JISC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Project Document Cover Sheet PROGRESS REPORT

Transcription

1 Project JISC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Project Document Cover Sheet PROGRESS REPORT Project Acronym VERSIONS Project ID Project Title Versions of Eprints user Requirements Study and Investigation of the Need for Standards Start Date July 2005 End Date January 2007 Lead Institution Project Director Project Manager & contact details Partner Institutions Project Web URL Programme Name (and number) Programme Manager London School of Economics and Political Science Jean Sykes, Librarian & Director of IT Services, LSE Frances Shipsey British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10 Portugal Street, London WC2A 2HD. Tel: +44(0) ; Fax: +44(0) ; Nereus Project Consortium ( Digital Repositories Programme Neil Jacobs Document Document Title Progress Report Reporting Period July 2005 to January 2006 Author(s) & project role Frances Shipsey, Project Manager Date 3 April 2006 Filename VERSIONS Project Progress Report Jan06 v1b.doc URL if document is posted on project web site Access Project and JISC internal General dissemination Document History Version Date Comments 0a 21 February Final draft version submitted for approval by Project Director a 28 February Final version submitted to JISC and to project partners b 3 April 2006 Final accepted version for general dissemination Page 1 of 12

2 Overview of Project Grant Statement Please confirm that the project is being conducted under the terms agreed with JISC in the letter of grant and the JISC Terms and Conditions attached to it. Note any changes to the original award, including any extensions or alterations granted. The project is being conducted under the terms agreed with JISC in the letter of grant dated 13 May Two adjustments have been agreed with the JISC Programme Manager: Before the project started, a one-month no-cost extension was agreed by on 23 May 2005, so that the Project start and end dates were adjusted to July 2005 to December 2006 (from June 2005 to November 2006) In January 2006, a one-month no-cost extension was agreed in response to a two-month vacancy in the full-time Project Officer post from November 2005-January Aims and Objectives Explain any changes to the original aims/objectives outlined in the project plan. List the targets set for this reporting period and explain if they have been met. There are no changes to the original aims and objectives outlined in the project plan. Targets set for this reporting period were as follows: Target Status Comments WP1: Project website created Met WP1: Recruitment of full-time Project Officer Met Two rounds of recruitment took place, one in July 2005 and one in December 2005 WP1: Detailed Project Plan submitted Met WP1: Project meetings Met July and October 2005, January 2006 VERSIONS Project meetings; August and November 2005, VERSIONS telephone conference calls held with partners. January 2006 VERSIONS Steering Committee (held in Leuven) approved Project Plan and Financial Report WP1: Consortium agreement Partly met Agreement drafted and some signed copies received. WP2: Research interview questions prepared WP2: Interviews held in Nereus partner libraries WP2: Interview notes written up Met Almost completely met Almost completely met Interviews held at KU-Leuven, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, WU- Wien, University of Maastricht, ZBW- Kiel during October to December. Interviews at LSE begun, December to January, with several interviews remaining to be held in February 2006 Notes mostly written up, with remaining interviews to write up in February. Notes to be anonymised during February. Page 2 of 12

3 WP3: Publication lists assembled Met Lists received from all 6 partners in the reporting period. WP5: Mailing lists for the project assembled Met Two private jiscmail lists set up: versions-sc@jiscmail.ac.uk and versions-og@jiscmail.ac.uk 3. Overall Approach Explain any changes to the overall approach outlined in the project plan. There are two additions to the overall approach outlined in the project proposal, though these have been included in the final detailed project plan: Creating scenarios Holding an evaluation workshop 4. Project Outputs Summarise progress during the reporting period and milestones/deliverables achieved. Progress during the reporting period has been fair though slower than anticipated, owing to a staffing vacancy described in Sections 7 and 12. Progress on the project management milestones and deliverables is as outlined in Sections 2 and 15. Most of these deliverables have been met, though there is more work to do on obtaining signed copies of the Consortium Agreement. Progress on the other work packages is outlined in Section 2 and Section Project Outcomes Summarise achievement against objectives, list outcomes and findings to date, and any interim conclusions. How do you see the project developing? Has progress changed the project in any way, and are there implications for the programme? What lessons have been learned that could be passed on to other projects or applied elsewhere? The interviews held during the reporting period have contributed significant information to the Project objectives on: Researchers understanding of different versions in the lifecycle of an academic paper Researchers attitudes towards secure storage and open access availability of papers at different stages Researchers current practices regarding retention of their own author versions Information gathered will feed into the following activities during the next reporting period: Creation of scenarios Interim findings report Questionnaire design Interim findings suggest that: Economists produce many versions of their work from first idea to final published journal article (up to 70); more versions tend to be produced when a work is co-authored Personal resource management strategies vary according to individual working practices and to some extent, local IT infrastructure Although most of the multiple versions produced are personal or private draft version, several milestone public versions and/or finished versions can generally be identified, eg Conference paper, Conference Presentation, Working paper, Submitted version to journal, Report (eg to Page 3 of 12

4 funding agency or government body), Final submitted version to journal (post print), Journal article Repository managers will need to develop policies on managing versions and revisions in order to provide a service to their researchers and to integrate with researchers own workflows Terminology used to describe different versions varies and may not on its own prove a useful tool in version identification In economics, the working paper often remains valuable to researchers even after publication of the journal article version has taken place. The working paper is a fuller more elaborated version, which may be referred to by the author in the journal article itself Citation of the journal article is important both for researchers citing others and for cited authors Researchers are not so concerned with minor variations between versions of papers though these variations are of concern to librarians and repository managers when describing the resources Researchers want to be able to establish quickly and easily when there is a substantive difference between versions, of which they should take account The nature of relationships between versions and the substance of any differences can most easily be explained by the authors, as soon as possible after the date of creation Descriptions of any differences between a final author manuscript version (postprint) and the published journal article are particularly important Researchers are not generally aware of publisher policies on self-archiving of author postprints and are interested in hearing about the ROMEO website Interim conclusions are that although the development of terminology could be useful as one tool in identifying versions, establishing guidelines for expressing the details of differences in the content of versions could be of more practical use to researchers and repository administrators. At present there is no straightforward way to establish the extent of difference other than by a visual comparison and this is time consuming. In terms of providing guidance to researchers in the form of a toolkit, the interim findings confirm that guidance could be useful in the following areas: identifying and describing their own work, negotiations with publishers over copyright assignment and knowledge of rights to self-archive, personal resource management including obtaining/retaining a final author version During the next reporting period the Project intends to obtain further information from the student community through the questionnaire and from other stakeholders by a formal invitation to contribute views. 6. Stakeholder Analysis Summarise the project s engagement with stakeholders including users. 6.1 Project partners The Project has engaged with immediate project partners at Project Module meetings held as part of the Nereus Consortium meetings as follows: July 2005, Dublin October 2005, Brussels January 2006, Leuven In addition there have been two telephone conference calls between partners in August and November Two jiscmail mailing lists were established in October 2005 for communications with partners versions-sc for the Steering Committee and versions-og for the Operational Group of Nereus. 6.2 JISC The project has been represented at the following JISC meetings and events: Page 4 of 12

5 JISC Joint Programmes Meeting, Cambridge, July 2005 JISC Digital Repositories Programme Meeting, Glasgow, October 2005 JISC Training Day on Use Cases and Scenarios, Bath, November Other Digital Repositories Projects and Studies VERSIONS has had informal contacts with other DRP projects at the above meetings and by . For example we were interested to see what the RepoMMan survey had discovered about researchers current practice of storing different versions of research material in various locations. This topic has now been identified as a theme of interest to several projects and usefully named personal resource management by Sarah Currier, Programme Support Officer. LSE Library and the VERSIONS Project were approached by Rightscom Ltd about a potential partnership. Rightscom is leading the RIVER project, a short-term scoping study for the JISC Scholarly Communications Group on version identification. VERSIONS Project staff and LSE Library staff are partners in the study along with Oxford University Computing Services (including staff from the JISC DRP Project ASK). The VERSIONS Project responded to an invitation to contribute views by questionnaire to the Linking UK Repositories Scoping Study, led by University of Hull and other partners. 6.4 Users The project has engaged with users during the reporting period by means of interviews with academic researchers and repository managers/librarians. 31 individual interviews have been held with: Professors Heads of academic departments Lecturers/researchers PhD students Research support service manager Repository managers, assistants and technical staff Other library staff In addition, LSE economics researchers who have been involved in the Economists Online economics subject repository pilot have been informed about the VERSIONS project by means of individual and in some cases individual meetings and discussions. 6.5 Other Engagement with other stakeholders such as representatives of the metadata and software development communities has consisted of informal discussions at opportune meetings such as JISC events, during the reporting period. A list of stakeholders to approach was drawn up in October and this activity will be stepped up and formalised during the coming reporting period. 7. Risk Analysis Summarise any problems that have occurred and any mitigating actions taken. A full-time Project Officer was appointed during July 2005 and started work on schedule in September Unfortunately however, the Project Officer left in mid-november. Mitigating actions taken were: Repeat round of recruitment carried out and completed in December 2005 with new Project Officer appointed and in post by 23 January 2006 Request for no-cost extension to project agreed by Programme Manager in January 2006 Temporary WP operator staff recruited during January 2006 to assist with typing up interview notes 8. Standards Note any changes in the standards to be used and the reasons. There is nothing to report under this heading. Page 5 of 12

6 9. Technical Development Note any changes in the development approach or technologies to be used and the reasons. There is nothing to report under this heading. 10. Intellectual Property Rights Summarise progress clearing any third-party rights. There is nothing to report under this heading. Project Resources 11. Project Partners Explain any changes to the institutional project partners or subcontractors, and any impacts this has/will have on the project or schedule. What other institutions or organisations are you or do you plan to collaborate with? The Nereus Consortium expanded from 6 to 15 members during the period since the grant award. New members joining Nereus up to September 2005 are also members of the VERSIONS Project. Some of these new partners have participated by hosting interviews with researchers. Newer members joining Nereus since September 2005 have been invited to join the VERSIONS Project if they wish. As reported in Section 6, LSE Library and the VERSIONS Project are collaborating with Rightscom Ltd and with Oxford University Computing Services and the ASK Project on a short-term scoping study on version identification for the JISC Scholarly Communications Group. 12. Project Management Note any changes in project staff or their roles since the last report. Briefly explain any problems or gaps with staffing and the effect this has had on the project schedule. As noted in Section 7, there was a two-month vacancy in the full-time Project Officer post. The effect on the project schedule has been: The timetables of interviews with researchers had already been drawn up, so these were largely kept on schedule with the Project Manager conducting the interviews during October to December There was a delay in writing up the full notes of the interviews and it was not possible to begin analysing the notes during the reporting period Research interviews with LSE staff were postponed until January-February 2006 Formal contacts with other stakeholders from the metadata, repository software development and publishing communities were not made during the reporting period owing to the vacancy. This will resume from February/March The work on the publications list analysis was postponed until recruitment of the new Project Officer. Louise Allsop took up post as Project and Communications Officer on 23 January Programme Support Summarise contact with/influence of the programme, e.g. with the programme manager, formal or informal links with other projects, or programme-related activities. What further support would you like from the programme, e.g. guidance, workshops, etc? Do you have any suggestions for improving the programme? Page 6 of 12

7 The Project has received site visits from JISC Programme staff as follows: Visit from Neil Jacobs, the Programme Manager, July 2005 Visit from Julie Allinson, one of the Programme Support Officers, January 2006 These were very useful opportunities to discuss progress and possible links with other projects. The Programme Manager and Support Officer have been helpful and supportive. The training in use cases and scenarios held in November 2005 was relevant and useful. VERSIONS Project Staff have also attended JISC meetings and events as reported in Section 6 and these have been useful occasions to meet other Project staff as well as JISC personnel. The programme wiki and the digital repositories discussion list have been good developments. 14. Budget Use the budget template to report expenditure against and attach as Appendix A. Explain the reasons for any significant overspend or underspend. Expenditure during the reporting period is attached as Appendix A. Detailed Project Planning 15. Workpackages Report progress against plan, noting key activities during the reporting period. Explain why any targets haven t been met. List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why. Current reporting period: WP1: Project Management and Reporting Project plan Completed January 2006 Project website Completed September ; there was no expertise within the Project on website creation a freelance designer was hired. Some advice was provided by LSE Website Services Recruit Project Officer Completed July 2005 and Project meetings again in December 2005 July, October 2005 and January 2006; telephone conference calls August and November 2005 WP2: User Requirements Study and Repository Use Objectives for study and Completed October 2005 questioning route for interviews Arrange and conduct Interviews completed at interviews Nereus partner libraries by Conference calls were new to the Library at LSE Project staff have advised other Library colleagues on use of system and have had to spend some time on establishing charging procedures for the calls. In January 2006, the project plan, financial report and an oral progress report were approved at the VERSIONS Steering Committee meeting in Leuven. Agreed with Nereus partners at October meeting Some interviews remaining to be conducted at LSE during January- Page 7 of 12

8 Write up interview notes WP3: Publications List Analysis Define criteria and request publication lists from Nereus Economists Online partners December 2005 February 2006 Almost completed by January This milestone suffered from loss of 2006 Project Officer. Some ground was made up through use of temporary staff during January to type up transcripts Lists supplied by Nereus partners by January 2006 WP4: Guidelines and Standards no milestones were due in this period Make contact with stakeholders Literature review WP5: Dissemination and evaluation Maintain project website Discussion with partners during October-November led to clarification of information that would be available from partners some but not all could provide information about provenance of full text open access copies. Individual partners would provide the publications lists to LSE rather than obtaining the lists from the central EO repository. This activity suffered from the loss of the Project Officer. A preliminary list of stakeholders has been prepared and informal contacts made as the opportunity arose Work on this has begun The Project website has not been updated owing to the Project Officer vacancy. Establish mailing lists Completed October 2005 Initially a public jiscmail list for the VERSIONS Project was set up in addition to two lists for project partners. However, following the establishment of the open digitalrepositories list by the JISC DRP, the idea of a separate public mailing list has been dropped. Public communications will be carried out through the digital repositories list instead. Presentations and/or papers at relevant workshops and conferences Publish articles in appropriate journals and newsletters Next reporting period: Paper delivered at OAI4 in October 2005 No full articles as yet, but some news items issued. Objective Due date Changes to plan needed and reasons WP2: Interim findings report February 2006 Need to re-schedule this deliverable for March 2006 to allow time for review by Consortium partners; reason February timing was unrealistic given that interviews at LSE are continuing into February WP2: Develop questionnaire February 2006 WP2: Publicise and launch March 2006 Page 8 of 12

9 questionnaire WP2: Write scenarios February 2006 WP2: Analyse results of May 2006 questionnaire WP2: Report on findings of July 2006 user study incorporating results from publications list analysis WP3: Analysis of proportion of February 2006 papers available in full text WP3: Project partners who can February 2006 provide this, to send complete information about provenance of full text and reasons for nonavailability WP3: Consolidate lists and February 2006 provide cross-tabulation with Romeo status WP3: Analysis of findings February 2006 WP3: Report on findings of March 2006 publications list analysis WP4: Literature review March 2006 WP4: Develop guidelines on July 2006 version identification WP5: Maintain project website Ongoing WP5: Organise and report on June 2006 evaluation workshop 16. Evaluation Plan Report progress against plan, and note any evaluation results during the reporting period. List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why. Current reporting period: There were no evaluation activities planned. Planning for an evaluation workshop on the user requirements study to be held in May 2006 has begun during the reporting period. Agreement has been reached with the project partners on the date and venue, 10 May 2006 at LSE. The date coordinates with a Nereus quarterly meeting taking place in the UK on May and will allow the Project to invite selected Nereus partners to participate in the workshop. Next reporting period: The online survey will be assessed to evaluate size of sample and range of respondents The publications list analysis will be evaluated in terms of completeness of data provided by partners The user requirements survey and publications lists analysis will be evaluated for validity of findings at an evaluation workshop 17. Quality Assurance Plan Report progress against plan, describe the QA procedures put in place, and any QA results during the reporting period. List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why. Current reporting period: Page 9 of 12

10 Quality assurance procedures relating to the Project website were carried out during the reporting period. The website passed the W3C test but there were one or two issues relating to WCAG accessibility testing. LSE s Website Services staff advised the Project that these issues were relatively minor. Additional testing was carried out in LSE s suite for visually impaired readers which appeared to confirm this view. However, looking to the future, it is hoped that the new Project Officer may be able to address the outstanding issues and ensure full compliance, following training in FrontPage. The detailed project plan was approved by the Project Steering Committee. During the reporting period, Morag Greig of University of Glasgow (and the Daedalus Project) and Bill Hubbard of SHERPA and University of Nottingham kindly agreed to carry out peer review of some of the VERSIONS Project s written deliverables. Next reporting period: The interim findings report on the interviews will be reviewed by VERSIONS Consortium partners The online questionnaire for the user requirements study will be given a pilot testing and feedback will be incorporated The full findings report will be subject to peer review and the user requirements study will be evaluated at a workshop The publications lists analysis will be subject to peer review and review by VERSIONS Consortium partners A literature review will be subject to peer review The guidelines on versions will be subject to peer review 18. Dissemination Plan Report progress against plan, noting dissemination done, whether you feel it was successful, and any publicity the project received during the reporting period. List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why. Current reporting period: There has been significant dissemination about the Project during the reporting period: Written items: Two brief items in the LSE internal online newsletter to staff LSE Briefing, July 2005 and January 2006 A4 Flyer about the project for Joint Programmes Meeting, Cambridge, July 2005 Project website, September 2005 and ongoing Brief news item on the VERSIONS Project in CURLNews, No. 16, January Key stakeholders in the Economics Department have been informed about the project and invited to participate in interviews Presentations: Short presentation to JISC DRP Projects at the Joint Programmes Meeting, Cambridge, July 2005 Versions in the lifecycle of academic papers - user requirements and guidelines for digital repositories, presentation at the CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI4), Geneva, October Short presentation on the VERSIONS Project to SHERPA Network Meeting, Glasgow, December 2005 (given by Sally Rumsey, LSE E-Services Librarian on behalf of the Project) Next reporting period: Page 10 of 12

11 The Project will aim to make further presentations and to seek opportunities for dissemination through written items, beginning with a presentation to CABI Publishers in Oxfordshire. 19. Exit/Sustainability Plan Report progress against plan, noting any issues related to archiving, preservation, maintenance, supporting documentation, etc. List objectives for the next reporting period, note if any changes to plan are needed, and explain why. Current reporting period: The setting up of the Project website was the first step in providing for project deliverables to be maintained during and after the Project. Next reporting period: There is nothing to report under this heading for the coming reporting period Page 11 of 12

12 Appendix A Project Budget for July 2005 to January 2006 Page 12 of 12