UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

Posts Tagged ‘university’

Going on an etheses mandate hunt

Posted by gazjjohnson on 22 July, 2010

A few weeks back I did some investigations into the current state of etheses submissions.  From reading webpages and speaking to a fair few other repository managers (thanks guys) I built up the following rough and ready picture of what is happening in the UK at the moment.  It’s in no way comprehensive, and I apologise if I misinterpreted anyone’s online policy – let me know and I’ll modify the details below. 

To confuse matters with terminology slightly (which seems to be an IR standard!) Where I mention moratorium that’s what we use in Leicester for temporary delayEmbargos here are more serious, semi-permanent->permanent withholding.  Some places use these terms interchangeably, but I’ve tried to standardise for how we understand them here.

  • Aberystwyth University
    Opt out mandate 2008-. PhD and selected MA/M.Scs.  Automatic moratorium 2 years.  Author requested moratorium/embargo period up to 5 years (or indefinitely), co-signed by supervisor
  • Birkbeck, University of London (1994 Grp)
    No thesis mandate currently but planned
  • Brunel University
    Opt out mandate 2008-. No student requested moratorium.  Formal embargo applied for by supervisor (3 year fixed term) to Research Support Office
  • Cambridge University (RLUK)
    Opt in mandate
  • Cardiff University (RLUK)
    No thesis mandate currently, but one planned
  • Cranfield University
    Opt out mandate
  • De Montfort University
    Opt out mandate
  • Durham University (RLUK) (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate 2009.  No author request moratorium period.  Author may apply for (up to) 5 year embargo through formal process.
  • Edinburgh University (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2005-.  1 year moratorium, repeatable.  5 year embargos can be applied for.
  • Glasgow University (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2007/8 -.  Author requested moratorium standard period of 3 years (with extension if required, eg commercial confidentiality). Permanent embargos agreed between the student, primary supervisor and the graduate school so the institution wouldn’t apply an embargo in isolation.
  • Goldsmiths, University of London (1994 Grp)
    Opt in mandate
  • Imperial College London (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate.  No author requested moratorium.  Formal embargo maximum two years may be applied under special circumstances.
  • Institute of Education, University of London (1994 Grp)
    Unclear, possibly opt in mandate
  • King’s College London (RLUK)
    No thesis mandate
  • Leeds Metropolitan University
    No thesis mandate currently but planned
  • LSE (RLUK)
    Opt in mandate
  • Loughborough University (1994 Grp)
    Opt out thesis mandate 2009-. No author requested moratorium.  Supervisor/HoD can request up to 3 year moratorium for “restricted access” theses
  • Newcastle University (RLUK)
    Opt in thesis mandate currently deposit “strongly encouraged”
  • Queen Mary, University of London (1994 Grp)
    Unclear, possibly no mandate.
  • Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
    Opt out mandate.  Ethesis only submitted.
  • Robert Gordon University
    Opt out mandate.
  • Roehampton University
    Opt out mandate. Author requested moratorium, no time period specified
  • Royal Holloway, University of London (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate from 1/Oct/2010-.  2 year author requested moratorium.  Formal application for longer institutionally applied embargos.
  • School of Oriental and African Studies (1994 Grp) (RLUK)
    Unclear, possibly no mandate
  •  Trinity College (Dublin) (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate
    University College London (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate
  • University of Aberdeen (RLUK)
    Unclear, opt in mandate suspected
  • University of Abertay, Dundee
    Opt out mandate
  • University of the Arts, London
    Opt in mandate
  • University of Bath (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate.  Author requested 1 year maximum moratorium.  Formal embargo (max 3 years) on application to Board of Studies.  Formal embargo (longer than 3 years) discussed by senate.
  • University of Bolton
    No thesis mandate currently
  • University of Birmingham (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate.  4 year author moratorium.  Formal embargo possible on application to senior committees
  • University of Bradford
    Opt out mandate 2009-.  No mention of embargo/moratorium in policy
  • University of Bristol (RLUK)
    Opt in mandate
  • University of Central Lancashire
    Opt out mandate 1/Sept/2010.  Authors may request moratoriums to be approved by Graduate Office. Embargoes will be applied for purposes of IPR, confidentiality etc
  • University of Chester
    Opt in thesis mandate
  • University of East Anglia (1994 Grp)
    Opt in mandate, Apr 2010. Authors may request a moratorium. No formal embargoes.
  • University of Essex (1994 Grp)
    Unclear, possibly no mandate
  • University of Exeter (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate 2008-.  Author requested moratorium up to 18 months.  Up to 5 year embargo can be formally requested
  • University of Greenwich
    Currently considering opt out mandate (Sept 2010). Mandates and embargos not yet decided
  • University of Hull
    Opt out mandate Sept 2008-. Author requested moratorium up to 5 years. Rare, v. special exceptions for long term embargo
  • University of Hertfordshire
    Opt out mandate 2007 –.  Author requested moratorium up to 2 years.  Author can apply for permanent embargo formally.
  • University of Huddersfield
    Opt out mandate 2007-.  Author requested 2 year moratorium.  Formal embargo for up to 10 years on application
  • University of Lancaster (1994 Grp)
    No mandate yet, but in planning stages
  • University of Leeds (RLUK)
    Opt out thesis mandate.  Author requested moratorium up to 5 years.  20 year embargo for thesis where a patent is pending
  • University of Leicester (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate, 2008-. Up to three year student requested post-award delay. Semi/Permanent embargo on formal application to Graduate Office/Senate
  • University of Lincoln
    No thesis mandate currently
  • University of Liverpool (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2008-.  No author requested moratorium.  Formal up to 5 year embargo on application to HoD & Supervisor
  • University of Manchester (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2009-.  No author requested moratorium. Formal embargoes on application to Graduate Office, strongly discouraged.
  • University of Nottingham (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2009-.  2 year author requested moratorium.  Permanent embargo on application to appropriate university committee
  • University of Oxford (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate 2007 (PhD, M.Litt and M.Sc (Res).  3 out of 4 divisions have author requested moratorium (3 years max).  Formal longer term embargo can applied (term TBC by Graduate Studies) to Supervisor and Director of Graduate Studies
  • University of Reading (1994 Grp)
    Unclear, possibly no mandate.
  • University of Salford
    No mandate currently, but planning work underway.
  • University of Sheffield (RLUK)
    Opt out thesis mandate 2009-.  Author requested moratorium up to 5 years. 20 year embargo for thesis where a patent is pending
  • University of Southampton (RLUK)
    Opt out mandate
  • University of St Andrews (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate, 2006-.  No author moratorium. Senate approved embargo can be applied for. Up to 5 years on print and/or electronic, for commercial, sensitive, pre publication/copyright reasons. Permanent embargo possible but exceptional. Abstracts and even title can be embargoed on request
  • University of Stirling
    Opt out mandate
  • University of Strathclyde
    Opt out mandate
  • University of Surrey (1994 Grp)
    No thesis mandate
  • University of Sussex (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate 2009-.  Electronic only thesis submission
  • University of Wales, Institute Cardiff (UWIC)
    Opt out mandate
  • University of Wales, Newport
    No mandate currently.
  • University of Warwick (RLUK)
    Opt in mandate
  • University of Westminster
    Opt out mandate
  • University of Wolverhampton
    Opt out mandate
  • University of York (1994 Grp)
    Opt out mandate 2009-.  Author requested moratorium 2 years maximum.  Embargo must be formally requested and approved

Key
Opt out mandate = student deposit of ethesis is required, unless under regulations a delay is permissible.
Opt in mandate = encouragement but not requirement to deposit.

I should note a few places asked me to redact their not-public-yet policies – so some of the omissions are due to that, and I’m more than happy to respect people’s professional wishes.  I think what I’ve taken away from this brief survey is that what we do here at Leicester is pretty much slap-bang in the centre of what other comparator institutions are doing.  Mandates for etheses deposits are very widespread throughout the UKHEI sector as a whole, and clearly where they aren’t already in place, I’d expect over the next year or so to see most if not all institutions adopting them.  Certainly one thing that is evident from the LRA statistics month after month is that these etheses are much more heavily consulted than the print ones ever were.

[Edit 23/July – I’ve added/amended a few details in the list after speaking with some repo managers]

[Edit 26/July: Also if you find this really useful – leave a comment, as it’d be nice to know where it’s being quoted/used!]

Advertisements

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

USTLG Spring Meeting (May 2010)

Posted by gazjjohnson on 12 May, 2010

Wordle from tweets about the dayMay is the month where I seem to be spending a lot of time on trains to London (not counting the meeting at CILIP I had to send apologies for last week). Today was the first of these when myself and Selina travelled down to attend the University Science and Technology Librarians Group spring meeting. Not that I’m pretending I’m still a subject librarian, rather I was invited there to give a short talk about getting the most out of blogging and microblogging.

After the day was introduced by long time friend and colleague Moria Bent (Newcastle) the first session of the day kicked off. What follow are my notes on the four talks.  Hopefully there will be some more notes in a future post from Selina, so you can get her views of the day’s highlights as well.

Jon Fletcher, Nottingham Trent University
Embedding resources into the curriculum via a VLE (for scientists).
Becoming embedded has become somewhat of a mantra at NTU – noted could run as many training sessions as you like, but this doesn’t mean they engage. Hence taking their resources to where the students are spending more time on the VLE. Their educational resources repository (Nottingham Trent Online Workspace, now.ntu.ac.uk). There is a block of library resources and training materials on this system. Referenced from all their course pages that relate to science.

Jon’s 5 step guide to embedding resources on the VLE

  1. Consult/design
    1. Talk to the students
    2. What would they find useful
    3. What formats would work
    4. Avoid overlap of effort
  2. Get permission and access
    1. Need rights to edit, otherwise academic might not do what you expect them too.
    2. Resources can be embedded by academics
    3. Need to sell what you do and be realistic.
  3. Embed resources
    1. Plan – get an idea of time scale, workload and commitment
    2. Work with your academic stakeholders and deliver according to your planned schedule, or else they won’t be impressed.
    3. Need to consider longer term – how will you maintain and update resources once live? NTU’s tech allows them to make global changes.
    4. Expect it to take longer than you think
  4. Sustainability
  5. What’s next
    1. Always consider next iterations – need to revise and update, preferably as part of an ongoing cycle.
    2. Keep items up to date.

Doing this has helped make the library (and Jon) more visible to the academics.

Royal Society of Chemistry Library - we didn't get to look in here.MyLibrary: building a library dashboard application
Mark Galvillet, Newcastle

An open source web resource that can be downloaded and customised by anyone. It draws information from various different sources. MyLibrary is built on the back of analysing overlong customer journeys to resources, students should be able to access all the resources from a single point of access without having to go through multiple intermediary stages. Also interfaces with the library catalogue so can access your record, renew books etc. Provides a news feed as well, although that is under review. Calender for opening hours and events etc, driven by Google calendar, is also included. In many regards MyLibrary pretty much provides a single point of access to all of a student’s needs. While for the academic there may be a requirement for a more sophisticated resource, this was fairly impressive and doubtless would be well received by the student body.

RSC Publishing Beta – have your say
Richard Blount & Louise Peck, RSC

Talked about RSC Publishing Beta website for their hosted journals, ebooks and databases. Customisable for each user. Chem Spider.

Advocating Professional Social Networking to Academics
Paula Anne Beasley & Linda Norbury, University of Birmingham

Training sessions to library staff to bring them up to speed on the basics of Web 2.0 so they can use it or not based on their own experiences! Made them think about what the academics needs were with respect to these resources, and if there was a need to train them. Facilitated training in a supporting environment, so people didn’t feel foolish and where they could see the clear benefits of producing them. Surveyed their college staff via email – free-text response. Fewer responses, but more dialogue from those who did respond.  Aimed to run sessions for 25 people, at least that was how many they anticipated.

Gareth J Johnson
Do Librarians Dream of Electric Tweets?

And that was my day in London. Next up, the RSP Advocacy Workshop!

Posted in Service Delivery, Web 2.0 & Emerging Technologies, Wider profession | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

UKCoRR Meeting – University of Leicester

Posted by gazjjohnson on 19 February, 2010

Today we’re hosting repository managers from across the UK, and I’m going to attempt to keep up with the key points of the event here as the day goes on.

10.30: Jen Delasalle (Warwick) and Louise Jones (Leicester) opening the event.

10.40: Jen is standing down as UKCoRR Chair, oh no.  Wonder if I should run? Or maybe I should let someone else go for it.

10.42: RCUK looking to set up a central system to record their research outputs.  So does this mean we need a CRIS as well or is this taking over from local recording of research?

10.45: Discussing remit of group and membership criteria, and the elephant in the room of funding the longer term development of UKCoRR.  Should we pass the hat round each meeting?  Always tricky – once you have funding you are beholden to your funders, be they members or institutional and can be called to account.  Would this change the organisation too much?

10.50: Looking more at the RCUK outputs and capture, and the role of the repository.

10.55: Journal TOCs project – an API drawing on 13,000 journal outputs.  Nick Shephard (aka @MrNick on twitter) will be talking about a project related to this later on this morning.  Idea is to allow searching for publications for local authors, which is useful – but you need to build a tool to exploit the API, we’d ned someone else to build us the tool.  Perhaps this is what Mr Nick will be going to do for us all?

10.58: Role of publishers and repository managers working together with authors.  And the idea of publishers selling us metadata – erm, no thanks.

11.00 Nicky Cashman (Aber) now talking about her work at CADIR and Aberystwyth. Her main role is advocacy around the university.  Noted that UKCoRR now has 182 members, impressive – when’s our three day conference in Hastings then?  She’s gone on to give us an idea of how much stuff they now have in their repository.  first mention for Webometrics – which is interesting as Nicky and I were discussing this last night; how much do we really trust their data – even if senior management love it when we rise up the tables.

11.15: Talking about Bartrum and the Seals in Medieval Wales (SiMeW) project.  Interesting that Aber and CADIR are more embedded within their departments – is this due to the size of the institution being smaller than Leicester?  I’ve heard this comment from other unis with smaller academic numbers that it has been easier for them to work together with their academics directly.

11.20: Talking Ethos and mandates for theses.  Something I’ll be talking about here at Leicester later on this morning.  Currently the’re an opt in institution for thesis deposits, so I can understand the difficulties they must face.  They are a first requester pays organisation for theses, which I think is going to an increasingly popular choice for institutions, and increasingly unpopular choice for readers.

11.25: Aber is doing a survey on ethesis deposit mandates, comment from Southampton that they (like Leicester) are an opt-out mandate institution.

11.30: Breaking for tea.  After this Nick Shepard and then me are on. Not quite sure I can present and blog at the same time so might have to fill that bit in post-hoc.

11.55: Nick and Wendy Luker from Leeds Met talking about the Bibliosight Project (querying Web of Science from the desktop).  JISC RI project .  Uses Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science Web Services (WSLite/WoSAPI) – sadly live demo hasn’t worked out for today, but thankfully Nick has a back up to show us.  Idea is to down load and autopopulate the repository with data from the WoS.  They aim to use it to promote deposit from and tie this into the REF.

12.10: Distracted by sorting out network keys, so will have to look at Nick’s presentation later.  However, he’s now giving us a screen capture demo of how the queries work, which I assume we’ll be able to view later as well.  Plan is to take the data out (as XML) and convert using SWORD into repository ingest.

12.13: Readiness for REF, looking at the wider issue of data capture (R4R), from) Les Carr of Southampton.  Questions about how this works into the workflows of the repository e.g. with so many records downloaded how do you get them in, authenticated and cleanly.

12.15: Some questions still outstanding – see Nick’s presentation.

12.20: Off to do my talk….

12.55: And I’m done.  Got some laughs in the right place, which was good.  Interesting comment from Gill Hall (Herts) that I could have just as easily have been telling her story as a repository manager.  That’s the good thing from UKCoRR, it really is the best community to belong to (well along with FIL) – everyone seems to share the same sort of problems and issues.

12.57: Dominic Tate is now up talking about the RSP, and their new series of events.  Sounds promising I hope I can get to some of those, as they’re good networking and training days.  There will be an event based on the forthcoming economics of open access report written by Alma Swann (June 17th probably).  Aimed at senior university management, rather than repository workers.

13.03: Talking about his work representing UKCoRR as well.  Including the JISC Persistent Identifier Working Group.

13.05: Important for repository mangers to work more closely with their research staff.

14.14: Post lunch and after a whistle-stop tour around the multi-awarding David Wilson Library, Hannah Payne from the Welsh Repository Network talked about their work.  They are launching two new objects on metadata use in repositories.  Also comments about non-standard collections (e.g. ceramics) and how to get them into repository, like UWIC has.  National Library of Wales looking to expand role in terms of collecting and storing digital items like theses, but question about how that relates to Ethos.

14.25: Integrating repositories with the REF and satisfying their requirements is something they still looking at; not a big surprise.  WRN is planning a repository and CRIS event, which will be held at Leeds Met University and will be open to all.

14.30: Question about a cross searching tool, stemming from WRN Google custom search tool.

14.31: Jane Smith now on talking Advanced SHERPA/RoMEO.  Demonstrating the new features of the search tool and the new output, that allows you to add in funder name.  Also records now no longer list all the funders automatically, can opt for none, 1 or all.  Remember DOAJ open access journals don’t all support archiving in a repository, and as these are now listed on RoMEO important to go and check their actually policies.

14.37: Jane now showing all publisher lists and the information you can garner from them.  It is now possible to even generate list of payments needed to make items open access.  S/RoMEO’s monthly updates are displayed on a regular webpage.

14.47: Peter Millington from SHERPA is now speaking about the RoMEO API.  Journals may appear in one or more data sources (Zetoc, DOAJ and the RoMEO journals database).  Different sources may list different publishers, and this can be a problem to identify which is the right one to use.  Who is the publisher, and who counts for copyright and whose’s policy takes priority?  There are some clear cut cases, but where two publishers appear to have the rights, then they may not be compatible.

14.55: Difference between current RoMEO and trial RoMEO being illustrated, I think right now though this looks like muddying the water until things roll out for use.

15.06: Moving onto coffee and copyright.

16.54: Finally back at my desk after cleaning up the room and sorting out the leftovers.  The copyright session was good, but I think we really needed a couple of hours to dig into some of the issues.  But useful all the same.  And with that UKCoRR is over again, which is a shame – I could have done with two more days to really get round and talk to all the people I needed to, and indeed wanted to.  Sorry if you were one of the ones I had to rush by today – I really would have loved to have time to talk to you all – but it’s been a hectic day.  More like this UKCoRR please.

Thanks to the committee and everyone involved in running today’s event – it was highly stimulating!  A twitter stream of comments on the day can be found here.

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Meetings, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Open Access Week: Success Stories from Glasgow

Posted by gazjjohnson on 19 October, 2009

I was pleased to see that the University of Glasgow is running stories about individuals who have experienced academic success on the back of making their work available on their Enlighten repository.  The first one concerns Dr Katherine Forsyth from the Department of Celtic and Gaelic who has had a phenomenal number of downloads of her out of print book (50,000). 

I wonder if there are any authors of out of print books here at Leicester who might like to consider exploring the possibility of making their texts available to all via the LRA?  Please get in touch if you are!

Posted in Open Access | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UKCoRR Summer 2009 meeting pt 2

Posted by gazjjohnson on 18 August, 2009

Continuing on with the UKCoRR day at Kingston University

Integration of Repositories with other systems, Wendy White, Southampton

This session looked at how the repository interacts with all the other systems that an institution uses.  Not just technologies but people as well, the repository can help identify and nurture your star performer academics.  Recognising the role the repository plays as a knowledge management system.  But also as a location for marketing, to tell stories, myths and legends of your institution’s research is a role the repository can play.  Also the repository managers themselves are the star performers that institutions need to hold on to, by recognising them and ensuring their pay and benefits encourage them to stay.

Integration of Repositories with other systems, Morag Greig, Glasgow

This talk aimed to take a more practical overview of the same issue, which started with Morag giving an overview of Glasgow’s repository.  Like Leicester they aimed to join the repository and publications database together.  It was important to develop policies and procedures to enable departments to engage with the repository on an on-going basis.  Started by going out to talk to HoDs and research chair/champions in each department.  Gathered information on their current practices on how they gathered current procedures.  Self deposit for two depts, mediated for large faculties and proxy for most small to medium sized departments.  Issue with materials in PMC going unharvested.

Training sessions were run for administrators (from 30 depts) including the wider context of OA, something which I think is very important.  Even if you are just adding material to a repository as part of your job, it is important you understand why it is important to academics and the institution as a whole; not to mention the global dimension.  Glasgow are planning a large scale import of data going back to 2001, and adding staff number.

Embed, John Harrington, Cranfield

In this talk John explained how his repo emerging from the embedding phase and into the mature phase.  He looked at the problems they initially faced.  Then he moved to look at the various sweeteners they could use to sell the repository and the publication cycle.  Using a model like Leicester (alerts and request) to obtain materials got a low awareness in the academic community.  They concluded that this was an unsustainable model for scaling up, something I agree with.  RAE didn’t help, but elements of bibliometrics raised importance of the repository which they used as a basis for renewed advocacy push.

Adrian Mschiraju, Royal Holloway

Adrian told a cautionary tale about what happens if it people are seduced by bought in systems.  They have bought Equella an Australian developed system for all purposes teaching objects, research publications, data and theses.  14 months of developer time so far to customise for their purposes – however, had to drop their requirements down to a level that eprints could have done on day 1.  [Post-event I spoke to their developer Alison on twitter, who said actually the picture wasn’t quite as bleak as this – and indeed their repository actually offers a lot more functionality]

Susan Miles, Kingston

Susan talked about maintaining momentum with a repository team over time.  They have 7 people who have editorial rights over their eprints server, which is a considerable number for a smaller institution.  However, repository work has to be competed for with all the other competing demands – these are not dedicated members of staff.  As a team distributed over 4 campuses they have been using Sharepoint to draw the team’s activities drawing together.

Finally Mary Robinson, talked about the UKCoRR repository skills set document which has ended up being used around the world.  Dominic talked about the JISC recruitment tool kit for digital repository projects – which frankly was just the sort of basic things you get told at all kinds of recruitment training and didn’t appear to offer much of novel use – JISC reinventing the wheel again? 

Over all this was another very useful day and gathering of people in the rare position of being repository managers (there’s still less than 100 people in this country in this position – so it’s a very small but active community).  I learned a fair bit and let’s hope I was able to share my own experiences with a fair few people.  Let’s hope it’s not 18 months before the next event.  And maybe we can have it North of the M25 (or on the south coast – I’m not fussy!).

Twitter feed from the event.

Posted in Meetings, Open Access, Research Support | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

UKCoRR Summer 2009 meeting pt 1

Posted by gazjjohnson on 18 August, 2009

It seemed a long way to go, longer than going to Edinburgh for the Fringe the other week, but in the end thanks to my handy in-laws as an overnight venue, getting to Kingston UIniversity wasn’t such a difficult destination after all.  Aside from some early morning shopping, the event today was all about sharing practical experiences of repository managers.

Keynote: Bill Hubbard, UKCoRR Can!

Bill (SHERPA/Centre for Scholarly Communication, Nottingham) talked about the founding of UKCoRR and the purpose of a membership organisation as a safe haven for repository managers to meet and discuss issues, away from other stakeholders in open access.  He went on to talk about the vision and purpose behind UKCoRR – key among that being the professionalism and recognition within HEIs.  He highlighted the RIN Mind the Skills Gap report as one that illustrated a clear role and need for repositories and their staff, not just libraries, as key partners of all those involved in the research process.  The UK remains a significant global player in the world repositories, and potentially gives us the chance to lead the world.  Need remains to get the disciplinary repository people involved in UKCoRR as well.  NECOBELAC (Latin America, Caribbean and Europe Repo collaboration).

 Repositories should remember simple as a key feature – simple to access, simple metadata and simple content; although in particular the REF will seriously change the role of the repository.  As managers we may need to be able to fight our corner and our significance against competing demands, which we might feel isolates us.  How does the repository know when people are mandated to deposit by funders?  There is a need to be involved in the research process from the start, not as an after the fact activity.  And this is a position few if any HEI repositories are in.

Here is where UKCoRR can help by supporting peer networks, by identifying needs, supporting collaboration, seeking funding, sharing best practice and acting as a voice for we repository mangers.  There is a need for organisations like JISC to be lobbied by UKCoRR to support repository managers and processes from the top down.  If senior administrators and academics hear about this from a body like JISC, then they might just take more note of our concerns and expertise.

Following this talk Jenny Delasalle, Mary Robinson and Dominick Tate talked about their role as the inaugural UKCoRR Committee.

Theo Andrews, Central funds for open access publishing

This talk looked at the open access publishing side of open access, with Theo giving an overview of the current situation.  The Gold OAP Route avoids a lot of the problems.  There are a lot of new publishers jumping on board (e.g. PLOS) but also traditional publishers offering hybrid journals; with the option of the author paying a fee to retain rights or not.  How can this be funded, how can this be managed and how can this change be communicated? 

 Mechanisms for payment in this way are not totally new, with page charges for images in articles being around for years.  Often these have been paid from unallocated fund, and this is not really a sustainable nor easily managed way.  Wellcome Trust awarded additional funds to 30 HEIs, and other HEIs can apply to reclaim costs.  At Edinburgh using this as an opportunity to step in for advocacy, and provide support to managing the funding.  Noted that FEC can be included in calculation for researcher fees in grants. 

The feeds issue means that a lot of different departments and stakeholders within an institution are involved in the issue (finance, research, administrative staff, library, committees etc).  No matter what they do, institutions need to coordinate these funds centrally and along the lines of acceptable standard policies.  Edinburgh will be introducing a mandate in Jan 2010 and are spending the 6 months in the lead up to that talking with departments about how this will impact and how the repository can help them to meet the requirements of this.  Noted that once you have introduced the idea of a central fund to pay for publication, top sliced from research grants, you have to maintain it – even if income decreases.

 Glasgow, Nottingham, UCL, Brunel, Edinburgh, Warwick and Kingston are all already or about to start funding open access funding in a central.  Some Northampton academics very much against the idea of paying to publish though, as a matter of principle. Some publishers offer an OA option – but then increase their embargo to a length that means in order to comply with funders’ mandates, authors need to pay for OA option as IR will not be able to meet the requirements.  As Bill Hubbard put it – “They’re back into a double dipping approach to getting money.”

Event slides are here.

Posted in Meetings, Open Access, Research Support | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UK Institutional Repository Rankings – July 2009 Edition

Posted by gazjjohnson on 3 August, 2009

The Webometrics site  half yearly update of their ranking of world repositories is available.  For information on how they calculate their metric see here.  For further interest here’s the ranking of the top UK based institutional repositories, I’ve put their global score in brackets at the end, and those with mandates (as listed on ROARMAP)  in italics.

  1. University of Cambridge (22)
  2. University of Oxford (42)
  3. University College London (51)
  4. University of Edinburgh (71)
  5. University of Southampton (74)
  6. University of Warwick (123)
  7. University of Glasgow (131)
  8. University of Manchester (160)
  9. University of Leeds (White Rose) (167)
  10. University of Birmingham (187)
  11. University of Nottingham (212)
  12. LSE (215)
  13. Open University (222)
  14. Imperial College (225)
  15. University of Bristol (232)
  16. University of York (White Rose) (239)
  17. Newcastle University (253)
  18. Lancaster University (261)
  19. University of Sheffield (265)
  20. Durham University (302)
  21. King’s College London (255)
  22. University of Bath (309)
  23. University of Essex (328)
  24. Herriot-Watt University (344)
  25. University of Liverpool (366)
  26. University of Aberdeen (373)
  27. University of St Andrews (376)
  28. University of Leicester (383)
  29. University of Surrey (406)
  30. University of Kent (424)
  31. University of Strathclyde (438)
  32. UEA (476)
  33. Cardiff University (478)
  34. University of Sussex (486)
  35. University of Reading (494)
  36. Loughborough University (499)
  37. University of Exeter (501)
  38. Queen Mary University of London (518)
  39. Manchester Metropolitan University (527)
  40. Queen’s University Belfast (537)
  41. Aberystwyth (547)
  42. University of Dundee (592)
  43. University of Brighton (626)
  44. Royal Holloway (628)
  45. De Montfort University (640)
  46. University of Stirling (644)
  47. City University London (669)
  48. University of Salford (671)
  49. Brunel University (678)
  50. University of Westminster (685)

You can see the whole list of UK Institutional Repositories’ ranks here.  Contrasted with last timethe LRA has dropped down the list somewhat – with detailed metrics for our repository giving us the following changes in the sub-rankings for Leicester.

  July 09 Jan 09
Size 877 222
Visibility 378 186
Rich Files 363 125
Scholarly 422 125

 The most drastic change seems to be in terms of size, where a lot of repositories have clearly begun to be filled at a considerably advanced rate.  How the recent mandate at Leicester will affect these figures in the next 6 months will bear watching.

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Information literacy at Staffordshire University (SUILCoP event)

Posted by gazjjohnson on 5 March, 2009

I went over to University of Staffordshire on Wednesday to take part in one of their information literacy scholarly community events SUILCoP. It was a really worthwhile session and I was deeply privileged to take part. After a spot of networking with the senior librarians at Stafford the day kicked off with an introduction by Alison Pope (Staffordshire University). This was then followed by myself speaking about the practicalities of making and using videos for information literacy, along with my now streamlined scriptwriting for beginners 101 course. It’s a development of my highly regarded workshops from last year’s CoFHE/UC&R Conference. It was quite a packed and enthusiastic room at the start of the event and thankfully still was at the end. Hopefully all the folks there will go onto televisual greatness and continue to develop their scripts to fruition.

After my workshop Chris Wakeman (Centre for Professional Development, University of Staffordshire) spoke about information and its implications for contemporary facilitation methods in HE. Chris asked us to think about our perspective of information literacy (something that immediately made my mind go blank), something that he was coming at from a practitioner’s point of view. He mentioned paper by Bruce Edwards & Larson on information literacy that defines the topic. Chris suggested that he was going to focus on information literacy as dialogue between two people – to consider modern facilitation methods in higher education and to ponder how information literacy skills may influence ultimate success of failure for students. He looked at dialectic (including Socratic dialogue) and teaching by asking/discussion (assuming students bring with them a knowledge base) teaching. There is also enquiry based learning that covers a whole range of other techniques including cognitive problem solving and Webquests (a technique now used in modern schools). People discussed what they thought information literacy was – a variety of concepts were aired and I was very impressed by the deep level of scholastic thought demonstrated by those present.

Chris described himself as a social constructivist in terms of IL, which wasn’t a term I was overly familiar with; which didn’t help with my following of his talk. Glancing at the faces in the rest of the room I sensed I wasn’t alone in this. Chris’ talk was at a very high level, considerably more academic than I’ve come to expect for a workshop session. Whilst it is good to be pushed sometimes, unfortunately there was just far too much to take in, and delivered at a pace and professional lexicon that didn’t help the audience to pick up the threads.

I did later have the opportunity to read a paper on constructivist learning (or at least skim through it while he talked) and discovered that it is the concept that “humans can understand only what they have themselves constructed” – and involves the learner learning through developing their own problem solving techniques and solutions. This helped a little in following the session, but obviously whilst reading it Chris had bounded onwards to talk about more exotic concepts and definitions of IL.

He provided various definitions of information literacy, including the Australia & New Zealand Literacy Framework ANZILF one which defines IL in terms of people whom are information literate and skills and aptitudes they display. The idea that an IL citizen “used information and knowledge for participative citizenship and social responsibility”; was at least an interesting concept. Even more important was the idea that IL is embedded within teaching and skills delivery rather than being taught as a separate skill. There was a nice juicy algebraic problem on Chris’ slides, which I ended up solving in a minute or two for personal satisfaction, though as he explained this would have been previously taught by showing the solutions, which means only about 20-40% of people would have learned it. For enquiry based learning the learner would experiment with solving it themselves, which should ensure their memory of the learning experience would be much stronger.

Next he talked more about Webquests and explained how students enjoy this sort of activity, though it is very much one that cannot be run in a single session; rather it is one that takes place over a period of time. They sound a very attractive approach, but I can see some significant practical difficulties with the way teaching sessions at UoL I’m involved in applying them. I think as he talked about how they could be used over a course stretching over a term, this rather illustrated just how little Chris understood about the environment and opportunists that librarians have to teach in. To have the luxury of more than a single hour on a module is rare and hard won treat, and much as I would welcome the opportunity myself to make use of this kind of training strategy, none of my current departments are set up to embrace it. There is clearly a long way to go for academics themselves in understanding the importance of information literacy and the vital importance of ensuring sessions from librarians are not seen simply as box ticking skills sessions.

Indeed the audience politely made the point that Chris’ POV of the traditional librarian was somewhat blinkered, and didn’t encompass the wealth of what modern librarians teach. Personally I think the truth lies somewhere between the two points of view.

Chris followed the session up with a somewhat bewildering workshop exercise matching training styles to statements. Frankly since he’d pitched the whole session at the wrong level for the audience the room was filled with baffled faces, I think if he’d cut his lecture down to about half the length, and tried not to go for information overload (as I’d warned against earlier in the day) and given us a good half an hour on the exercise, that the participants wouldn’t have been able to work through it using their own learning and problem solving styles. As it was in the time allotted there was little our group could establish in coherent form, or take from the work. This was a pity as correctly pitched Chris had a lot to say that was of interest.

So whilst this might have been a slightly odd counterpoint to my advocacy and communication session, it did give me plenty to mull over and consider on the long drive back home. If you get the chance to attend one of the future SUILCoP sessions, I can highly recommend them as they are pitched at a higher level than most EMALink sessions I’ve attended.

Posted in Staff training, Wider profession | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »