 |
Projects |
|
|
|
Projects |
| Institution |
|
|
 |
Getting university-wide support at the launching phase |
|
University-wide agreement is crucial because an institutional repository belongs not to the university library,but to the whole university. In 2005,two approaches were taken: bottom-up and top-down. In the bottom-up approach,a university library takes the initiative to spread the idea of an institutional repository to the whole university. Hokkaido University and Chiba University took this approach. In the top-down approach,the decision is made first by the university management level. The University of Tokyo and Tokyo Institute of Technology took this approach. |
|
|
Practical structure |
|
In 2005,the departments in charge of running their institutional repository,such as libraries and computing centers,used one of three structures to launch the project. |
|
| - |
Special project. Hiroshima University launched its institutional repository by appointing a special staff member for the project. |
| - |
Additional jobs. Most universities launched institutional repositories without changing the departmental structure. The tasks were added to the ordinary routine. This approach seems difficult to maintain in the long term because it burdens the staff in charge. |
| - |
Integrated approach. Tasks concerning an institutional repository were integrated into the library's standard workflow. This approach has the most potential for the future. In 2005,Keio University attempted this approach. |
|
| System |
|
|
|
Selecting and implementing the system |
|
Various approaches were taken in 2005 for choosing and constructing institutional repository systems. Two tasks are imperative for future efforts: delineating criteria for selecting the system and providing information to universities who plan to introduce institutional repositories. Two approaches taken in 2005 were: |
|
| - |
Bootstrap the system setup using open source. This requires the leastcost,but it is risky because the staff in charge might be replaced. |
| - |
Additional jobs. Most universities launched institutional repositories without changing the departmental structure. The tasks were added to the ordinary routine. This approach seems difficult to maintain in the long term because it burdens the staff in charge. |
| - |
Rely on commercial vendors by purchasing a software package orcommissioning the setup of open source software. This may be costly. |
|
|
|
Connecting to other systems: In universities |
|
Researcher performance database
Open course ware (OCW) |
|
|
Connecting to other systems |
|
Regional connection
|
|
|
Publication platform |
|
Institutional repositories can be seen as a platform of in-house journals and overlay journals. |
|
| Contents |
|
|
|
Collection policy |
|
Institutional repositories are roughly classified into two categories by collection policy. IRs in the first category mainly collect journal articles based on [OA+You may need to define this term as you have others.] movement. IRs in the other category collect any scholarly data to make the repository into a showcase of achievements of the institution. |
|
|
Registration |
|
Researchers were found to be reluctant to self-archive their achievements,while libraries tried to facilitate the process. Tokyo Institute of Technology is constructing a system to make it easy to register materials; other universities accept proxy registration by librarians. |
|
|
Copyright permission |
|
The Japan Association of National University Libraries (JANUL) and some universities [queried publishers in Japan on their copyright permission+This could be made clearer. I'm not sure whether you mean that the universities asked the publishers about the publishers' permission,or the universities requested copyright permission from the publishers,or something else entirely.]. A database of the policies must be launched. |
|
|
| Marketing |
|
|
|
Marketing practice |
|
All repository construction,content extension,and utilization promotion require marketing that suits their target consumers. In 2005,practices were accumulated on marketing toward librarians,library managers,and university executives in the launching phase,as well as toward researchers in the long term. Hokkaido University found from meetings in its library that many researchers did not accept their invitations,so they changed their strategy: librarians went to departmental meetings and offices of researchers to explain the significance of IRs. |
|
|
Technical solution for visibility |
|
Technical support is necessary for promotion. In 2005,some universities began providing their metadata via OAI-PMH (open access initiative protocol for metadata harvesting) to service providers that are attractive for users. Chiba University began to collaborate with Scirus. OAIster and JuNii are other prospective providers. Also developed were link resolvers that guide users to adequate and available contents. |
|
|
| More issues to consider |
|
|
The most urgent issue for constructing institutional repositories as components of scholarly content infrastructure is alleviating costs to introduce and run the repository. Information on development and maintenance must be shared in user communities and open source software must be distributed.
More practices to collect contents should be accumulated.
Extended metadata format should be developed for science data repositories.
International collaboration with a wide range of institutions would also be desirable.
NII is to address these issues with universities in 2006. |
| The project reports of participant universities (In Japanese) |
|
|
|
