University of Glasgow Library Library by nikeborome

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 21

									E-prints: the Nottingham
       Experience

      Stephen Pinfield
     and Mike Gardner
User participation


 • The biggest challenge: encouraging
   user participation
   – or: ‘we built it…so why aren’t they
     coming?’
 • Forms of participation:
   – contribute content
   – search / use the archive
Getting the content

 Two stages:
 • Short term: enough content to set up
   demonstrator
 • Medium-long term: critical mass to
   provide service
 • Stage 1 > Stage 2: ‘demonstration is
   better than description’
Demonstrator

 • Using ‘real’ content
    – more impressive to users
    – more useful for archive managers: ‘learning by
      doing’

 • Easiest approach: publications already in the
   public domain
    – on institutional web site
       • personal pages
       • departmental pages
    – on existing e-prints archives
Advocacy


 • The context
   – structural problems in academic publishing
   – e-prints a possible solution
 • Immediate benefits
   – for researchers
   – for policy makers
 • Addressing their concerns
Arguing for e-prints

  The context:
   Structural problems in the academic
   publishing industry
    – ‘impact barriers’
    – ‘access barriers’

  but….academics are not normally
  interested in the ‘serials crisis’ per se
What’s in it for the researcher?


  • Lower impact barriers
     – papers more visible
     – cited more
  • Ease of access
  • OAI functionality
     – interoperability
What’s in it for the researcher?


  • Lower impact barriers
     – papers more visible
     – cited more
  • Ease of access
  • OAI functionality
     – interoperability
  • Value added services
     – hit counts
     – personalised publications lists
     – citation analyses: OpCit project, CiteBase
What’s in it for policy makers?



  • Raising profile of institution
  • Managing institutional information
    assets
  • RAE management
  • Long-term cost savings
  but….beware of premature reductions in
  periodicals budgets!
Addressing their concerns


 Common concerns:
 • IPR - particularly copyright
 • Quality control - particularly peer review
 • Work load - theirs!
 • Undermining the tried and tested status quo
 • Visibility - compared with web pages
IPR and copyright

 •   Traditionally authors sign over copyright
 •   But who actually owns copyright?
 •   Best to assume authors do
 •   Encourage / assist authors to:
      – Place articles with progressive publishers who do not require
        copyright sign over
      – Negotiate exceptions to sign over
      – Retain copyright or e-distribution rights
      – At worst, get round copyright restrictions by depositing a pre-
        print + corrections in an e-print archive (Harnad-Oppenheim
        strategy)
 • Authors can then deposit most give-away literature in
   e-prints archives as well as submit to journals
                                         Not either / or
Quality control


  • In short term: peer review with journal publishers
     – authors should continue to submit articles to high impact
       traditional journals
     – but also contribute to e-prints archives

  • In medium term: peer review and publication could be
    separated - could be organised by:
     –   publishers but also
     –   institutions or
     –   professional / learned societies
     –   other subject groupings
Pre-prints v. post-prints


  • Should the archive include pre-prints? Key
    collection development policy issue
  • Different subject cultures
     – pre-print culture e.g. Physics
     – pre-print averse e.g. Medicine
  • Different archives?
  • The idea of pre-prints should not be over
    done
     – ‘e-prints’ and ‘pre-prints’ should not be mixed up
Work load: archive submission



  • Academics put off by
    – increased bureaucracy
    – need to learn new processes and systems
    – need to convert file formats
  • Mediated submission in the short term
  • ‘The library will do the work’
    – file format conversion
    – depositing e-prints
    – creation of metadata
‘Tried and tested’ system


  • Some academics content with status quo
    – reputations made within the system
    – object to ‘anti-publisher’ stance
    – some editors may be paid by publishers

  • Self-archiving as complement to status quo
    …not either / or
Visibility


  • OAI metadata not accessible to
    standard search engines
  • Responses:
    – We have found search engines do pick up
      metadata from browse pages - but this is
      not efficient
    – DP9: OAI Gateway Service for Web
      Crawlers
Advocacy methods


 • Advocacy web site
 • Briefing paper
 • Literature e.g. SPARC leaflet
 • Institutional magazines
 • Presenting at departmental meetings
   and university committees
 • Special advocacy events
The players


 Who?
 • Senior LIS staff
                          Stage 1: getting them on board
 • Subject librarians
 • ….

 To whom?
 •   Academic enthusiasts in different departments
 •   Department/School approach - champion at senior level
 •   Senior managers
 •   Institutional administrators
Changing roles


  • Library: managing institutional information
    assets
  • Library: publisher on behalf of the institution?

  • LIS staff at centre of scholarly communication
    process
Stephen.Pinfield@Nottingham.ac.uk
 Mike.Gardner@Nottingham.ac.uk

								
To top