Repositories and the HERDC

1
Repositories and the HERDC

• Teula Morgan
• Swinburne University of Technology

2
Outline

• ARROW
• Institutional repositories
• Why repositories and the HERDC?
• ARROW HERDC Working Group
• Four models
• Considerations across models

3
What is ARROW?

• Project funded by DEST to develop new information
  infrastructure for Australian universities.
  Partners are Monash, Swinburne, UNSW, National
  Library of Australia.
• Aims to enhance the value and impact of
  Australian research by making it available
  globally through effective dissemination.

4
What is ARROW?

• Primary task to develop software for an online
  repository of research papers, theses, journal
  articles and other digital research outputs.
• Components
• Open access research repositories
• Open access electronic publishing
• National resource discovery service

5
Components Research repository

• Provide a repository of research outputs
  published journal articles, books, book chapters,
  working papers, conference papers, technical
  reports, etc.
• Incorporate theses and expand the capacity of the
  Australian Digital Theses (ADT) program
• Support research outputs component of ERA

6
Institutional Repositories - background

• Common drivers
• Increase impact and accessibility
• Maximise open access
• Provide effective management
• Common benefits
• Increased exposure
• Preservation
• Potential to repurpose data
• Improved workflows

7
Institutional Repositories - background

• Generally implemented by libraries
• Increasingly seen as standard university
  infrastructure
• Included in RQF requirements
• Essential element of how universities manage and
  provide access to research outputs

8
Why repositories and HERDC?

• Similar data
• Record of universitys research outputs
• In many cases repositories have been populated by
  previous HERDC data
• RQF preparation
• Infrastructure and planning
• National funding
• Similar requirements

9
Why repositories and HERDC?

• Increasing benefits
• More uses for the same data
• More services
• Improving workflows
• Less repetition of effort
• Potential for each area to focus on strengths
• Increased engagement
• Building on existing collaboration
• Libraries contributing to HERDC data

10
ARROW HERDC working group

• Formed in January 2008
• Members drawn from ARROW community
• ARROW Angela Lang
• LaTrobe University Michael Wood
• Monash University Andrew Harrison
• Swinburne University of Technology Teula Morgan
• University of Newcastle Vicki Picasso
• University of New South Wales Tom Ruthven
• University of South Australia Jenny Quilliam
• University of Sunshine Coast Kate Watson

11
ARROW HERDC working group

• Working group objectives
• Identify commonalties in research collection
  practices in ARROW community members.
• Identify good practice HERDC models for
  integration of research systems and repositories.
• Report to the ARROW community on potential HERDC
  models.
• Circulate findings within the Australian and New
  Zealand repository community.

12
ARROW HERDC working group

• Working group progress
• Fortnightly teleconferences
• Looking at practices across repository community
• Focus on existing systems, building on what we
  have
• Different sizes, resources, capabilities,
  priorities etc.

13
ARROW HERDC working group

• Working group outcomes
• Interim report
• Final report
• Establishing networks and opportunities for
  collaboration

14
ARROW HERDC working group

• Four broad models
• Model 1 Institutional repository to research
  management system
• Model 2 Research management system to
  institutional repository
• Model 3 Shared input
• Model 4 Combined

15
ARROW HERDC working group

• Model 1 Institutional repository to research
  management system
• This model describes an input process where data
  is captured into the institutional repository
  with the data then flowing to the research
  management system.

16
ARROW HERDC working group

• Model 2 Research management system to
  institutional repository
• This model describes an input process where the
  data is captured into the research management
  system with the data then flowing to the
  institutional repository.

17
ARROW HERDC working group

• Model 3 Shared Input
• This model describes a separate input process
  that feeds into both the research management
  system and the institutional repository.

18
ARROW HERDC working group

• Model 4 Combined
• This model describes a single system that
  captures, manages and exposes publications for
  both the institutional repository and the
  research management system.

19
ARROW HERDC working group

• Considerations across models
• The organisation
• The collection
• The data
• The content / evidence
• The software

20
ARROW HERDC working group

• The organisation
• Management issues
• Organisational change
• Resources available

21
ARROW HERDC working group

• The collection
• Timing of collection process
• Individual submission vs. central identification
• Workloads across organisational areas
• Differing priorities, time lags

22
ARROW HERDC working group

• The data
• Input
• Review processes
• Verification of the data
• What is captured?
• Duplicates
• Synchronisation
• Author names

23
ARROW HERDC working group

• The content / evidence
• Process for collection of evidence
• Collection of published version vs. postprint

24
ARROW HERDC working group

• The software
• Existing systems?
• Interaction between systems
• Interface design

25
ARROW HERDC working group

• Next steps
• Feedback
• Final report