies during the workshop part of the event on Thursday afternoon, based on the experience at Leeds University around embedding their institutional repository, also drawing on what we've worked through the RePosit project so far. Another project aim is to use this opportunity of such a gathering of repository managers and interested parties to grow our project user community forum, and gain feedback on the materials we've produced so far.


Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Wireframes

Now that we have a set of user stories, as discussed in a previous post, we can look at turning these outline stories into concrete instances which can be presented to users. In order to achieve this, we are employing a technique used in graphic and website design called "wireframing". In this process we decide what materials we would like to produce, and then we layout content in the space with little to no emphasis on how the final product will look. Instead we are simply looking at what information we wish to present, and roughly where on the page we want that content to appear.

We chose two of our user groups to be the focus of advocacy materials: academic authors and senior managers (it is assumed that librarians are mostly already sold on this technology, and don't need the same level of persuasion). For each of these groups we chose a couple of advocacy mediums, thus:

• Academic authors:
  
  
  
  • Postcards; to be handed out at events, available for collection at library front desks, attached to pay cheques, etc.
  
  
  • DL (0.3 A4 size) How-To leaflet; to be handed out at events, available for collection at library front desks, etc. Ideal for pinning next to your computer monitor.
  
  
  • Poster; to be pinned up all over campus
  
  
• Senior managers:
  
  
  
  • Postcards; to be handed out at events, available for collection at library front desks, etc.
  
  
  • A4 product sheet; to be handed out at events, or delivered directly to senior manager's offices
  
  

Below is a screenshot of one of the wireframes in progress, showing the DL size leaflet which contains the How-To for the academic author on depositing their full-text into the digital repository via their CRIS.




Each of these wireframes can then be taken by the project partners and instantiated in their institutional colours, designs, fonts and so forth. This process ensures that the generic project outputs are appropriate for all institutions undertaking a CRIS to Repository link, irrespective of their software solution, and also does not enforce any kind of branding upon the adopting institution.

- Richard Jones, Symplectic Ltd

User Stories

In a previous post we discussed the fact that there are many reasons why someone might care about a link existing between their CRIS and their Digital Repository. We identified upwards of 20 such reasons, and alluded to the fact that each of these reasons resonates more with some people than it does with others, and emphasises more the CRIS or the Repository.

In this post we're going to have a look at some concrete examples of the user stories that we have developed from the "Whys", to give you a flavour of what the project outputs will contain.

A story for academic authors: how can this help me raise my research profile?

CRIS and Digital Repository integration is all about raising your research profile. This happens by enhancing your research's visibility through your digital repository and increasing your potential for being cited. This is not only in the public interest - the people who ultimately funded your work - but it also increases how easy it is to find and read your work, and therefore also increases its re-usability. By ensuring that your research information and full-text content is available, it will be easier for your institution to assemble high-quality REF returns, while also making it easy for you to meet your funder mandates on open access deposit. As an additional advantage, your research will be cared for and preserved for future readers. As a result your research presence is significant, and remains so for longer.


A story for librarians: using research information management to drive institutional strategy

Shrinking library budgets mean that it is important to find cost-effective solutions to support your institution's strategy, and to participate in the global research economy. By providing public access to publicly funded research through your Digital Repository, you are provisioning for long-term storage and preservation across time and software advances of institutional assets, which are valuable in this economy. This benefits the institution's standing by increasing the amount of research content which can be made available through the repository, the CRIS and any other systems which build institutional web-presence from the information held there.


A story for senior staff: increasing citations in support of the REF

Increasing the visibility of your research is going to be extremely important in the next round of metrics-based research evaluation. You can increase the visibility of your research by improving its online discoverability. This is not just in the public interest (although it is), but will provide you with the opportunity to raise your institution's profile in areas such as HE rankings, and Student Surveys. Ultimately, this increased discoverability and visibility increases the opportunity for citations to your researcher's work, which will support a high quality REF return.


There are a number of other stories that we are working on, and as you can see from the above we are still in the early period of refining them into something which can be clearly presented. In time we will develop and make available advocacy material wireframes and slide-decks in support of these stories, and we will shortly be publishing blog posts on those topics.

- Richard Jones, Symplectic Ltd.

Pecha Kucha at RLUK Conference

Gave this presentation at RLUK Conference last week.

JISC RePosit Presentation to RLUK, Nov10

View more presentations from Bo Middleton.

Here's a link if you need it: http://www.slideshare.net/bomiddleton/rluk-nov10-jiscrepositpechakucha?from=share_email

Turns out they had a prize for best Pecha Kucha presentation - wish I'd known that beforehand. Did get a couple of questions though - and even feedback afterwards - people genuinely interested in whether the CRIS-Repository model will make a difference to number of deposits (BTW - the presentation that won the prize was (I'm told) the same one that won at the Repository Fringe this year 'Repositories are like Cakes' - will post a ref when I can find one).


posted by: Bo Middleton

RePosit at Research Libraries UK conference

This year's Research Libraries UK conference, themed around 'Innovation in a Time of Financial Challenge', is taking place in Edinburgh from 10th to 12th November - and RePosit will be there. There is a section of the conference for Pecha Kucha talks on 'Innovation in Our Libraries' and project director Bo Middleton will be giving a presentation in this slot to introduce the ideas behind RePosit to the UK research libraries community. Through this exposure, we hope to increase the number and range of people following our project progress on this blog, gain more members for our user community Google group, and get valuable feedback along the way.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Meeting with JISC programme managers

Last week was quite a week for meetings in the RePosit project. In addition to Monday's full team project meeting in Exeter, on Wednesday 15th September Richard Jones, Bo Middleton (project director) and I met with David Flanders and Balviar Notay from JISC, which is the key funder of this project.

David and Balviar explained where RePosit sits within the JISCdepo ('Deposit of research outputs') strand of the Information Environment Programme of projects. The three main areas in JISCdepo are: projects related to tools for deposit (our CRIS system-based project fits in here), projects around infrastructure (such as the SWORD standard) and projects collecting use cases (SONEX). Discussing RePosit in more detail, we looked at what our project aims to achieve and what the outputs will be, and we had fantastic feedback on what form these could take to be most useful to the wider JISC deposit community. The project partner HEIs are each at different stages along the path of repository and publications management system set-up, advocacy, training and use - and the intention is that these different stages will be mirrored in the 'packs' of training and advocacy materials and plans that are produced during RePosit. Some HEIs (often the smallest) are at the starting point, having had neither a repository nor the link between it and a publications management system before at all; some have a repository and a limited number or scope of deposits but really need to re-brand and start advocacy and training almost from scratch with certain sectors; and some HEIs have a large, established repository and have done previous advocacy but want to review and update as well as taking on board the new means of deposit via the CRIS publications management system link.

We also looked at how we hope to develop our user community space into an open forum for sharing advocacy through the project's life and even beyond, and how we could perhaps link in to the RSP (Repositories Support Project) to aid the wider dissemination of training and materials.

All in all, a productive and informative discussion.


posted by: Lizzie Dipple (project manager)

Presentation from RepoFringe 2010

Here is the Pecha Kucha presentation Sarah gave at the Repository Fringe last week (link here if you can't see the embedded version below):

JISC RePosit RepoFringe2010 presentation

View more presentations from RePosit project.

Here is the video (sadly the sound quality isn't fantastic, so put the volume up to full):
http://archive.zepler.tv/308/


And here is the live blog from the Fringe event that includes Sarah's presentation:
Live Blog: Pecha Kucha Session Two.


Posted by: Lizzie Dipple

Repository Fringe 2010

Back at my desk after the foray north of the border for Repository Fringe 2010. Despite serious nerves and really not feeling like I knew what I was on about, the project seemed to go down well and I'm hoping people will start to get involved. I hope some of our message got across through my chattering teeth!

Thanks to Lizzie for all the help with getting the slides ready and general moral support.


Sarah Molloy

Pecha Kucha at Repository Fringe 2010

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