The Repositories Roadmap was published in 2006 and presented a vision for the role of repositories in 2010. Given the many changes in practice, policy and technology since 2006 it is timely to review the Roadmap. This Review seeks to extend the horizon to 2013, to clarify the relationship of repositories to the broader environment and to steer the future work of JISC and others interested in furthering repository implementation and enhanced scholarly communication. The review is based on consultation with experts using a Web forum (IdeaScale), a questionnaire based survey, and a workshop.
The Review is structured into two parts. Firstly it makes a number of recommendations targeted at the JISC Executive to inform further funding of repository related activity. The Review then goes on to identify a number of milestones of relevance to the wider community that might act as a measure of progress towards the wider vision of enhanced scholarly communication. Achievement of these milestones would be assisted by JISC through its community work and funding programmes.
Recommendation 1: Chart progress of the implementation and usage of repositories by measurable indicators, for example
- Measure cultural and organisational change by whether relevant repository related deliverables are included in institutional information strategies (in particular open access, integration of institutional systems, digital preservation and curation, well managed digital collections).
- Produce baseline analysis of current repository content and analysis of potential repository content.
- Enhance repository statistics to measure the availability of open access full text items (e.g. using ROAR or OpenDOAR or Intute).
- Analyse patterns of deposit in those institutions with an institutional mandate compared to other institutions. Who is self-depositing and why?
- Scope metrics, qualitative as well as quantitative, to demonstrate the value of repositories to institutions and their members.
Recommendation 2: Analyse current communication behaviour of researchers and teachers, and involve them in development of future scholarly communication services.
Recommendation 3: Given the environmental changes in the education, Web and scholarly environment we need to articulate an updated vision of richer scholarly communication. The vision should be based on the scholarly life-cycle from experiment through to research, teaching and learning. The various roles repositories might play should be mapped out, particularly as regards management of digital resources, open access and re-use.
Recommendation 4: Communications about repositories should emphasise higher level objectives. It would be helpful for JISC to differentiate high level objectives and subsume repository activity under those objectives. There needs to be a shift in emphasis from the ‘repository’ to the objective. JISC should ensure calls and funded activity relate to particular objectives rather than to ‘repositories’.
Recommendation 5: Tools and project outputs should be presented in terms of solutions to local institutional repository requirements.
Recommendation 6: Repository activity needs to be joined up more closely with other forward looking work such as the JISC Virtual Research Environment activity, open science, data sharing and preservation. At the same time at the local level there needs to be support for integration of repositories with institutional systems (Current Research Information Systems, Research Excellence Framework, Virtual Learning Environment, author identity systems).
Recommendation 7: Harness existing JISC funded expertise to take the lead on exploiting the Web for teaching and research. Ensure existing JISC services have responsibility to advise and demonstrate use of new Web developments and services for scholarly communication to include aspects where repositories have a role. This may involve UKOLN, CETIS and/or the Repositories Support Project. Extend the remit of CRIG (or a similar group)to address interfaces with Web based systems and Web 2.0 initiatives.
Recommendation 8: Ensure clear classification of the outputs of JISC funded activity into categories useful to repository managers such as relevance in short term or long term; ease of implementation; relevance to different repository types.
Recommendation 9: Explore options for moving to a more Web based architecture for repositories, taking into account the requirement to move forward existing ‘legacy repositories’.
Recommendation 10: Explore the concentration of the collection of different types of content at different levels small group (lab, research group, student cohorts), discipline and global levels and how these different levels might facilitate social networking effects.
Recommendation 11: Explore deployment of a cut down version of SWAP, possibly at the copy level, retaining the cataloguing rules to ensure a consistent approach to linking to full text. Evaluate whether use of SWAP is consistent with a Web architecture approach to repositories.
Recommendation 12: Explore use of OAI-ORE to enable applications to handle complex objects. Demonstrate how OAI-ORE facilitates the re-use of research outputs and research data. Clarify different roles of OAI-ORE and SWAP.
Recommendation 13: Target UK contribution to ePrints and DSpace in terms of development effort and funding to ensure strategic deliverables are prioritised.
Recommendation 14: Explore use of cloud computing to support repository storage and services. Consider what repository infrastructure is best located at the local institutional level and what is better outsourced to help alleviate cost implications.
Recommendation 15: Follow SWORD development pattern for other repository related applications. Demonstrate use of SWORD to deliver deposit to multiple repositories.
Milestone 1: Repositories need to clarify their roles in relation to other repositories, whilst acknowledging they exist within a ‘mixed economy’.
Milestone 2: Support population of institutional repositories by advocacy, case studies, guidelines on best practice, encouraging institutional mandates, encouraging inclusion of open access and management of the life-cycle of digital content in institutional strategies.
Milestone 3: Explore and address integration between institutional repositories and: other institutional systems, other types of repository, funders’ systems.
Milestone 4: Develop added value services layered on repository content (e.g. tools for deposit, search, re-use, linking data, metadata enhancement, citation metrics, publication lists).
Milestone 5: Establish an agency/lead body within the JISC HE community to take a lead on legal issues connected to copyright and publisher policies.
Milestone 6: Clarify responsibility for feeding existing repository implementation experience into current planning activity for research data centres. Potential candidates for this role are DCC, UKOLN and JISC. Taking experience of previous JISC programmes, and existing IRs on board, the interaction between different types of research data centre should be defined at an early stage. Work in this area needs to be undertaken in collaboration with the UK Research Councils. There is a need to establish metrics for populating research data centres and measure impact.
Milestone 7: Ensure the multiple objectives that management and re-use of research data supports (e.g. discovery, access, re-use and preservation of data) are taken into account in proposed solutions. Ensure the requirements of different research data types (big science, small science, different disciplines) are taken into account in proposed solutions.
Milestone 8: Formulate national strategy to take account of differing roles for different types of HE institution.
- Identify best practice for the management (including discovery, access and re-use) of learning materials at disciplinary, regional and national levels.
- Establish rewards and incentives for sharing.
- Set up measures for progress and impact.
- Integrate repositories with VLEs and e-portfolios.
- Work with QAA towards adherence to guidelines for good management of learning materials.
- Facilitate deposit of learning materials in repositories.
- Explore how different learning materials repositories might interact and in particular how Open Educational Resource initiatives fit with repository initiatives.
- Explore how different learning materials repositories might interact and in particular how Open Educational Resource initiatives fit with repository initiatives