1

A socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories

Andrew Dorward

EDINA

UKCoRR Member’s Meeting, January 2012

2

Talk outline

• Background & rationale

• Who’s involved?

• The high-level plan– Stakeholder analysis– Wave One & Wave Two

• Out there – Open Access Publishing

• Summary

3

Background

Original Repository Net 2007-09• Depot (continued as OpenDepot.org)

• IRS (continued as irs.mimas.ac.uk/)

• RSP (still going!)

• RRT (ouputs like SWORD still going)

4

Rationale

UK RepositoryNet+:

• enable institutions to run their systems more efficiently by providing national shared services– consolidate existing ones – develop new  services

• enable ease of use of shared services provided as part of the infrastructure 

• scope new business models for sustainable services

5

Who’s involved?

• JISC and oversight group

• EDINA

• Services & Innovation Partnership Group– Mimas– Nottingham and Southampton– Other component owners

• Innovation Zone (UKOLN)

6

High-Level Plan

Preparation:Stakeholder analysis

Functional requirementsSelect components

Jan2011 2012

Oct MarApr Jul2013JanOctAug

Implementation: Wave OneIntegrate components into a production environmentSustainability business models

Other JISC Programmes (Open Access Implementation Group, Research Information Management, etc.)

Implementation:WaveTwo

Service enhancementIntegrate new components

JISC

Service P

ortfolio Review

7

Stakeholder analysis

• Institutional view– Repository Managers via UKCoRR– Research administrators via ARMA– Researchers via IR managers

• Research funders– RCUK, Wellcome Trust

• Publishers– Green and Gold

8

• Validated EDINA view of Repository Landscape– Proved initial theory correct– Assured us there were no gaps we had missed– BUT did not provide new feature sets to develop in functional

areas

• How to take this forward?– Refocus for final report (March 2012)– Concentrate on use cases based on functional areas, eg

publisher deposits, PI searches, IR Manager benchmarks, funder requires statistics

• Defining Wave 2 functionality– Define functionality for eg Curation micro-services in parallel– Feature set to be built out in integrated platform September 2012

– March 2013

Stakeholder Analysis: what we learned

9

The problem landscape….

10

Eval

Academic

reader

researcher

ResearchOutcomes

UKPMC

HEI Institution

[OA mandate]

Library

CRIS

InstitutionalRepository

Publisher

author(s)

editorreferee

teacherstudent

P.I.

journal

monographLicensed/tollgate

access toPublisher’s Final Copy

(PFC)

Rich Picture: Actors, Agency & Relationships for Report, Deposit & Access

ARMA

ResearchAward reporting

Deposit of metadata/text of

Authors’ Final Copy(AFC)

DigitalLibrary

curation micro - services

Research Excellence Framework

metrics

SubjectRepository

stewardship budgets

NORA

UK Research Funder

[OA mandate]

HEFCE, SFC …

EU RCUK WellcomeTrust

SWORD

CERIF

UKCoRR

EU

11

Supported Activites

PublishersAcademics

Institutions

Funders

Reader

Author

P.I.

Teacher

Faculty

ResearchAwards

Institutional Repository

Subject Repository

Funders Repository

Monograph

JournalArticle

CRISLibrary

Open Open AccessAccess

Research Research Information Information

ManagementManagement

Research Grant Office

12

Functional requirements

• Providing awareness of what is available• Depositing content in an appropriate location• Enhancing the quality of what is held • Making use of what is held • Analysing what is held and how it is used • Protecting what is held over time • Holding content

13

Components by SIPG and functional Category

ROAR

University of Southampton

OAR-JBroker

EDINA

OPEN DOAR

University of Nottingham

RoMEO

Juliet

OpenDepot ORI

IRS

MIMAS

IRUS-UK

NAMES2

REPUKInnovation

UKOLN

CORELinked data/mobile

Open University

Search, Aggregation and Text Mining

Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking

Relevant Registries

Deposit Tools

Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority

14

Components Summary

ROAR

OAR-J

OPEN DOAR

RoMEO

Juliet

OpenDepot

ORI

IRS

IRUS-UK

NAMES2

REPUK

CORE

Search, Aggregation and Text Mining

Statistics, Reporting and Benchmarking

Relevant Registries

Deposit Tools

Metadata Quality, eg Naming Authority

Aggregated set of metadata for development

Search, aggregation, full-text mining for OA repositories

Search, aggregation, data-mining for all Institutional Repositories

Database containing publisher policies on Open Access

Database containing research funders’ policies on Open Access

Virtual OA repository for researchers. Also redirects to relevant OA IR or SR using OAR-J Broker and ORI

Identifies and directs researchers of multi-authored works to relevant OA repository(ies)

Authoritative, manually curated registry of OA repositories, combined with harvested metadata

Registry of OA repositories compiled by automatically harvesting metadata

Organisation and Repository Identification – registry of all IRs

Centralised service for collection of OA usage statistics

Centralised Naming Authority for the UK assigning identifiers to organisations and individuals engaged in research

15

SIPG Components showing common/shared functionality

ROAR

University of Southampton

OAR-JBroker

EDINA

OPEN DOAR

University of Nottingham

RoMEO

Juliet

OpenDepot ORI

IRS

MIMAS

IRUS-UK

NAMES2

REPUKInnovation

UKOLN

CORELinked data/mobile

Open University

Notes:•Collision Zones’ in 2 areas: Search, Aggregation and Text Mining; Relevant Registries•In Deposit Tools, Open Depot and the OAR-J Broker are developed in tandem, are mutually dependent and can be seen to have complementary functionality

16

Component selection

• Open, accountable, fair process

• Evidence gathering now

• JISC oversight group

• Selection to be made Feb 2012

17

O A Publishing – PLoS ONE

Number of publications each quarter since 2006, when PLoS ONE launched.Capture article metrics: ■ Article usage statistics - HTML pageviews, PDF downloads and XML downloads■ Citations from the scholarly literature – currently from Web of Science, PubMed Central, Scopus and CrossRef■ Comments – left by readers of each article■ Notes – left by readers of each article■ Blog posts – aggregated from Nature Blogs, Bloglines and ResearchBlogging.■ Ratings – left by readers of each article

18

PLoSOne: article usage metrics

19

OA going mainstream….

20

Summary

• UK Repository Net+ building sustainable shared services for you

• Scoping stage completed

• Services delivered March 2012 onwards

Questions?