August 20, 2008

Repository – Research Office relations

Filed under: Repositories — Neil Godfrey @ 5:55 pm

Thought I’d share here results of a bit of informal asking around about what has made for good working relationships between managers of institutional repositories in universities and  their research office departments.

One of the first mentioned ingredients for success in institutions that boasted of exellent IR-RO relations was that IR managers were represented on important institutional research and higher degrees working groups and committees. That representation was stressed as very important by IR managers I spoke to who had successful RO relationships.

Conversely, key RO people are found on IR management committees helping steer the repository projects.

Another common ingredient was that IR managers made very early contact with their RO people before any external pressures to do (e.g. RQF reporting) so came into effect. A cooperative working relationship to assist with sharing of resources was started early, and it was based on a willingness to mutually assist one another professionally. IR managers would ask RO for assistance in finding key contacts to approach for making IR deposits, and this matured into a mutual sharing of information for each other’s benefit. Sometimes the IR would have records, or vital metadata links, that were of benefit to and sought out by the RO.

I assume that such a relationship presupposes a respect for the contributions each has to make.

There also appears to be a mutual respect for each others data requirements, and a willingness on the part of the librarian IR managers to work with the data they receive from research departments and systems. That is, there is no conflict over data standards. RO has one set of needs, and the IR another. So IRs with successfully managed relationships with their research departments will set up their own data checks for their own purposes. They may notify RO of some discrepancies, but will leave it up to RO to do their own thing. Besides, librarians may not always have it “right” in this field. Where IRs may have freely accepted an academic’s RFCD codes, for example, it may well be the case that RO really does sometimes know better in specific instances.

One other common attribute was the high regard in which the IRs were held in these universities. For some this was relatively easy — such as when the IR was the brainchild coming from VC or deputy VC level. For others, harder work on the part of the librarians to push through the initial inertia barrier may have been necessary.

So in sum:

  1. IR managers on RO committees
  2. RO key personnel on IR committees
  3. Start early — not simply as a response to external pressure
  4. Mutual sharing of data (and mutual respect for what each other can contribute)
  5. Acceptance of each other’s unique roles and functions (avoiding criticism of the other’s data and standards)

#3 of course is an historical factor and can’t be changed. But #4 maybe is an area where there may always be potential for planned growth and improvement on the part of IR managers. Being up to date with research requirements and knowing how one’s own skills and IR functions can assist RO’s in a changing environment (e.g. ERA now being introduced), and working to build a research support strategy, — these were a couple of areas one successful IR manager suggested to me as ways repository folk can maintain a useful role in partnership with RO folk.

I thank those I spoke to for their helpful feedback. I now feel ready to make a plan for building up IR-RO relations myself, now! 🙂

August 5, 2008

Australasian Digital Thesis (ADT) data map to MARC

Filed under: E-Theses and ETD conference,MARC — Neil Godfrey @ 10:09 am

Sharing here a crosswalk between Australasian Digital Thesis data and MARC. This has been done many times before, including by moi, but am making my latest available stab at it for benefit of others who are still in early days of (Australian) repository implementation.

August 4, 2008

Australian university repositories (research and publications) – updated 12/08/08

Filed under: Repositories — Neil Godfrey @ 12:46 pm

Updated 12th August, 08

I have compiled the following from a combination of the ROAR list, the ARROW list and web searches against a list of Australian universities. It is more up to date than the current ROAR list, but I have also restricted my list to university research and publications repositories. There’s also a detailed list in GoogleGroup InstitutionalRepositoriesCommunity-ANZ, which discovered after compiling this list.

Since posting it here others have directed me to OpenDOAR and the Arrow Discovery Service lists, so am linking them here for some effort at completion.

And the EDNA List of Australian Institutional Repositories.

My initial limited sources served my immediate purpose, which was:

  • to get an overview of the extent of use of the different repository platforms in different types of Australian universities (well-funded, less financial, research-teaching emphasis),
  • and then to follow through by exploring who was moving from one platform to another and to hopefully make contact and discuss reasons and comparisons. Some of that info is included here, too.

Digital Commons users

For Digital Commons info see

Bond University

Edith Cowan University
Research Online @ ECU

Southern Cross University

University of Wollongong
Research Online

DigiTool users

For DigiTool info see

Charles Sturt University
CRO (CSU Research Output)

The University of Melbourne*
University of Melbourne ePrints Repository (UMER)

DSpace users

For DSPace info see

Australian National University* (was ePrints, moved to DSpace)

Flinders University~
Flinders Academic Commons

Griffith University~
Griffith Research Online

Swinburne University of Technology
Swinburne Image Bank

The University of Sydney*
Sydney eScholarship Repository

The University of Adelaide*
Adelaide Research and Scholarship

University of Technology, Sydney
UTS iRespository

EPrints users

For EPrints info see

Curtin University

James Cook University~
JCU ePrints

Queensland University of Technology
QUT ePrints

University of Southern Queensland
USQ ePrints

University of Tasmania
UTas ePrints

Victoria University
VU Eprint Respository


For Fez info see

The University of Queensland* (was ePrints, moved to Fedora/Fez)
UQ eSpace


For VITAL info see

Central Queensland University

Macquarie University
Macquarie University Research Online

Monash University*
Monash University ARROW Respository

Swinburne University of Technology
Swinburne Research Bank

University of New England

The University of Newcastle, Australia~

University of South Australia

The University of New South Wales*

University of the Sunshine Coast
Coast Research Database

University of Western Sydney
UWS Research Repository

Other types of repositories

Deakin University — has a “teaching and learning research repository” DTLRR

RMIT University — has a Learning Objects repository

Other software — see the “Other Softwares” ROAR list

Govt of SA Health Publications uses Digital CommonsSA Health Publications

Australian Govt Dept of Defence uses DSpaceDTSO Publications Online

ALIA did use an EPrints repository for about 95 publications but this is not currently online

ADT runs the ETD-db — ADT

Others – some pending

Universities not listed above, some of which are in the process of preparing to go live with production repositories soon:

Australian Catholic University
Charles Darwin University (Fez pending)
La Trobe University~ (VITAL pending?)
Murdoch University~ (VITAL pending)
University of Ballarat (VITAL pending?)
University of Canberra
University of Notre Dame Australia
University of Western Australia* (DigiTool pending)

Those I’ve marked with “?” I have not yet personally confirmed.

Don’t hesitate to let me know of any updates/oversights!