Institutional Repositories: An Overview

1
Institutional Repositories An Overview

• David Seaman
• Executive Director,
• Digital Library Federation
• JISC Programme Meeting
• 7 July 2004, Brighton

2
Digital Library Federationhttp//www.diglib.org/

• Thirty-three members major academic and
  national libraries, including The British
  Library four allies (CNI RLG OCLC LANL)
• Created in 1995 by directors of US research
  libraries fills a need not simply met by larger
  library organizations focus exclusively on DL
  needs and strategies for large libraries
• Be nimble, agile, collaborative
• Practical and strategic areas of activity

3
DLF Work -- background

• USER SERVICES
• Dimensions and use of the scholarly information
  environment www.diglib.org/pubs/scholinfo
• Learning technologies and courseware integration
• Distributed single collection of our own material
• METADATA STANDARDS
• Open Archives Initiative support (with CNI)
• METS (Metadata Transmission Standard)

4
DLF Work -- background

• RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
• XML format for license content
• Registry of Digital Masters (with OCLC)
• PRODUCTION
• Production standards and benchmarks
• PRESERVATION
• Journals preservation www.diglib.org/preserve/ej
  p.htm
• Global Digital Format Registry

5
Definition from The Case for Institutional
Repositories A SPARC Position Paper

• They capture and preserve the intellectual
  output of university communities and provide a
  central component in reforming scholarly
  communication by stimulating innovation in a
  disaggregated publishing structure.
• They serve as tangible indicators of an
  institutions quality, thus increasing its
  visibility, prestige, and public value.

6
Potential Contents

• Articles, reprints, technical reports, working
  papers, conference papers, dissertations and
  theses, datasets, image files, audio and video
  files, e-books, courseware output, learning
  objects, faculty archives, departmental archives
• Both raw and cooked finished articles and the
  datasets built as part of the research that leads
  to the articles conclusions

7
Driving forces

• Libraries ambitious to extend their traditional
  roles and skills into new realm
• University administrations
• Realization of what we can do now that we could
  not do pre-digital
• Vision of the intellectual and pedagogical
  potential of open access
• Exploitation of intellectual assets (academic
  capitalism)

8
Contributing streams of endeavor

• Public access (Sabo Bill Wellcome Trust)
• Metadata harvesting -- OAI
• Experience with digital library collections
• Individual faculty digital archives
• Digital preservation and curation
• Emulation, conversion, migration roles
• Cheaper storage
• Permanent identifier schemes

9
Main Players 1

• DSpace (MIT) http//www.dspace.org
• Eprints (Southampton) http//software.eprints.org
  .
• Berkeley Electronic Press http//www.bepress.com
  -- University of California's eScholarship
  Repository http//repositories.cdlib.org
• Fedora (Cornell/Virginia) http//www.fedora.info/
  

10
Main Players 2

• CURL/JISC Project SHERPA (Securing a Hybrid
  Environment for Research Preservation and Access)
  http//www.sherpa.ac.uk
• The Academic Research in the Netherlands Online
  (ARNO)
• Local systems Ohio State University (OSU)
  Knowledge Bank http//www.lib.ohio-state.edu/Kbin
  fo

11
Digital Commons (BePress/ProQuest)

• Libraries that use Digital Commons will be able
  to offer key services such as full-text
  searching, export to XML, full support for OAI,
  and personalized email notification for new
  updates.
• ProQuest can provide a head start on content by
  immediately loading all of an academic librarys
  dissertation content creating an immediate
  critical mass.
• University of Pennsylvania and University of New
  Brunswick are early adopters.

12
DSPACE

• DSpace is a groundbreaking digital repository
  for the digital intellectual output of a
  university. It is designed to capture, store,
  index, preserve, and redistribute research
  material. DSpace Elevator Pitch
• Open source HP/MIT Libraries collaboration
• Community/department model
• Separates bit storage from usability at its core

13
Recent Developments

• Google Teams Up With 17 Colleges to Test
  Searches of Scholarly Materials. (DSpace)
• http//chronicle.com/free/2004/04/2004040901n.htm
  
• BePress/ProQuest commercial package
• Elseviers open access promise specifically
  permits institutional repository deposit (and
  puts the ball firmly in our court.)

14
Technical Challenges

• Many formats migration/emulation and
  documentation needs
• Little metadata beyond that provided by the
  submitter
• Bulk
• Access control to non-public content
• Costly promise of permanence
• Interoperability

15
Cultural issues

• Current practice of putting material on personal
  websites does not mean the same as adding your
  material to a system that declares it to be an
  asset for exploitation
• Ownership issues
• The curse of over-promising
• Last Years Thing/Not Ready for Prime Time
• The roadblock we dont see (assumptions)

16
Cultural issues

• The greatest obstacle to any change in the
  fundamental structure of scholarly communication
  lies in the inertia of the traditional publishing
  paradigm. And nowhere is that inertia more
  profoundand understandable, given the
  professional stakesthan amongst academic
  faculty. Rick Johnson, SPARC

17
Cultural issues

• Current academic measurement and rewards system
  not in sync with open access, especially for
  uncooked material.
• Disparity of perceived need by discipline
• Institutional repositories not driven by broad
  groundswell of faculty demand
• Faculty often not used to being asset producers
  for anyone but themselves

18
Conclusions

• Great appetite and growing momentum from
  libraries and administrators to assume the burden
  and reap the benefits of institutional
  repositories
• Uneven demand and comfort level from faculty
• Critical need to engage now in the cultural
  issues and move implications of the repository
  into promotion, hiring, and evaluation.