SHERPA and Institutional Repositories

The SHERPA project (Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access) has been set up to encourage change in the scholarly communication process by creating open-access institutional "e-print" repositories for the dissemination of research findings. This article looks at the terminology involved with such repositories and at the issues that such repositories raise for their construction and use. It reviews the advantages of having an institutional basis for a repository and identifies the key issues that have arisen so far in project work.

Self-archiving publications

This chapter discusses the historical development, current practice and future prospects of the self-archiving of research papers in open-access repositories (so-called 'e-print archives'). It describes how the development of interoperable e-print repositories in a number of subject communities has shown that self-archiving can benefit academic researchers (and potentially others) by enabling quick and easy access to the research literature and therefore maximising the impact potential of papers. Realising that the possible benefits are high and the technical entry barriers low, many organisations such as universities have recently tried to encourage widespread self-archiving by setting up institutional repositories. However, major barriers to self-archiving remain - most of them cultural and managerial. There are concerns about quality control, intellectual property rights, disturbing the publishing status quo, and workload. Ways in which these issues are currently being addressed are discussed in this chapter. A number of self-archiving initiatives in different countries have been set up to address the concerns and to kick-start e-print repository use. However, issues remain which require further investigation; those discussed in this chapter include discipline differences, definitions of 'publication', versioning problems, digital preservation, costing and funding models, and metadata standards. The ways in which these issues are resolved will be important in determining the future of self-archiving. Possible futures are discussed with particular reference to journal publishing and quality control. If widely adopted, self-archiving might come to assume a central place in the scholarly communication process, but a great deal of restructuring of the process needs to take place before this potential can be realised.

A mandate to self archive? The role of open access institutional repositories

This paper argues that the best way to achieve major improvements in scholarly communication in the short and medium term is to make it mandatory to deposit research papers in open access institutional repositories. This is what the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report of 2004 on scientific publishing recommended. The paper defines what open access repositories are and explains why they should be institutional. It also deals with question of what should be deposited in institutional repositories and why these improve scholarly communication. It then deals with the issue of mandating deposition: why deposition should be mandatory, who should mandate deposition and who should carry out deposition. The paper concludes with an analysis of the wider implications of mandating deposition in institutional repositories and a summary of the existing situation in the UK and elsewhere. The paper discusses the Select Committee report and the UK Government response in relation to institutional repositories.

Journals and repositories: an evolving relationship?

It is now widely accepted that there are two routes to open access (OA): OA repositories and OA journals. It is often assumed these are distinct alternative parallel tracks. However, it has recently become clear that there is potential for repositories and journals to interact with each other on an ongoing basis and between them to form a coherent OA scholarly communication system. This paper puts forward three possible models of interaction between repositories and journals; services such as arXiv and PubMed Central, and the work carried out by the RIOJA project, are working exemplars and pilot implementations of these models. The key issues associated with the widespread adoption of these models include repository infrastructure development; changing ideas of the ‘journal’, ‘article’, and ‘publication’; version management; quality assurance; business and funding models; developing value-added features; content preservation; policy frameworks; and changing roles and cultures within the research community.