Embedding our Institutional Repository into the institutional research

Embedding our Institutional Repository into the institutional research culture Institutional Repositories and Research Assessment (IRRA) British Computer Society 7 April 2006 http: //eprints. soton. ac. uk Wendy White Hartley Library University of Southampton

University of Southampton: endorsement through mandate • University mandate for all potential RAE outputs to be deposited • Funding to boost IR support for the RAE • Aim for IR to be fully embedded as tool for research support • Endorsement from DVC for Research and Heads of Schools Prof Philip Nelson DVC for Research and Enterprise

Southampton Press Release 15 Dec 2004 ‘We see our Institutional Repository as a key tool for the stewardship of the University's digital research assets, ' said Professor Paul Curran, Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University. 'It will provide greater access to our research, as well as offering a valuable mechanism for reporting and recording it. ’

Integrated planning • Strong links with the overall University RAE management • From data sub-group to a full member of the University RAE Planning Group • Research repository an integral part of data collection and evaluation • Member of Planning Dept with key responsibility for the RAE attends our bi-weekly repository meetings

Advocacy – build on what you’ve got • Build on existing links drawing in liaison librarians • Three staff share out role of lead link for the 20 Schools – one 0. 5 FTE dedicated to this role, 2 roles embedded as part of day to day work • Variety of models of activity – author self-deposit, School administrator deposit, upload from existing School database

Deep liaison • Challenge of getting “deep” levels of liaison e. g. technical staff, School RAE Manager, School editors, Deputy Heads of School Research, Heads of Schools • Even bigger challenge of engaging with all staff for RAE output selection • RAE deadlines are taken seriously but problem of awareness of roles and timescales for stages e. g. metadata evaluation

Challenges • Clarifying areas of responsibility - the IR is not a reason for others to give us poor quality bibliographic information • There always Schools who are less engaged and resistance to the open access movement is still as factor • Workflow – some Schools want most of their papers to choose from creating a heavy demand for metadata validation in a short timescale e. g. 3000 records • Diversity of disciplines – performances, artefacts, software and the full range of RAE types

Copyright concerns • Need access to electronic full text of all journal articles not just for RAE panel members but to facilitate internal review • Staff clearly want to see final publisher PDF for accurate review • Not an open access issue but an issue for the RAE

Publisher permissions • 188 publishers contacted from the SHERPA/ROMEO list plus key additional publishers suggested by liaison librarians • Permission sought for storage of the publisher PDFs in the IR for institutional (NOT open) access to support the RAE process • 52 gave permission, 12 refusals Not comprehensive – would have been really useful to have a national agreement

Metadata team • 1. 6 FTE core staffing (1 as team manager and trainer) • For RAE currently 4. 6 FTE additional temporary staffing and equivalent of 1. 8 FTE seconded from library activity (4 staff) • Staffing has some fluidity – training investment and QA risk

Workflow challenge • Checking accuracy of metadata, verifying publication, adding subject headings (Library of Congress) and adding DOIs and other appropriate full text links • Tight timescale, a lot of records needs to go through quickly – RAE is going hand in hand with ongoing work but currently adding around 150 records a day - will increase over the next couple of months

Software assistance • Enhanced sort facilities for the editorial review/submission buffer • Stats for editor’s work to monitor workflow and for QA • Function so inadequate records can be sent back to nominated School contact from the editorial review – once an output is selected for the RAE from the live records automatic flag for missing RAE metadata

RAE and open access – some conflict • Publisher PDF But can build on this trying “give us what you have got” strategy • Reluctant to give up School databases • Ensuring most staff represented on IR freely accessible • • • Post print – hinder deposit for open access IR mapping – extra work but additional functionality and QA New staff pleased to have interest in their work through visibility

Original research route map – RAE now a full part of this integration 4 1 3 2

RAE – what next! • Ensure we build on this RAE experience to lay grounding for ongoing research reporting - not just a one off experience for IRs • Explore links to metrics – part of a much bigger OA picture of looking at access, downloads and impact on citations • RAE a good driver to make progress across the disciplines – encourage take up in the Arts and Humanities – possible enhancement and promotion of interdisciplinary research • Build on fully comprehensive approach across the institution – now much closer to ongoing storage of all research output • Work on broader offer to researchers e. g. personal pages, links to bibliographic software, CVs etc. • Look at preservation issues but not as a barrier to access