Posts Tagged ‘meetings’

RefWorks UK users mailing list and meeting

Posted on October 4th, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

A couple of weeks ago I attended the second group meeting of RefWorks UK users, organised and hosted by Richard Cross at Nottingham Trent University. This isn’t so much a writeup* as a list of links and a few notes. These meetings are completely informal. The “user group” (if it even really exists) has no privileged status in relation to RefWorks, is completely unfunded, and anyone is welcome to organise a meeting.

*You just had to be there ;-)

Possibly the most practical thing to come out of the meeting – we now have a JISCMail list for UK RefWorks users in libraries. It’s an open list; DMU‘s Amanda Poulton and I are acting as list owners for the time being. We already have 138 members(!)

You can post to the list (and subscribe) via:

“This list is an open forum for discussion of issues relating to the use of RefWorks reference management software by educational institutions based in the UK. Topics discussed will include technical configuration, administration, user-support, training, marketing and advocacy. Membership is open to all, but will be most useful to librarians in UK Higher Education.”

We were pleased to have several representatives from ProQuest/RefWorks-COS at the meeting. RefWorks also very kindly sponsored lunch and refreshments. They gave the attendees an update on recent developments in the RefWorks v2 interface, and also went through some highlights from the RefWorks product development roadmap – including plans for stabilising Write-N-Cite IV, and later an exclusive (genuinely – the first ever time it had been demo-ed in public in Europe) run-through of ProQuest’s plans for a brand-new, “next-generation” reference management and collaboration product – the ultimate successor to RefWorks itself. We’re not allowed to say too much about it at this stage… which is probably for the best, because unfortunately the presenters suffered from a very poor transatlantic phone line, and I missed most of the finer points of the demo :-(

Information Librarian Hannah Young from So’ton Solent University gave an excellent presentation of their myCourse reading lists project (http://mycourse.solent.ac.uk/readinglists). Working with Owen Stephens and building on the earlier TELSTAR project, this uses the RefWorks API and shared folder RSS feeds to integrate reading lists stored in RefWorks into their Moodle VLE (“myCourse”). This replaced Solent’s use of LearnBuild LibraryLink. Hannah’s presentation slides are here.

Later we split into two groups to discuss how we promote/support and (my group) manage and administer RefWorks. We discussed our own approaches to RefWorks’ administrative tools, usage reports; the use of RefShare, RefGrabIt and Write-N-Cite, and also strayed into support documentation: I discovered there’s a RefWorks LibGuide which we could re-use/adapt, at: http://refworks.libguides.com/

Finally, a discussion on possible RefWorks enhancement priorities based on our own concerns – are there common themes amongst UK customers? We came up with a few, including:

  • The ability to set a default display style for imported references;
  • Federated authentication as standard on all interfaces (RefMobile, WnC IV);
  • Integration with next-gen discovery environments;
  • “User voice”-type systems for capturing user ideas and turning them into development plans.

A couple more informal user group meetings are in the pipeline – in the meantime there’s the new listserv!

Talis Aspire User Group (TAUG) newbies’ presentation

Posted on June 29th, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

Next week, along with a colleague from the @GCWLibrary, I’m attending a meeting of the Talis Aspire User Group (TAUG) at the University of Derby. As new customers of Talis Aspire (see lists.library.lincoln.ac.uk), we’ve been asked to do a 5-minute, 2-slide “meeting new customers” presentation, covering where we are with our Aspire ‘tenancy’, our experiences, expectations, and any questions we have.

Here are our two slides:

Orbital notes, 24 May 2012

Posted on May 24th, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

The Orbital project team met today (24 May 2012) and agreed the following:

  • Documentation
    • User documentation will focus on the “why”s of Research Data Management, rather than being a point-and-click guide to the Orbital UI (which should not require detailed explanations).
    • JW will create a changelog (human readable text file) for each major release of Orbital, so that documentation for each feature is review if that feature is updated.
    • PS will lead on writing documentation (as HTML pages, stored in the GitHub repository), with documentation for release v0.N completed and available by the launch of v0.N+1
    • PS will email colleagues from the Library and Research/Enterprise for assistance on writing documentation.
  • Training
    • JW will invite Melanie Bullock and David Sheppard on to the Orbital working group. He is meeting Annalisa Jones to discuss RDM training for staff.
  • Releases/development
    • Orbital v0.1.1 (including bug fixes) met all of the initial ‘minimum viable product‘ requirements specified by Dr Tom Duckett, and also includes the basics of project administration.
    • v0.2 will include improvements to the file upload/management, project management, and license management interfaces, as well as clearer distinction between language files and operating code.
    • NJ demoed the current version of Orbital to Siemens staff. He now has access to Siemens machine data for testing within Orbital.
    • The group discussed the LNCD plans for internal servers/private cloud, and about the disk space requirements and costs.
  • Integration
    • The current version of the DMPOnline tool has been installed on a test server. The group discussed our approach to integration between external tools/software (such as DMPOnline, R, Gephi) and Orbital.
    • NJ is going to email Adrian Richardson at the DCC to ask when the DMPOnline APIs will become available.
  • RDM policy
    • JW presented the draft policy to the University RIEC committee. The committee have been asked to send comments to Joss. (One comment at the committee meeting was that our having a policy too geared around the requirements of the Research Councils may not be appropriate for Lincoln, which generates a lot of non-RC income. However it was noted that the good practice specified by the RCs is good practice for management of all research data, whatever the funding source.)
  • Conferences and meetings
  • Data Asset Framework survey
    • The group discussed the recent DAF survey which we conducted at the University of Lincoln.
    • JW will convene a sub-group to consider the responses in detail, and plan follow-up interviews.
  • Business case
    • JW is currently gathering costs for long-term data storage. This will form the first strand of the Orbital business case, which will be presented to University SMT (along with the agreed RDM policy) in September 2012.

CLOCK implementation: key themes (the Peterborough meeting)

Posted on May 2nd, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

Screengrab of our notes from the CLOCK Peterborough meeting

This blog post is a comment upon the formal project implementation plan, and gives some more detail about how the CLOCK project intends to meet its project aims.

In February, 2012, the project team (EC, CL, PS, OS) met at Peterborough Regional College (roughly equidistant between Lincoln and Cambridge!) to discuss the implementation plan and our CLOCK ‘first steps’. We made copious notes using an interactive whiteboard. Here’s what we agreed for CLOCK…

Most of the day’s discussion was spent attempting to define more clearly the users/audience for CLOCK, narrowing down the field of study a bit as we went along, and looking for potential ways to engage those audiences in the research. We agreed that our users consist of:

1. Cataloguers and library managers looking to innovate their resource description workflows as well as contribute to the corpus of Open Bib Data, through improving/correcting/augmenting existing records as well as submitting new records, “adding to the story” by allowing libraries to incorporate data elements outside the boundaries of traditional resource description.

We spent a while discussing how the project might approach the problem of proposing new ”…minimal workflows for cataloguing around individual, disaggregated RDF elements” (taken from the project plan). We’ve also since discussed this back at Lincoln with staff in the Library and LNCD – I’ll shortly be blogging some diagrams which illustrate several different possible approaches to cataloguing workflow, as part of the ‘Users and use cases’ thread. We’ll also ve speaking to cataloguers at Lincoln and at Cambridge to try and get a clearer picture of the ‘pinch points’ in existing cataloguing, where applications using OBD might make a difference to their work.

Key quotes:

“Matching / negotiating of the best available Open bib data through common identifiers; the importance of a social/reputational aspect in identifying authoritative data; [use of] associated social/reputational metadata making explicit the provenance, history, and ‘pagerank’ measurements of each data element. [The phrase 'a narrative verdict on the catalogue record' was used…]“

2. Researchers (qualified as “the ‘serious’ and tech-savvy researcher“), who may be keen to incorporate Open Bib Data in user tools (e.g. citation/reference management software). We agreed to concentrate within the CLOCK project on a specific discipline—that of Drama/Performing Arts—because of the interesting challenges posed by the description of performance resources in existing bibliographic data. (“Almost anything you’d want to know about a play isn’t recorded in the MARC record!”). We identified a number of potentially useful resources and sources of data, including:

  • The play’s the thing
  • TheatreDB
  • Resources in institutional repositories
  • Theatricalia
  • Dutch Culture Link
  • Wikipedia/DBpedia

We agreed that we’ll set up a series of interviews/structured tasks for researchers in performing arts at Cambridge and Lincoln; also for subject librarians in the discipline (as a proxy to the researchers themselves). CLOCK will look at how well existing catalogue data describes performance and related resources (perhaps by sampling MARC records at both instititutions), and how external sources of ‘non-library’ data might complement and enhance those records.

3. Developers attached to academic libraries, who are looking to build applications exploiting available Open Bib Data, and techniques for interrogating and exploiting that data. The engagement with this audience is probably more at a strategic level than the first two – what are the technology choices and the decisions around the design of APIs and data endpoints – can we make a case study on developing using OBD?

We also discussed CLOCK’s overlap with other projects (in particular the Open Biblio 2 and the Open Education Metadata UK project). This work will be picked up by Ed Chamberlain, who is a common factor in all three projects!

“The project team believe that an important aspect of this innovation will be serious consideration given to the development of an awesome, national, open scholarly catalogue knowledgebase for the UK (“data.ac.uk/library” or “library.data.ac.uk”).”

Members of the CLOCK project team have since signed up to the new DATA-AC-UK mailing list and we will use the project as an opportunity to propose first steps in publishing national bibliographic data to data.ac.uk. This will be the topic of a future blog post.

“CLOCK will explore options for updating and maintaining the shared platform on data.lincoln.ac.uk as an eventual service”

University of Lincoln developer Alex Bilbie has blogged about the future of 5★ open data publishing at Lincoln: “As part of the Jerome project, we cracked open the university library’s digital catalogues and stored the data in a sane format (i.e. not MARC). Now through the CLOCK project the data will be semantically marked-up and compatible with other institutions bibliographic data“. This will also be the topic of a future blog post.

UKCoRR members’ meeting, University of Portsmouth, 27 Jan 2012

Posted on February 2nd, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

Four boatsHere are some notes on the first event held for UKCoRR members this year:

As you probably know, UKCoRR is an entirely unfunded organisation which relies heavily on the time and energy of its members, and on the generosity of universities to host our meetings – on this occasion our heartfelt thanks to the University of Portsmouth Library, and particularly to Andy Barrow and (associate university librarian) Ken Dick, for very kindly putting us up and keeping us fed and coffee-ed, and for Ken’s warm welcome at the start of the meeting.

This was a very well-attended event: nearly 50 UKCoRR members and invited guests, from as far afield as Edinburgh (350+ miles away)… and a packed schedule. So packed, in fact, that we probably didn’t leave enough breathing space. We’ll build in more rest breaks and time for gossip professional networking at the next meeting!

  1. Slides from all the presentations below will shortly be made available on UKCoRR’s slideshare account, at: slideshare.net/ukcorr
  2. Some of the speakers kindly agreed to be filmed, and videos will be made available at: youtube.com/user/ukcorr

After Ken had welcomed us to Portstmouth, UKCoRR chair Gaz Johnson gave the first presentation of the day, with a science fiction gloss and a look at the possible future directions of UKCoRR. Gaz has already blogged about his talk. A few key points and questions:

  • The committee needs to consult with members, and these members’ meetings are a good way of doing that!
  • Our priorities (validated by the user survey, 2011) should be best practice exchange, lobbying, and advocacy;
  • Is our lack of a membership fee our USP? It means we’re beholden to no-one, we don’t have to serve anyone’s agenda (other than our members’), and it makes it easier to avoid conflicts of interest…
  • …but it’s worth considering what we could do differently if we were funded;
  • Should membership of UKCoRR bring with it certain responsibilities?
  • Aren’t repositories generally understaffed in the UK?

Next up, Andrew Dorward of EDINA on the UK RepositoryNet+ project to build “a socio-technical infrastructure to support repositories”. Andrew gave an overview of the original RepositoryNet project, and the ongoing aim to build shared services for repositories. Recently, the new project interviewed a range of UKCoRR members, Open Access publishers, members of ARMA, and active researchers about the repository landscape — broadly, those interviews validated the current approach to services — but Andrew noted that in repository “ecology“, there is some room for drawing together the range of services (search, deposit statistics, etc.) into fewer but more comprehensive tools. He also talked about the growth in OA publishing since the launch of PLoS in 2003: see doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001235.t001

Last up before lunch, Marie-Therese Gramstadt from the University of the Creative Arts gave us an update on the Kultivate project, the advocacy and decision-making toolkits, and the associated Kultur II group, sharing best practice in repository design for creative and visual arts research. Asked to show hands, about half the UKCoRR delegates had arts researchers ‘at home’ – about the same number of people also expressed an interest in continuing the work of Kultur II. Some Kultivate links:

After lunch – the lightning talks!

  • Talking about a new strategic marketing project for WRAP (the University of Warwick’s repository) – Yvonne Budden explained the need to revamp the repo’s image, and how WRAP piggybacked on a wider redesign project at Warwick and used an interesting methodology from the Kay Grieves at the University of Sunderland, summarised as: (1) Match services to users (2) Transform services into benefits (3) Translate benefits into messages! Freebie materials (highlighter pens, etc.) are being used as bribes to encourage depositors to take the message of the repo back to their colleagues. A really striking new black-and-yellow colour scheme!
  • Matthew Smith from the University of So’ton, on the EPrints Shelves project. Building a tool to give users more control over how results from their repository are displayed on author profile pages, etc., by allowing people to log in and add/remove items from a ‘shelf’. Those ‘shelves’ can then be exported using normal EPrints export tools. Shelves should be released to the EPrints Bazaar soon. Lots of interest in the room about this plugin!
  • Tracey Kent on the use of a “request a copy” for e-theses at the University of Birmingham. Birmingham offer four options for access to e-theses: from [1] “full OA” through to [2] “request a copy” (with theses available through EThOS), [3] a more limited request (excerpts only; not on EThOS), and finally [4] fully-embargoed theses. They went from around 2,500 thesis requests per year to more than 250,000 requests/yr., with ~88% on some kind of Open Access (options [1] or [2]).
  • Margaret Feetham of Southampton Solent University talked about running their mixed-economy repository (research, student work, university publications) …with (very familiar to UKCoRR members!) little budget and few staff. SSU practice unmediated deposit, with academics given training on  copyright and licensing issues. Margaret explained how they’ve still managed to get an impressive deposit rate by engaging keen users and advocates, and by working with the university’s research services – with REF2014 as an attention-focuser!
  • From the STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council), Catherine Jones explained how they are using CrossRef to create large numbers of (metadata-only) records in epubs.stfc.ac.uk – scientific authors like the ability to use that repository’s quick & easy DOI import tool to deposit records, but are now pressing to be able to speed the process up even further. Challenges of recording articles with hundreds or even thousands of collaborators – not uncommon in some areas of physics!

A quick breather, then straight on to the first of two invited speakers to wind the day up:

Sarah Gould of the British Library on some of the changes in the pipeline for the EThOS service. There’s general recognition that some of the features of EThOS (e.g. the “checkout” process for supplying PDF copies of theses) are a bit old hat, and too rooted in old document supply processes. The limited metadata applied to many items in EThOS is also a barrier. EThOS are engaging a new development to drag the service kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and are also engaging on a big programme (working with the BL’s library systems vendors as well as with panels of librarians) to improve the quality and range of metadata. There was an interesting discussion at this point about the possibility of EThOS linking to copies of theses in institutional repositories, rather than/as well as holding digitised copies – what might that mean for the responsibilities of the BL and institutions to ensure preservation of access?

Bravely accepting the final slot of the day, Phil Barker of JISC CETIS on the world of Open Educational Resources (OERs). Another show of hands: fewer than 25% of UKCoRR members in the room have involvement with OERs (either through projects, or through working institutional OER repos). That’s not too much of a surprise: the issues involved in storing and managing repositories of OERs can be much more complex (multiple complex objects, quality control, metadata requirements, copyright and licensed re-use, the sheer number of people involved!) and many institutions have shyed away.

Phil talked about some of the motivators for universities to engage with OER, including the morals obligation of the university (“…charter to widen knowledge”), the role of OERs in marketing universities / acting as a shop window / leading to student recruitment, and the hope that the rigorous approach needed in creating of OERs will provide a beneficial ‘trickle down’ effect into the design and management of all educational materials. Some food-for-though OER links:

As always, there was a breathtaking amount of ‘stuff’ for us to get stuck into — useful advice, supportive discussions, and news of exciting work going on — and the recognised benefit of UKCoRR members’ meetings as being a refreshingly practical, non-threatening and safe place for repository staff to talk to people faced with the same problems every day. Keep your eyes peeled for the next couple of UKCoRR events planned for this year: looks like 2012′s going to be one of our busiest yet.

Alright, stop. Collaborate and LISN

Posted on November 17th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

(Yes, I’ve used this ‘hilarious‘ blog post title before. So sue me.)

I was at Lincoln Central Library on Free School Lane this morning for a meeting of LISN, the Lincolnshire Information Services Network.

Lincoln Central LibraryLISN (pronounced listen) has been in existence since August 1998 when a group of (mainly) college and university librarians decided to network on a formalised basis. The group has evolved considerably since then to welcome any Lincolnshire-based information provider/library wishing to exchange ideas and information to benefit the Lincolnshire community.

Every LISN meeting runs to a similar pattern: after the standard apologies-minutes-matters-arising bumf, we discuss at length a topic of interest to Lincolnshire libraries of all sectors (today’s topic was on the subject of online learning materials: “what we are doing in terms of providing online interactive learning materials to support the users of our collections and resources? Are we using learning materials provided by suppliers or creating our own?“). Then each member library provides an institutional update; AOB; end.

I’m meant to look after the LISN website (www.lisn.org.uk) – I’ve not always been terribly good at giving this job enough attention (colleagues from the UKCoRR committee will find that a depressingly familiar story), which is why I’m pleased that fellow LISN rep Rachael Adair from Lincoln College has offered to share that task with me.

The other interesting topic that came up at this morning’s meeting is the progress Bishop Grosseteste University College are making with their library extension – you can see the latest construction photos on their Facebook page, at: http://www.facebook.com/bishopglibrary

OA week buddies: putting the Repository at the centre of an institutional research information system

Posted on October 28th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

As promised, here’s the first of three blog posts about this week’s trip to the University of Glasgow, sponsored by the RSP for Open Access week 2011, on the theme of Repositories and REF preparation.

Old university library

Three of us made the trip north: myself, the Library’s Repository Officer, Bev Jones, and the University of Lincoln’s new REF Co-ordinator, Melanie Bullock. We were received and looked after very generously by the team at Glasgow, including Susan AshworthMarie Cairney, Morag GreigValerie McCutcheon, Robbie Ireland and William Nixon. Thanks to them all for making our visit pleasant as well as useful.

Over the course of a morning, we discussed many aspects of research information management, the REF, and developments to our own institutional repositories (and repositories in general).

I made copious notes, and reading them back I thought it might be useful to identify and list some of the factors that seem to be necessary (or at least desirable) in successfully placing the repository at the heart of an institutional research information/administration system – what makes it possible for the repo to play its part?

Before started: this is my own interpretation, filtered through my brain, notes, and prejudices. It doesn’t necessarily bear any relationship to the real situation at the University of Glasgow. Nor, for that matter, at the University of Lincoln…

Here’s a checklist of what’s making repo-REF integration work for Glasgow:

  1. Good data. Because it’s not about your component systems, it’s about your data. Decide what data you have/what data you need and what you need to do with that data – then any tool that matches those requirements is the right system for you. You can always change your systems, but your data are here to stay. Design your system around your data, not the other way around. It’s necessary also to decide early what information to store, then to defend that decision vigorously – best to store the complete record of a publication or a project, NOT the filtered, controlled, ‘for-public-consumption’ version of it.
  2. Good relationships: between the library, research/enterprise, ICT services, schools/faculties, etc.: but not only at an operational/service/development level; it’s essential to have joined-up thinking about research data and systems at a management–strategic level. Glasgow seem to have this in spades.
  3. An idea of where you’re headed. Glasgow have received JISC funding to do interesting development work across a number of projects (the most notable in 2009/10 being the Enrich project), but haven’t let the funding distort their overall plan – they haven’t lost sight of the overall aim. While the outside world sees separate projects [until our visit I was personally bewildered about how it all fit together…], Glasgow have the bigger picture in mind! It’s the Research and Enterprise Operations Manager‘s job to make sure it all hangs together, working closely with the repository manager and the head of ICT services (see 2).
  4. A good development culture. The way Glasgow manage their development depends on the bit of the system in question. They have developers in each bit of the university (and centrally as part of ICT services). It’s important to recognise the [occasionally attractive] danger of rushing off and building something to meet a local need, while at the same time jeopardising the bigger picture for research administration.
  5. Taking your users’ needs seriously. Glasgow have a rigorous approach to stakeholder analysis and ‘workload modelling’. Quite often, people working in universities aren’t used to being asked what they actually need a system to do. Genuine user engagement has paid dividends.
  6. Mandatory data processes – not just mandated deposit of the final publication. Achieved through diktat of the research strategy committee; the attitude of senior management is “…if it’s not in Enlighten, it doesn’t exist!”. High-level advocacy win! The respository/research information system plays a part in the staff appraisal process and for SMT planning. “Advocacy is beating people with a big carrot.”
  7. Internal miniREF-type exercises. Glasgow had a big internal drive, and more than 1,200 staff responded. Suddenly, people became much more interested in the quality of their own data(!) and in the completeness of their publication record. Having information about all known publications  in one place has increased interest in metrics from the repository. Publication “healthcheck” exercises – informing a university-wide publication policy.
  8. Useful reporting tools – make it as easy as possible for your users to get data out of the system, via intuitive, meaningful export tools, and in useful formats (Excel output is always good!). Basically, reduce the temptation for people to build their own local silos of data by making it more attractive for people to invest in the repository/institutional research system, safe in the knowledge they can always get the data displayed and/or exported the way they want it.
  9. A secret agent in every faculty. Offer training and additional administrative rights to research administrators in academic departments – encourage a culture of devolved/outsourced deposit, advocacy and administration. Allow administrators to ‘impersonate’ academic authors for deposit/editing. Use bibliographic services (e.g. the Web of Knowledge) to send alerts to schools as a trigger to initiate deposit; allow schools to use these alerts/feeds to create records en-masse through filtering. Learn to talking in a language appropriate to different subject areas. Let the schools/faculties add value to the repository!
  10. Time and a head start. Glasgow’s overall research information infrastructure is well-established. Probably 90% of the system was in place 2 years ago. While we don’t have a time machine(!) we should at least recognise that proactive, consistent, ongoing development is far better than a reactive approach (“Quick! Build me something to deal with the REF!”). Invest in the repository/research information system now, and you’ll reap the benefits when an information need does arise in future.

That’s it for now – except for some links:

OA week banner

Developing the UKCoRR website

Posted on October 19th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I was at the University of Nottingham, yesterday, for the annual face-to-face meeting of the UKCoRR committee. (Unfunded as UKCoRR is, all other committee meetings—we have one every couple of months—are teleconferences using Powwownow. But it’s immensely valuable to get together in person at least once a year.) Amongst other things, we discussed the recent survey of UKCoRR members, and the next members’ meeting, planned for January 2012.

My #1 priority as UKCoRR ‘Web & Publicity Officer‘ is to upgrade the group’s website (www.ukcorr.org).

Screenshot of the old UKCoRR website

The old website – graciously funded and hosted by the CRC at Nottingham for the past n years, is beginning to show its age. I’m copying over all the content to a WordPress site hosted at the University of Lincoln; as soon as it’s the equal of the ‘old’, current site, we’ll transfer the *.ukcorr.org domain over, and take it forward from there.

You can see the (extremely very much still in-development) new UKCoRR website, for the time being, at: http://ukcorr.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/

Screenshot of the new UKCoRR website - in development

Repository open team meeting, 17 June 2011

Posted on June 17th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

At today’s Friday-afternoon Repository open team meeting, we talked about:

  • The long-running saga of establishing unique staff IDs in our EPrints Repository software, and how they will help us to disambiguate and display authors’ information more clearly; also how—we think—they will allow us to move the Repository to a more ‘researcher-centric’ (rather than ‘document-centric’) model, with all sorts of benefits for research administration, reporting and REF preparation.
  • An RSP ‘Repositories and CRIS: working smartly together‘ event is taking place in Nottingham on 19 July. David Young and I are attending.
    • “Building on the successful event ‘Learning how to play nicely: Repositories and CRIS’ which was orgainsed by teh Welsh Repository Network in 2010, this event will look at the interaction of Repositories and CRIS (Current Research Information Systems).  This event will also disseminate the findings of the RePOSIT project.”
  • DY also reported on the JISC-funded RePOSIT project (about which he had attended a meeting), which fits in [somewhere, somehow] to the complex web of “do it once – do it right“ requirements for collecting research administration data for all the University’s needs (only partially articulated). There are a number of EPrints initiatives at Glasgow and Southampton, all of which we need to evaluate. We decided that we probably need to raise this at the next Repository Steering Group meeting.
  • BJ is reviewing the 100-or-so ‘live’ items in the Repository marked ‘In Press’, with a view to moving as many of them as possible to a ‘Published’ status. This goes hand-in-hand with creating a full, complete metadata record (including all publication details), but needs careful timing so that deposited items aren’t missed off any of the Quarterly Research Output Reports.

Same time (1.00 pm) next and every Friday in the Enterprise@Lincoln café. Come one, come all.

Repository team meeting notes, 15 April 2011

Posted on April 15th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

Notes from the usual Friday afternoon gathering of the Repository team in Enterprise@Lincoln.

  • The Repository passed 3,000 records on 25 March (full blog post about this to follow), and 3,100 records on 14 April. That works out at 50 records/week, a rate of review which other universities have described as “aspirational”! The Library’s student comms & engagement officer, Steve Pannett, is creating a flyer to mark the 3,000 milestone. I’m also baking a celebratory 3,000-items cake for next week.
  • PS has been working on a couple of high-level advocacy and planning documents, aimed at the University Core Executive, and on a staffing document to help us to plan the level of support for the Repository after April.
  • RoS has been working with a number of staff to help them to deposit sizeable publication backlogs. She’s also just blogged the latest on the Kultivate project advocacy workshop which took place at the end of February, and is busy uploading all of her Repository help guides and training materials to Google Docs.
  • BJ and RoS attended an event on 24 March entitled ‘SHERPA/RoMEO for Repository Administrators‘, which—as well as providing an update on some new features of the RoMEO service—covered a range of copyright issues. BJ is distilling the event into a new Repository copyright flowchart/checklist for academic staff at Lincoln. You can download all the presentations from the event from the RSP’s website.
  • As I’ve already blogged, we produced the latest Quarterly Research Output Report (Q4 2010) using Repository data on 4 April. The next report (Q1 2011) will be generated on or after 30 June 2011.