IRs in America: “Land of the F IRs in America: “Land of the Free” or “F ” or “Free Online Access”

A slide presentation by Paul Royster at the International Association of Technological University Libraries, IATUL Seminar 2019, Gda?sk University of Technology Library, Gda?sk, Poland, December 10, 2019.

Internal Collaboration: Using the IR to Build a Promotion and Tenure Package

“At Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, world-class experts conduct cutting-edge air and space research, and the Library works diligently to capture and share all the unique work through their institutional repository. When the Chief Information Officer asked library staff for help creating a Promotion and Tenure tool to better serve faculty looking to advance, librarians Debra Rodensky and Chip Wolfe knew they had the technology, all the content of the IR and the strong campus relationships to make it happen. Join Debra and Chip on December 11 for a webinar on the Library’s collaboration with IT and the library’s relationships with faculty through the tenure and promotion process. Topics will include:

– The historical relationship between the Library, its IR and the IT department at Embry-Riddle
– The changing culture of promotion and tenure on campus
– Challenges and successes of building a tool to meet the needs of both IT and faculty….”

Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

CURRENT STATUS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY AT THE SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA

Abstract:  DSpace is an open-source software which is the most popular and cost-effective tool to build digital repositories. There are 15 Sri Lankan institutional repositories listed in the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) platform. OpenDOAR is the global directory of academic open access repositories. The present study mainly focuses on the current status of the Institutional Repository at the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka (SEUIR). The study further attempts to compare SEUIR with other listed institutional repositories in OpenDOAR of Sri Lanka. The data were extracted from the statistics calculated through DSpace open source software and analysed for the necessary information. The study highlights the current status of SEUIR and further developments to improve the accessibility of contents to the viewers.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY AT THE SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA

Abstract:  DSpace is an open-source software which is the most popular and cost-effective tool to build digital repositories. There are 15 Sri Lankan institutional repositories listed in the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) platform. OpenDOAR is the global directory of academic open access repositories. The present study mainly focuses on the current status of the Institutional Repository at the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka (SEUIR). The study further attempts to compare SEUIR with other listed institutional repositories in OpenDOAR of Sri Lanka. The data were extracted from the statistics calculated through DSpace open source software and analysed for the necessary information. The study highlights the current status of SEUIR and further developments to improve the accessibility of contents to the viewers.

“Collaborating Across Campus to Advance Open Access Policy Compliance” by Andrew Johnson, Melissa Cantrell et al.

In 2018, the Data and Scholarly Communication Services Unit (DSCS) at the University of Colorado Boulder began implementing two open access (OA) policy workflows with the aim of increasing content in the institutional repository CU Scholar, expanding awareness of the campus OA policy that was passed in 2015, and decreasing the burden on researchers for participation in the policy. DSCS leveraged collaborative relationships with other library departments and campus units in order to mobilize the data, infrastructure, procedures, and documentation to execute these workflows. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) workflow identifies existing open access publications by CU Boulder faculty and mediates deposit in order to make them available in CU Scholar. The liaison outreach workflow partners with liaison librarians to request from faculty preprints and author’s final manuscripts of publications in which the publisher version may have copyright restrictions. At present, the DOAJ workflow has resulted in 754 articles deposited in CU Scholar, and the liaison outreach workflow has resulted in 91 articles deposited. Each of these workflows pose challenges that have required flexibility, experimentation, and clear communication between stakeholders. This case study, which includes detailed descriptions of both open access policy workflows, initial results, and plans for future implementation, may serve as a guide for other institutions wishing to adopt and/or adapt institutional repository workflows and forge collaborative relationships to further open access initiatives in their local context.

Case study: Doing more with ORCID – UK ORCID Support

“The University of Cambridge research repository (Apollo), uses ORCID IDs as a unique identifier for researchers.  When a researcher submits a dataset to Apollo, a DOI is minted for the dataset through the DataCite service.   By including the ORCID in the metadata submitted to DataCite, DataCite then populates the ORCID registry entry for the researcher (with their permission) with information about the dataset, using an ‘auto-update’ feature. 

The result is that a link is created between the researcher and their data, through the ORCID ID identifying the researcher, and the DOI for the data assigned by DataCite. The persistent identifiers are used to connect researchers and their achievements, improving visibility and discoverability across different systems.  The workflow reduces duplication of effort in entering information and avoids input or identification errors….”

bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology | bioRxiv

Abstract:  The traditional publication process delays dissemination of new research, often by months, sometimes by years. Preprint servers decouple dissemination of research papers from their evaluation and certification by journals, allowing researchers to share work immediately, receive feedback from a much larger audience, and provide evidence of productivity long before formal publication. Launched in 2013 as a non-profit community service, the bioRxiv server has brought preprint practice to the life sciences and recently posted its 64,000th manuscript. The server now receives more than four million views per month and hosts papers spanning all areas of biology. Initially dominated by evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics and computational biology, bioRxiv has been increasingly populated by papers in neuroscience, cell and developmental biology, and many other fields. Changes in journal and funder policies that encourage preprint posting have helped drive adoption, as has the development of bioRxiv technologies that allow authors to transfer papers easily between the server and journals. A bioRxiv user survey found that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. Authors are motivated by a desire to share work early; they value the feedback they receive, and very rarely experience any negative consequences of preprint posting. Rapid dissemination via bioRxiv is also encouraging new initiatives that experiment with the peer review process and the development of novel approaches to literature filtering and assessment.

“Assessing usability of GTD supplementary files” by Steven Van Tuyl

Abstract:  Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality and usability of supplementary data files deposited, between 1971 and 2015, to our university institutional repository. Understanding the extent to which content historically deposited in digital repositories is usable by today’s researchers can help inform digital preservation and documentation practices for researchers today.

Methods: I identified all graduate level theses and dissertations (GTDs) in the institutional repository with multiple files as a first pass at identifying documents that included supplementary data files. These GTDs were then individually examined, removing supplementary files that were artifacts of either the upload or digitization process. The remaining “true” supplementary files were then individually opened and evaluated following elements of the DATA rubric of Van Tuyl and Whitmire (2016).

Results: Supplementary files were discovered in the repository dating back to 1971 in 116 GTD submissions totalling more than 25,000 files. Most GTD submissions included fewer than 30 files, though some submissions included thousands of individual data files. The most common file types submitted include imagery, tabular data, and databases, with a very large number of unknown file types. Overall, levels of documentation were poor while actionability of datasets was generally middling.

Conclusions: The results presented in this study suggest that legacy data submitted to our institutional repository with GTDs is generally in poor shape with respect to Transparency and somewhat less so for Actionability. It is clear from this study and others that researchers have a long road ahead when it comes to sharing data in a way that makes it potentially useable by other researchers.