Posted by Peta Hopkins on April 28, 2006
Back in January 2005 I was on leave in Tasmania and visited my previous Head of Department at the University of Tasmania, Prof Arthur Sale. He is an avid supporter of institutional repositories for research output (see his article in FirstMonday, De-unifying a digital library). He quickly convinced me of the benefits of research staff self-archiving their publications in a local respository and urged me to install the free E-prints repository software from my old alma mater, the University of Southampton, department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
On return to Bond I was only able to acquire capacity on a Faculty of Information Technology server to install E-prints for my faculty colleagues. With a few days assistance from Travis Johnston from the faculty tech support group we were able to install version 2.3 of E-prints on the latest Apache and MySQL distributions, quite a feat apparently. We were able to put up a few publications to prove that the system could be used easily by staff.
Of course our Bond library staff were very interested in our E-prints experiences and quickly invited me to be part of a working party to look at a university-wide solution. We had some very helpful advice from Belinda Weaver who leads the University of Queensland e-repository implementation. In the end Bond quite rightly decided to adopt a hosting solution using the Digital Commons service which allows an institutional repository to be built quickly without the need to buy and install servers and software and create a technical support team.
The benefits of institutional digital repositories are well know but are worth repeating. Research output is available globally to one research peers via all the usual online search avenues including Google and its ilk. Since preprints can be placed in the repository the research results can be made available immediately without the usual delays involved with conference and journal publishing. More than 80% of publishers than will require copyright be transferred to them still agree to this self-archiving online publication in repositories. Another great benefit is the ease with which research output can be made available to students via simple hyperlinks. Even older research publications not in electronic form can be scanned easily and placed in the repository. Probably best of all is the real-time production of access data that allows research authors a measure of how their work is being cited and used by others around the world.
In just a few weeks Peta Hopkins has been able to create and customise the Digital Commons site for our e-publications at Bond repository. I am looking forward to putting up all my publications in electronic form in the next few weeks. This service will be a great leap forward for Bond’s researchers and will give us a strong presence amongst the research universities of the world.
Michael J. Rees
Reproduced with permission from Impressions Scholarcast
You can see Michael's papers in e-publications@bond
Posted in General | Comments Off on Michael Rees on e-publications@bond
Posted by Peta Hopkins on April 24, 2006
University policies on research archiving have a significant impact on the coverage within institutional repositories. Arthur Sale's article analyses the coverage of content in Australian repositories demonstrating the success of coupling effective author support with a policy requiring authors to self-archive their papers. QUT's repository clearly outperforms other institutions' in the coverage of reported DEST output. QUT has a policy mandating authors to archive their research publications.
Sale, Arthur (2006) Comparison of content policies for institutional repositories in Australia. First Monday, v.11, no. 4 (3 April 2006).
E-print repository for research output at QUT (http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.html, viewed 20th April 2006)
Posted in General | 1 Comment »
Posted by Peta Hopkins on April 20, 2006
For a brief overview of OA and the role of institutional repositories you may like to read
Charles W. Bailey's book chapter 'What is Open Access?' (preprint). It discusses self-archiving and associated copyright practices and open access journals.
The chapter is from:
Jacobs, Neil, ed. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2006. It is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
More by Charles W. Bailey on scholarly publishing is available from http://www.digital-scholarship.com
Posted in General | Comments Off on Open Access and the role of IRs
Posted by bulibrary on April 12, 2006
Institutional repositories may contain works where the copyright is owned by the author, or the University, or for which permission has been obtained to include a copy.
Recent trends show that some publishers are becoming more amenable to authors self-archiving their research in institutional repositories.
The Sherpa/Romeo list makes it easy for researchers to check on the copyright policies of journal publishers. Users can look up a journal title or publisher to check on the default copyright policy. The list provides a summary as well as a link to the full policy. Changes or exceptions to the default policy can be negotiated by authors.
The Sherpa/Romeo list is worth considering when looking for potential publishers of your research, however, as policies in this area are rapidly evolving the contract you sign contains the final word on whether you can archive a post-print.
The author owns the copyright on pre-refereed pre-prints so no permission has to be sought to archive a pre-print.
Institutional repositories are about open access and discoverability. They are not meant to replace the quality control aspects of refereeing and publication. But if you are concerned about demonstrating the quality of your research a supplementary file outlining variations with the final work can be uploaded to the repository, or the publisher may simply ask for a link to the final refereed version. Both of these options can be accommodated in e-publications@bond.
Posted in FAQs | Comments Off on The copyright question