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.

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.

A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.