Coming of Age: Strategic Directions for Digital Repositories. by David Nicholas and Ian Rowlands, CIBER Research
•
0 likes•448 views
The aim of the project was to establish where institutional/digital repositories are today, how far they have come over the last decade, what they look like, how much diversity there is, where are they going and how successful they are. We especially wanted to look at: 1) best practice; 2) how they are dealing with emergent issues, like data, digital curation, interconnectivity and social media; 3) the extent to which they are facilitating scholarly communication. We asked a worldwide sample of library directors to complete an online questionnaire survey. In a parallel exercise, we are also asked researchers for their views and experiences of digital repositories. As with previous Charleston Observatory studies the first results of the project will be released at the Charleston Conference.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Coming of Age: Strategic Directions for Digital Repositories. by David Nicholas and Ian Rowlands, CIBER Research
Similar to Coming of Age: Strategic Directions for Digital Repositories. by David Nicholas and Ian Rowlands, CIBER Research (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Coming of Age: Strategic Directions for Digital Repositories. by David Nicholas and Ian Rowlands, CIBER Research
- 1. Charleston Observatory 2011 Ian Rowlands and David Nicholas Coming of Age? Thursday 3 November 2011 XXXI Annual Charleston Conference Strategic directions for digital repositories
- 2. About the Charleston Observatory Engaging the library and publishing communities The Observatory, established in 2009, is a mechanism by which exciting ideas raised at the Charleston Conference can be researched and the results reported back to provide continuity and build. It is a place where evidence can be collected globally in a robust manner and where all the key information stakeholders (librarians, publishers, agents and academics) can come together and share data for the benefit of all. The Observatory's first project (2009) looked at the impact of the world-wide recession on libraries. Last year, the Observatory considered social media and how they are impacting on research practice. Both studies received widespread coverage and generated a series of reports and peer-reviewed publications. 2
- 3. Aims of this study Strategic directions for digital repositories Aims To understand what library directors (and researchers) see as the goals of digital repositories; To identify the critical success factors behind successful digital repositories; To assess the wider impact of digital repositories. Digital repositories Institutional repositories Subject-based repositories Format-based repositories (e.g. e-theses) Research design Online survey of library directors Online survey of researchers (next stage) Focus groups and interviews (next stage) 3
- 4. About the survey A global survey of facts and opinions Survey sample 153 library directors had completed the survey by 4 Nov, representing 7.2% of all 2,126 OpenDOAR repositories. Responses from universities, colleges, medical schools, government and charities in 35 countries. Research partners CIBER Research Limited Emerald Elsevier Institute of Physics Publishing Research Information Network 4
- 5. Does your institution have a digital repository? Filtered questionnaire structure Not making plans (6%) Why not? At the planning stage (21%) Perceived benefits Perceived impacts Operational facts Goals Have a digital repository (73%) Progress against goals Benefits Impacts 5
- 6. What is your main reason for not having a repository? Main reasons Unconvinced of the benefits 18% Lack of management support 9% Not highly research-intensive 36% It would be nice to have an idea about what libraries that have Limited resources digital repositories consider the This is really for the report not for public consumption. 36% main purpose (record of It’s really the greasy chute to get rid institution’s publications, of inappropriate respondents - mainly VERY small US liberal arts institutional archives? highlight colleges specialised collections or projects?) 6
- 8. What is the main collection focus of your repository? Percentages of institutions with repositories We collect all or most research outputs 72.5 We only collect particular formats (e.g. theses) 23.5 We only collect particular subjects 4.0 ... trying to We collect We collect what expand, difficult to documents and objects people contribute get faculty to that are valuable for our submit national heritage 8
- 9. How is your repository funded? Percentage split across all institutions with repositories Regular budget line for your institution’s library 69.0 Special initiative supported by your institution 14.4 14.4 Departmental budgets 6.5 Grant from an external source 5.8 Contributory basis / IR membership 1.2 Publication budget 0.5 Other sources 2.7 Recurrent spending on digital repositories averages around 1.8 per cent of library operational budgets 9
- 10. How many staff work on your repository? Full time equivalent (FTE) staff Less than 1 24.6% 1 to 2 46.4% 3 to 4 22.5% 5 or more 6.5% 10
- 11. What types of content does your repository manage? Percentages of repositories currently holding these resource types Journal articles 78.9 Conference papers 74.4 Book chapters 70.7 Books or monographs 62.4 Technical reports 60.2 Working papers 52.6 Research datasets 51.9 Computer software 51.1 Other formats collected include Images or photographs 36.8 blog posts, interview notes, student Sound recordings 32.3 magazines, archives of distinguished Video recordings 30.1 faculty, honours theses, scanned PhD or Masters’ theses 28.6 herbarium materials ... Administrative records 23.3 Learning objects 21.8 Single most important resource? Patents 20.3 Journal articles (44.1%) News or press coverage 15.0 PhD or Master’s theses (35.3%) Annual reports 13.5 Special collections (11.8%) Metadata-only records 11.3 Special collections 8.3 11
- 12. What is your policy for including copyright-protected materials? Institutions with repositories: all resource types (tick as many as apply) No copyright materials deposited 11.9 So, a majority accept copyright materials and address the issue by either putting password controls in place or seeking Accept preprints only 23.7 publisher permissions. Include but password protected 24.6 Obtain permission 55.9 We ask depositors for We add a citation and a link Clearance is the assurances they have obtained to the full version. responsibility of the depositor permission
- 13. How do you maintain quality? Institutions with repositories: all resource types Accept everything, without review 69.5 Use peers to review quality 14.7 Seems a rather passive approach on the part of librarians! Post-acceptance review or rating 15.8 [Academic] All deposited content is communities establish their Content is mostly solicited, curated by library staff. own criteria for what is so review is built in. acceptable to deposit.
- 14. Which versions of journal articles do you allow to be deposited? Institutions that accept journal articles (tick as many as apply) Accepted MS before publication 88.6 Final published version 86.4 Author MS after peer review 52.3 Author MS before peer review 47.7
- 15. Does your institution provide financial support for author pays? Institutions that accept journal articles Yes 22.0 No 60.2 I’m not sure 17.8
- 16. Do you actively support submission to subject-based repositories? Institutions that accept journal articles Yes 34.7 No 41.5 I’m not sure 23.7
- 17. Does your institution operate an institutional mandate? Institutions that accept journal articles Yes 28.0 No 55.9 No but we plan to 14.4 I’m not sure 1.7
- 18. What services do you offer to your users? Institutions with repositories (tick as many as apply) Assistance with deposit 87.2 Assistance with metadata creation and management 80.0 Assistance with copyright clearance 60.8 Download statistics 55.2 Personalised web page or cv 28.8 Other services include: Institutional CVs and personalised web pages, publication lists, automatic addition of citation data, assistance with digitising materials, help with data management plans, information on most downloaded articles. 18
- 19. What do you think are the main advantages? Mean ratings, where 0=Not important, 3=Very important Long-term preservation of your institution’s digital materials 2.55 Providing maximal access to the results of publicly funded research 2.54 Enhancing the external prestige of your institution 2.41 Better services to students inside your institution 2.4 Better services to learning communities outside your institution 2.37 Better services to researchers outside your institution 2.33 Maintaining control over your institution’s intellectual capital 2.26 Contributing to the reform of scholarly communication and publishing 2.22 Contributing to the changing library culture more digital 2.18 Reducing the time between discovery and dissemination 2.17 Provision of identifiers for easier citability of digital materials 2.01 Registration of new ideas 1.67 Not at all Somewhat Very Important important important important 19
- 20. Tenure and promotion have become a very important reason that our faculty deposit ... and this will become even more of a focus as junior faculty (who are increasingly committed to sharing their outputs) become established and as what counts for tenure and promotion shifts to away from the published literature to a wider range of object content.
- 21. What do you think are the main disadvantages? Mean ratings, where 0=Not important, 3=Very important Confusion caused by different versions of the same material 2.26 Fragmentation of access to the literature (`islands of content’) 2.17 Confusion and uncertainty over copyright issues 2.04 Threatens society and commercial publishers 1.96 Fear of plagiarism 1.96 Not comprehensive: lack scale and critical mass 1.71 Lack of awareness by users 1.57 Long term funding and support for repositories uncertain 1.52 Variable quality of material: no consistent peer review 1.52 Lack of interoperability between repositories 1.44 Costs of long-term preservation and digital curation 1.20 Software difficult to use 0.82 Sloppy repositories can be Not at all Somewhat Important Very important important important harmful, as they lower standard for scholarly communication. 21
- 22. Standardisation, clarification and simplification of publishers’ policies on repositories and open access [is] needed. Current situation very confusing for researchers to understand precisely what they are allowed to do with their research and this is a big barrier to use.
- 23. To what extent do you agee or disagree with these statements? Mean ratings, where -2=Strongly disagree and +2=Strongly agree Institutional repositories ... impact negatively on publishers’ revenues -0.58 become redundant as more material goes OA -0.51 the first steps to universities becoming digital presses 0.15 raise visibility and are the publishers’ friend 0.37 IRs should be regional, country-wide or subject-based 0.4 replace researchers linking from their own websites 0.59 -1 0 1 23 I tend to disagree In the middle I tend to agree
- 24. What library directors think repositories are for Mean ratings, where 0=Not important and 3=Very important Make the literature more openly available 2.36 A research shop window for your institution 2.31 Long term preservation and curation 2.30 Change the library culture moving it into the digital age 2.00 Provide information on research productivity 1.48 Manage informal literature better 1.42 Provide access to rare materials 1.37 First steps on the path to becoming a digital publisher 0.99 0 1 2 3 Not important Somewhat important Important Very important 24
- 25. While some on both sides of the open access debates do tend to see repositories only as tools for OA, I think most in the repository communities see a much more nuanced role for institutional and subject repositories as part of a much larger system that includes publishers, societies, etc.
- 26. Progress against goals Mean ratings, where 0=Not important or Not successful Change library and 3=Very important or Very successful culture Shop window for research Preservation Greater and curation open access SUCCESS Measuring research productivity Access for rare materials Manage informal literature better Become a digital press 26 IMPORTANCE
- 27. Progress against goals Mean ratings, where 0=Not important or Not successful Change library and 3=Very important or Very successful culture Shop window for research Preservation Greater and curation open access SUCCESS Measuring research productivity Access for rare materials Manage informal literature better Become a digital press 27 IMPORTANCE
- 28. Progress against goals Mean ratings, where 0=Not important or Not successful Change library and 3=Very important or Very successful culture Shop window for research Preservation Greater and curation open access SUCCESS Measuring research productivity Access for rare materials Manage informal literature better Become a digital press 28 IMPORTANCE
- 29. Priorities for repository development Mean ratings, where 0=Not on the agenda and 3=High priority Attracting more use 2.63 Raising awareness of repository 2.63 Getting more stuff in 2.49 Integration with other systems 2.27 Greater interoperability 2.07 An institutional mandate 2.04 Better usage statistics 1.99 Preservation and curation 1.98 Raising awareness of preservation 1.74 Managing research datasets 1.74 More coherent policies 1.71 Extend scope of repository 1.69 0 1 2 3 29 Not on the agenda Low priority Medium priority High priority
- 30. What are the most important critical success factors? Mean ratings on a 5-point scale The repository should have a clear purpose 4.2 People should want to put material in 3.2 People should want to get material out 2.8 The repository should have a strong sense of ownership 1.8 The scope of the repository should be clear 1.7 The community using the repository should be clear 1.4 The importance of robust business plans and sustainability through institutional support and formal policy making cannot be over-emphasised. 30
- 31. How much impact has your repository made? Percentages of institutions 43.6 42.6 Within your organisation Outside your organisation 35.6 32.7 16.8 11.9 11.9 5.0 No impact Small impact Significant impact Highly significant impact 31
- 32. Compared with today, will repositories become more important? Percentages of institutions 57.6 Collaboration among They are the future and 53.8 smaller institutions will libraries should lead the way - become more important for it’s what we’ve always done but financial and staffing with digital resources not reasons. print. I am personally unconvinced of the value of 24.2 institutional repositories ... I 20.5 19.7 18.9 think academics are more comfortable with subject repositories 2.3 3.0 0 0 Much less important Less important About the same More important Much more important 32 Institutional repositories Subject repositories