Friday, 11 June 2010

Advocacy discussion: barriers and solutions

As part of the Repository Stream at the Gregynog Colloquium we held a discussion session on the hurdles faced by Repository Administrators when trying to encourage academic buy-in to their systems. These have been listed below and grouped into topics.

As part of the discussions we also suggested solutions for each of the obstacles. These appear after each problem raised in a different colour. The solutions are by no means exhaustive and there are some gaps.

Please add comments and suggestions to the list below, and suggest advocacy ideas that have worked for you. It is hoped this exchange of ideas will aid both our WRN community and the repository community as a whole.

Perception of time and effort required

No time
Demonstrate ease of deposit. Video materials to demo deposit using academic champions. Practice reduces time. Look into automatic completion APIs for repository.
Extra admin work
Mandate. Suggest using admin staff or PhD students to help- good practice for new researchers.
Backlog of research will take too much time to enter
Offer self-deposit to relieve backlog then encourage self-deposit. Suggest using admin staff or PhD students to help.

Benefit of repository interaction

What’s in it for me?- Apathetic to the process
Education- more widespread audience; greater recognition; higher/ faster/ sustained citation rates. Demonstration of RAE impact. Use of peers as champions. Video materials?
The paper is already published- anyone who wants to read it already has
More widespread audience- publically funded research available to whole of the public beyond subscription barriers.
Takes time to see benefit
Difference between print and electronic world?

Perception of repository importance

Lack of integration with other Uni systems and processes
Top-level buy-in to push for integration/ Mandates
Repository is an archival end point
Education on benefits- use as Management Information tool
Perceived value of system through lack of dedicated staff time
Top-level buy-in to fund positions to administer repository. Use further staff network- subject liaison; research administrators- to spread load and form experts for each school/ collection.

Copyright and IPR issues

Unsure of copyright status in papers
Use of SHERPA RoMEO/ include API on repository front page
Unsure of what was signed away with publishing license
Education. Feedback from academics to publishers. UKCoRR MoU
No longer have copies of different versions
Worries about plagiarism and IPR protection
No real difference between print and online world. Getting the paper out on the web and recognised as author’s work should counteract plagiarism risk. Benefits associated with citation rates and recognition should outweigh IPR risks.

Conflicts with traditional publishing

Publishing within a prestigious journal the priority
Use of OA funds to encourage OA publishing
Older research is no longer felt relevant
Evidence of older PhD work being requested for digitisation as now informs modern research.

Other issues

Collection policy confusion- what can be accepted
Have clear collection policy stated within repository site FAQ
Can the repository take different file types?
Have clear collection policy stated within repository site FAQ- the repository can store diff file types but can end users access them easily?/ Preservation.
Don’t want to make draft version publically available

1 comment:

  1. For the Web 2.0 savvy, have you considered bigging up the advantages of using feeds from a repository to generate a dynamic bibliography that can be embedded in websites, portfolios, etc? E.g. (feed of Les Carr's publications at Soton)