[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# [drf:1405] Fw: Institutional vs. Central Repositories (-why this juxtaposition is no longer useful)

- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:05:29 +0900 (JST)

    皆様、

    ごらんになった方も多いかと思いますが、DRFとNIIが、Chris Armbrusterさん
    の投稿で、ご自身の論文から引用して言及されていました。この方は、一度話
    題になった集中リポジトリ関係の論文
    (http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/index.php?plugin=attach&refer=Foreign%20Documents&openfile=SSRN-id1425692_jp.pdf)
    の共著者のひとりです。

    最後の段落です。

    土屋

> --- Begin Message ---
> - Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:08:48 +0100
> - Approved-by: amsciforum ＠ xxxxxxxxx
> - Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 133.82.226.81 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-american-scientist-open-access-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) smtp.mail=owner-american-scientist-open-access-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> - Comments: To: boai-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jisc-repositories <JISC-REPOSITORIES ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> - Comments: cc: BOAI Forum <boai-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> - Thread-index: Acpt8/IJB8qgRQqpT5O70nLaUoWy5QCV9PGz
> - Thread-topic: Institutional vs. Central Repositories (-why this juxtaposition is no longer useful)

> I have some doubts that the juxtaposition of institutional versus central repository is helpful (any longer) - that is why the proposition is to henceforth distinguish between four ideal types of repositories on an abstract level, so as to be able to examine each specific repository in more detail. For example PMC was a subject-based repository, but it languished before it became a research repository (capturing publication outputs) due to a national mandate, which is compatible with also having a UK PMC and PMC Canada. The point here is to examine (here: for the life sciences) past and (possible) future repository development and help stakeholders make informed decisions. Another example: the Durch system looks like a network of institutional repositories, but is now part of a national gateway (NARCIS). Moreover, the major institutions in the network are research universities. Thus the question arises, if Dutch repository development could be improved if stakeholders used the notion of research repository and national repüository system to consider their options (rather than thinking that the institutions must do the job).
> For the purpose of futher discussion I quote from the working paper (at some length):
> In two decades of immersion in digital worlds, we have witnessed the development of various repository solutions and accumulated a better understanding of what works and what doesn’t. The main repository solutions may be distinguished as follows:
> - Subject-based repositories (commercial and non-commercial, single and federated) usually have been set up by community members and are adopted by the wider community. Spontaneous self-archiving is prevalent as the repository is of intrinsic value to scholars. Much of the intrinsic value for authors comes from the opportunity to communicate ideas and results early in the form of working papers and preprints, from which a variety of benefits may result, such as being able to claim priority, testing the value of an idea or result, improving a publication prior to submission, gaining recognition and attention internationally and so on. As such, subject-based repositories are thematically well defined, and alert services and usage statistics are meaningful for community users;
> - Research repositories are usually sponsored by research funding or performing organisations to capture results. This capturing typically requires a deposit mandate. Publications are results, including books, but data may also be considered a result worth capturing, leading to a collection with a variety of items. Because these items constitute a record of science, standards for deposit and preservation must be stringent. The sponsor of the repository is likely to tie reporting functions to the deposit mandate, this being, for example, the reporting of grantees to the funder or the presentation of research results in an annual report. Research repositories are likely to contain high-quality output. This is because its content is peer-reviewed multiple times (e.g. grant application, journal submission, research evaluation) and the production of the results is well funded. Users who are collaborators, competitors or instigating a new research project are most likely to find the collections of relevance;
> - National repository systems require coordination - more for a federated system, less for a unified system. National systems are designed to capture scholarly output more generally and not just with a view to preserving a record of scholarship, but also to support, for example, teaching and learning in higher education. Indeed, only a national purpose will justify the national investment. Such systems are likely to display scholarly outputs in the national language, highlight the publications of prominent scholars and develop a system for recording dissertations. One could conceive of such a national system as part of a national research library that serves scholarly communication in the national language, is an international showcase of national output and supports public policy, e.g. higher education and public access to knowledge;
> - Institutional repositories contain the various outputs of the institution. While research results are important among these outputs, so are works of qualification or teaching and learning materials. If the repository captures the whole output, it is both a library and a showcase. It is a library holding a collection, and it is a showcase because the online open access display and availability of the collection may serve to impress and connect, for example, with alumni of the institution or the colleagues of researchers. A repository may also be an instrument of the institution by supporting, for example, internal and external assessment as well as strategic planning. Moreover, an institutional repository could have an important function in regional development. It allows firms, public bodies and civil society organisations to immediately understand what kind of expertise is available locally.
> These four ideal types have been derived partly from the history of repositories, partly through logical reasoning. This includes an appreciation of the relevant literature on scholarly communication, open access and repositories, though the following is not a literature review but an argument that moves back and forth between abstract ideal types and specific cases. Ideal types should not be misunderstood as a classification, in which each and every repository may be identified as belonging unambiguously to a category. Rather, the purpose of creating ideal types is to aid our understanding of repositories and provide a tool for analysing repository development.
> Some publication repositories may be identified easily as resembling very much one ideal type rather than another. Some of the classic repositories conventionally identified as subject-based, such as arXiv and RePEc, exhibit few features of another type. Yet, one of the more interesting questions to ask is in how far other elements are present and what this means. ArXiv, for example, is also a research repository, with institutions sponsoring research in high-energy physics being important to its development and success. RePEc, by comparison, has a strong institutional component because the repository is a federated system that relies on input and service from a variety of departments and institutes.
> To continue with another example, PubMed Central (PMC), at first glance, is a subject-based repository. Acquisition of content, however, only took off once it was declared a research repository capturing the output of publicly funded research (by the NIH). Notably, US Congress passed the deposit mandate, transforming PMC into a national repository. That a parallel, though integrated, repository should emerge in the UK (UK PMC) and Canada (PMC Canada) is thus not surprising. Utilisation of the ideal types outlined above would thus be fruitful in analysing the development of PMC and, presumably, be equally valuable in discussing the future potential of PMC, for example the possible creation of a Europe PMC.
> National solutions are increasingly common (and principally may also be regional in form), but vary especially with regard to privileging either research outputs or the institutions. The French HAL system is powered by the CNRS, the most prestigious national research organisation, and thus is strong on making available research results. In Japan, the National Institute of Informatics has supported the Digital Repository Federation, which covers eighty-seven institutions, with mainly librarians working to make the system operational. In Spain, an aggregator and search portal, Recolecta, sits atop a multitude of institutional repositories, with a large variety of items. In Australia, institutional repositories are prominently tied to the national research assessment exercise, with due emphasis on peer reviewed publications.
> More here:
> Armbruster, Chris and Romary, Laurent, Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication (November 23, 2009).
> Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1506905
> Best,
> Chris Armbruster

> --- End Message ---

    ─―─────────────────────────────
    　　 国際会議開催決定、参加者募集中！　http://drfic2009.jp
    　　　 DRFIC2009「オープンアクセスリポジトリの現在と未来
    　　　 　　　　　―世界とアジアへの視点から―」
    　　 　12月3日（木）〜4日（金）東京工業大学蔵前会館にて
    ―──────────────────────────────
    DRF mailing list
    DRF ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    https://ml.hines.hokudai.ac.jp/mailman/listinfo/drf

- Prev by Date: [drf:1404] Re: PDFの仕様について　補足の補足
- Next by Date: [drf:1406] (Fw):事業仕分け結果（縮減）による学術情報基盤の危機的状況について
- Previous by thread: [drf:1398] DRFIC2009本日17時に登録フォーム閉じます
- Next by thread: [drf:1406] (Fw):事業仕分け結果（縮減）による学術情報基盤の危機的状況について
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread